Women’s politics in Sri Lanka faces deeper structural barriers as activists question whether representation alone can deliver real change.
Women’s politics in Sri Lanka has once again come under scrutiny as former activists and political observers question whether increased representation has truly challenged the structures that continue to shape power and decision-making.
During the last presidential and general elections, thousands of women mobilized through movements such as “Gahænu Api Ek Mitata” (Women, We Are United), not merely to support a change of government but in the hope that Sri Lanka’s long-standing male-dominated political culture would finally be transformed. Yet many now ask whether those expectations have been fulfilled.
A discussion aired on the “Rataḵ Heṭak” (A Country, A Tomorrow) platform between veteran political analyst Ashoka Abeygunawardena and Shyama Basnayake, a prominent activist of the “Gahænu Api Ek Mitata” movement, brought a sharp self-criticism of that experience into the public domain.
To fully understand the crisis highlighted in that discussion, however, it is necessary to move beyond conventional political criticism and examine the deeper structural foundations of the problem.
A Political System Built Around Male Norms
Many people assume that women’s liberation has been achieved through increased parliamentary representation or by appointing women to senior political office. According to this line of analysis, however, such assumptions represent an ideological illusion.
As Shyama Basnayake argued during the discussion, numerical representation alone does not automatically provide women with meaningful political power.
The deeper issue lies within what is described as the “Symbolic Order” of society, encompassing law, language, institutions, and political structures. According to this perspective, those systems remain fundamentally rooted in a patriarchal or phallocentric framework.
The rules, customs, and accepted behaviours of politics have historically been shaped by male subjectivity. As a result, women entering politics do not enter a neutral or independent space of their own. Instead, they enter an already established arena designed according to male expectations and norms.
To survive and succeed within that environment, women often find themselves pressured to suppress aspects of their own subjectivity, adopt aggressive behaviours, or conform to existing political cultures.
Even when new political movements replace old political leadership, the argument presented is that women frequently remain confined to subordinate positions under a different ideology and a different authority structure.
The Debate Over Language and Representation
One aspect of the discussion that attracted particular attention was Shyama Basnayake’s reference to language and representation.
She highlighted attempts to use the terms “strīya” or “gahæniya” to describe women, rejecting what was viewed as the more decorative and performative meaning associated with the word “kāntāvā.”
However, according to this interpretation, the challenge faced by Basnayake extends beyond a debate about terminology.
The argument suggests that the struggle became focused on changing the signifier rather than transforming the underlying structure itself.
Replacing one word with another does not automatically alter the symbolic order that continues to operate according to male-centered political assumptions.
Viewed through this lens, the belief that liberation can be achieved simply by changing labels while leaving the existing structure intact becomes another ideological fantasy.
At a time when party machinery can reduce women to little more than voting instruments in broader political projects, linguistic adjustments alone may be insufficient to challenge deeper forms of political and social domination.
The Weight of Economic and Domestic Responsibilities
Another important sociological dimension raised during the discussion was the double burden carried by women.
Women frequently absorb the impact of economic crises at the household level. They are expected to contribute financially through employment or income generation while simultaneously carrying primary responsibility for childcare, cooking, and other unpaid care work.
According to this analysis, as long as this unpaid domestic labour remains invisible and exploited within the broader system, claims about elevating women into positions of political influence remain incomplete.
Measures such as paternity leave, childcare facilities, and institutional support systems are cited as necessary reforms.
Without reducing these burdens, many women may never have the time, opportunity, or mental freedom required to advance within highly competitive political environments.
Beyond the Illusion of Political Alternatives
The broader message emerging from Shyama Basnayake’s reflections is that the question of women’s representation remains unresolved across the political spectrum.
The current composition of political leadership and cabinet structures, according to this perspective, demonstrates that few political parties appear willing to fundamentally challenge the existing symbolic framework.
The impact generated by movements such as “Gahænu Api Ek Mitata” should not be dismissed. They created significant public discussion and mobilized women around issues of political participation and social change.
Yet the argument advanced in this discussion is that genuine transformation requires more than adaptation to political systems designed by men or engagement solely through existing political language.
Searching for a supposedly pure alternative may simply result in replacing one authority structure with another.
Real change, according to this analysis, can only begin through a deeper examination and transformation of the political system itself.
Until such structural changes occur, women’s politics in Sri Lanka risks remaining caught between aspiration and reality, becoming yet another ideological promise that struggles to move beyond symbolism into lasting political transformation.
Ashoka Abeygunawardhana: Shyama, the “Gahænu Api Ek Mitata” platform was a movement that did a decisive and exceptional part within the massive propaganda campaign for the Malima government (National People’s Power) to come to power. Thousands of ordinary women rallied around this platform with an enthusiasm never seen before in Sri Lanka’s political history. It also had a huge impact on the final election result. After some time, the country’s Prime Minister (Dr. Harini Amarasuriya) is also a woman. But to an outsider today, it seems as if that immense momentum, that women’s power, has now melted away. What is the real inside story of this “Gahænu Api Ek Mitata” movement? Has the country started moving in the hoped-for direction today?
