The security of former presidents in Sri Lanka is a matter that goes beyond personal safety; it is an essential part of national stability. In recent years, the government’s decision to reduce the security detail for former presidents has sparked controversy. These figures, having led the country through times of conflict and peace, play a significant role in the nation’s political landscape even after stepping down from office. The debate over security meaningfully reflects a broader question about how a society protects and respects its past leaders. This article critically examines the consequences of such security reductions, highlighting why protecting these figures is crucial, not just for their personal safety but also for the country’s overall stability.
Historically, Sri Lanka has provided former presidents with considerable security due to the nature of the political environment, which has often been marked by violence, political upheaval, and external threats. Former presidents, as prominent figures, can become targets for those with political or ideological motives, and their protection has been seen as a matter of national importance. In light of recent policy changes, where security responsibility has shifted from the tri-forces to police personnel, questions have emerged about whether these new measures are sufficient to address the unique security risks faced by former leaders.
The government’s justification for reducing the security of former presidents is rooted in cost-saving measures and addressing public dissatisfaction with the perceived excessive spending on political figures. While these goals may appear reasonable from an economic standpoint, the decision overlooks the very real threats these leaders face, particularly in a nation where political opposition and violent extremism have deep roots. The shift to police personnel handling the security detail raises concerns over whether these officers are adequately equipped to handle the complex and varied threats that former presidents may face, especially when political divides are involved.
Public reaction to these changes has been polarized. Some view the reduction in security as a necessary adjustment to cut costs, while others see it as politically motivated, aimed at undermining certain leaders who have been associated with resistance movements or the fight against terrorism. This public backlash highlights a deeper issue: a sense that those who have contributed to national peace and stability deserve to be protected, regardless of the political climate. In this context, the reduction of security can be seen not just as a logistical decision but as a symbolic attack on their legacy and contributions to national unity.
Looking at global examples helps illustrate why the security of former leaders is such a significant issue. In the United States, former presidents are afforded lifetime protection by the Secret Service, reflecting the recognition that those who have held the office remain potential targets even after their tenure. This protection is not only a matter of personal safety but also an expression of respect and the recognition that former leaders continue to play a role in national affairs. Similarly, in Russia, former leaders receive state security, although sometimes the level of protection is influenced by current political dynamics. In South Africa, the case of former President Jacob Zuma demonstrated how changes in security arrangements, driven by political motivations, can spark controversy and public concern. Similarly, in the Philippines, the reduction of security for former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo raised questions about the political implications of such decisions. These examples demonstrate that security decisions must be made with an understanding of the unique risks former leaders face, regardless of the political context.
The reduction of security for former leaders is not just about the individuals involved; it is a national security issue. Former leaders, especially those who have played pivotal roles in the fight against terrorism or civil unrest, are often still seen as targets long after their time in office. Reducing their security leaves them vulnerable to retaliation, and in some cases, their safety is intrinsically tied to the stability of the country as a whole. In Sri Lanka, the importance of protecting former leaders, particularly those involved in the battle against groups like the LTTE, cannot be overstated. These individuals are not just political figures; they are symbols of national resilience and unity. By reducing their security, the government risks creating a sense of instability and insecurity, which could have far-reaching consequences for the nation’s political and social fabric.
Moreover, decisions about security should always be based on genuine threat assessments rather than political agendas or financial pressures. If these decisions are driven by a desire to target political opponents or save costs, it risks eroding public trust in the government’s ability to protect its citizens impartially. This is especially true when those in power have a history of fighting violent extremism. The reduction of security for former leaders who have played vital roles in protecting the country could be seen as an attempt to weaken them politically or even expose them to harm, undermining the sense of safety that the government is supposed to guarantee for all its citizens.
This issue also speaks to a larger concern about the erosion of national unity. In a country like Sri Lanka, which has faced decades of conflict, political violence, and terrorism, the safety of former leaders is a reflection of the nation’s commitment to peace and stability. When leaders who have helped guide the country through its darkest times are left vulnerable, it sends a troubling message about the country’s dedication to protecting the very figures who have fought to preserve its integrity. The reduction of security in such circumstances could lead to political instability, reigniting divisions and exacerbating tensions that have long been a source of strife in the nation.
In Sri Lanka, former leaders who played pivotal roles in ending the civil conflict and fighting terrorism should be viewed not merely as political figures but as protectors of national peace. These individuals made personal sacrifices and faced countless threats during their time in office, and their legacy continues to shape the nation’s future. Undermining their security is not only an affront to their personal safety but a disregard for their contributions to the country’s hard-won peace. In a country that has struggled with terrorism, reducing security for those who have fought to keep the peace sets a dangerous precedent. It is essential that security decisions consider the specific threats faced by each individual, ensuring their safety not only for their protection but for the broader protection of national unity.
The Constitution of Sri Lanka, through Article 9, emphasizes the state’s responsibility to protect and foster Buddhism. The President, while holding political office, is not only the political leader but also a symbolic leader of the Buddhist community. This adds another layer of importance to the President’s protection, as the figurehead of national integrity. Any actions that undermine the President’s safety or dignity could be seen as an attack on the very essence of the nation’s spiritual and political foundations.
While the President enjoys certain legal immunities during their tenure, such as in Article 35 of the Constitution, it is important to recognize that these powers are not beyond scrutiny. If actions are taken in secrecy that harm the national interest, they may eventually be subject to scrutiny after their term ends. Article 126 also allows for legal accountability when actions infringe upon fundamental rights, ensuring that no one, including the President, is above the law. The Constitution provides mechanisms to hold leaders accountable if their actions jeopardize the nation’s well-being. Furthermore, while the written Constitution lays out the legal framework, unwritten constitutional conventions also play a critical role in ensuring accountability, as they establish norms for governance and checks on power that complement the formal legal provisions.
The protection of Sri Lanka’s leaders, particularly former presidents who have played critical roles in safeguarding the nation, must be prioritized. Security decisions should be made with a focus on genuine threats and national security, not based on political motivations or financial considerations. Any attempt to undermine the protection of these leaders sets a dangerous precedent that threatens not only the safety of individuals but the stability of the nation as a whole. It is imperative that Sri Lanka’s leadership is protected as a reflection of the country’s commitment to peace, stability, and the values that have sustained it through decades of conflict.
“Weakened security for individuals or a nation is an invitation for terrorists to exploit vulnerable spots, turning high-profile figures into prime targets in a game of strategic destruction. Future political administrations must not have the right to alter security measures based on personal or political grievances. Former presidents should receive lifetime Secret Service protection, ensuring consistent and impartial security measures regardless of political changes.”
— Palitha Ariyarathna, Geopolitics View on Security