Shyama Basnayake: Greetings, Ashoka. I must first say that I am someone who worked from the very beginning with the NPP’s women’s movement, the “Progressive Women’s Union.” During the period close to us coming to power, a special need arose for us to do a broad programme to win this women’s vote base. It was within that strategic intervention that the “Gahænu Api Ek Mitata” platform was created.
But our real goal was not just to gather some votes; we had a deeper political and feminist goal beyond that. We had a dream that women should not be just people who paste posters during elections and fill crowds at meetings, but a decisive factor determining the country’s political and economic direction. But today, as the government governs, we realise that we are not at the place we imagined, the place we dreamed of.
Ashoka Abeygunawardhana: Now, at the provincial council or parliamentary level, the representation of women councillors has increased compared to before, hasn’t it? Won’t that intervention you speak of happen through that?
Shyama Basnayake: That, Ashoka, is the biggest lesson we learned. Simply increasing numbers does not give women the real political intervention they need. Just increasing the percentage of women councillors is not enough. Because all these women have been forced to operate within a highly hierarchical patriarchal structure. That male-centric political framework imposes boundaries that women cannot cross. That is why, even though numbers have increased, women still have not received real power within decision-making centres.
Ashoka Abeygunawardhana: You say there is no space for women within the political hierarchy. But if we look at the other side, the majority of people in the highest positions in Sri Lanka’s state service (administrative service, education sector, teacher/principal service) are women. If they can work successfully within those hierarchies, why can’t women come forward only on the political stage?
Shyama Basnayake: Political power is much more different, sensitive, and difficult than state service. There is a certain legal system and examination system in state service; there, the obstacles for a woman to rise through her talent are fewer. But the political structure, in the final analysis, is a battle for power and dominance.
Furthermore, there is a very ugly, harsh culture within Sri Lankan politics. The pressure a woman with dignity, discipline, and morality has to endure to emerge within that political culture without betraying her self-respect is immense. Some women may come forward by adapting to that ugly culture. But what we wanted was not for women to adapt to that rotten culture, but to change that culture itself.
Ashoka Abeygunawardhana: So, what kind of programme should the government or the party devise for the women of the earth to change this political culture?
Shyama Basnayake: Definitely, a clear plan and programme from the government is necessary. Campaign promises given during elections cannot be done as a fashion and then abandoned. A ‘Feminist Intervention’ that ensures equal opportunities for women politically, economically, and culturally must be implemented as a state policy.
Ashoka Abeygunawardhana: Since you used the word ‘Feminism’, let me ask: there is a common societal opinion that these feminist movements are anti-male or a Western wave. Also, why do you choose words like ‘strīya’ or ‘gahæniya’ instead of ‘kāntāvā’?
Shyama Basnayake: Firstly, feminism is not anti-male. We do not criticise the male, but this existing patriarchal ‘system’ and structure. Western textbooks cannot be directly applied to our country. We need to do this in a way that suits our culture.
Secondly, when we initially worked within the ‘Progressive Women’s Union’, we rejected the word ‘kāntāvā’. Because associated with the word ‘kāntāvā’ in society is a merely decorous, beautiful, performative, or backward idea. The real women are on the ground, suffering, working in plantations, the garment sector, the Middle East. Therefore, we placed emphasis on the words ‘gahæniya’ or ‘strīya’. But due to the conflict of opinion within the party, our discourse was defeated, and finally, we had to come back to the traditional word ‘kāntāvā’.
Ashoka Abeygunawardhana: If we look at the problems of women living on the earth, women in Sri Lanka today properly contribute to earning the household economy. But along with that, they have to bear the same old traditional burden, that is, all the burden of cooking, childcare, and care work. Is this double burden the reason women cannot enter politics?
Shyama Basnayake: Absolutely correct, Ashoka. The final burden and pressure of any economic shock in the country is absorbed by the mother or woman at home. Big economic theories are not relevant to the kitchen; the full responsibility of somehow making ends meet falls on her.
In addition, microfinance loan traps, children’s education and health issues surround the woman. To be free from these, this ‘care work’ must be equally divided between husband and wife within the family. Fathers of the new generation contribute to housework to some extent. The government must lighten this domestic burden of women through a package including providing paternity leave, reasonably priced daycare centres, etc.
Ashoka Abeygunawardhana: Finally, Shyama, a large number of women were mobilised through the ‘Gahænu Api Ek Mitata’ movement. But looking at the current government’s cabinet, adequate women’s representation is not visible. How will this model be changed as a future step?
Shyama Basnayake: That is what I am saying. We must go beyond the politics that uses women merely as tools to obtain votes, and women must be accepted by parties and governments as real political factors. Women crossed a great milestone to bring the Malima government to power. But after taking power, there has been a major lapse in carrying forward that momentum.
I suggest to any force hoping to come to power in the future to change the rotten political culture and create a suitable space for women. Only by changing the current electoral system’s framework, where preference battles, muscle power, money power, and theft are prominent, and creating a system that gives space to merit, will the talented women of this country rise to decision-making levels.
Ashoka Abeygunawardhana: A very important and sharp analysis. We must continue to have long discussions about changing Sri Lanka’s political culture and the true role of women. Bidding farewell from the ‘Rataḵ’ channel, thanking Ms. Shyama Basnayake, the front-line activist of the ‘Gahænu Api Ek Mitata’ movement who joined our discussion today. Greetings.
