Ultra-nationalist Sinhalese parties drew negligible support until monks ran for parliament

Evidence

Scholars disagree about the historical periods when Sinhalese Buddhist identity and its attendant nationalism were forged. K. N. O. Dharmadasa argues that this identity had been established by the fifth century CE (Dharmadasa 1992b and 1996). R. A. L. H. Gunawardana, on the other hand, argues that while successive South Indian invasions and the pillaging of Buddhist temples helped consolidate Buddhist identity in precolonial times, it was only during British colonial rule “that the Sinhalese consciousness underwent a radical transformation” (Gunawardana 1990: 70). K. Indrapala (2005) claims that Sinhalese and Tamils developed distinct identities only around the thirteenth century, although miscegenation and acculturation continued. Gananath Obeysekere suggests it may be impossible to provide a definitive date when such identity and ideology were solidified (Obeysekere 2006: 161–62, fn. 18). Bruce Kapferer traces the provenance of modern Sinhalese Buddhist ideology to the ontological aspirations of ancient monks and argues that “the ideological distortions of the past” have enabled “the foundation of the ideological distortions of the present” (Kapferer 1988: 82). Others (Kemper 1991; Rogers 1990; Sabaratnam 1997; DeVotta 2004b) also make clear that Sri Lanka’s unique Buddhist history has been reinterpreted and manipulated to suit the needs and aspirations of modern times. … Because the requisite imagining had been performed centuries before, modern Sinhalese Buddhist nationalists did not need to recreate a mythohistory when they began calibrating an ideological project to ensure their group’s supremacy. — Neil DeVotta, Sinhalese Buddhist Nationalist Ideology, 85 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

The peace process as shepherded by the British and Irish governments, and the political institutions associated with the Good Friday Agreement, have—to a certain extent— incentivized the moderation of Sinn Fe´in and the DUP. But this was only possible after they had secured electoral dominance over their in-group rivals. Given the ethnic basis of the political system, such moderation is limited. But at the time of writing we enter uncharted territory—Sinn Fe´in and the DUP have entered into a power-sharing Executive. A key question remains: will the experience of sharing power lead to further moderation? — Cathy Gormley-Heenan and Roger Macginty, Ethnic Outbidding and Party…, 103 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

A Christian pastor sat in the State Council in the early 1930s, but only in 1943 did the first Buddhist monk contest unsuccessfully for the Colombo Municipal Council. Only in 1957 did a bhikkhu win election to a village council in Matara, a city about 100 miles south of Colombo. A number of monks were thereafter elected to village councils. In 1977, a monk unsuccessfully contested a parliamentary seat for the first time (Deegalle 2006: 234–35). The 2001 general elections, however, enabled Baddegama Samitha, a bhikkhu from the leftist Lanka Sama Samaja Party (Lanka Equal Society Party), to enter parliament from the Galle District in Southern Province for the first time. In this light, the JHU’s performance must be considered revolutionary. — Neil DeVotta, Sinhalese Buddhist Nationalist Ideology, 170 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Buddhist monks entered national politics only very gradually over decades — Neil DeVotta, Sinhalese Buddhist Nationalist…, 170; Sinhalese Buddhist identity was antiquarian but its modern nationalist ideology is reinterpreted and manipulated — Neil DeVotta, Sinhalese Buddhist Nationalist…, 85; Ethnic parties shift toward moderation only after securing dominance over in-group rivals — Cathy Gormley-Heenan and Roger Macginty, Ethnic Outbidding and Party…, 103 (+2 more)

Related

• Buddhist monks entered national politics only very gradually over decades (similarity 0.89)
• The monks’ political manipulation accelerated nationalist entrenchment and blocked peace (similarity 0.85)
• Sinhalese Buddhist nationalist ideology commands broad popular support in Sri Lanka (similarity 0.85)
• The intolerant faction of Buddhism triumphed over the tolerant one in Sri Lanka’s sangha. (similarity 0.84)
• The very forces that built Ceylonese secularism also cultivated Buddhist communalism. (similarity 0.82)
• A tolerant faction of monks lost to a supremacist faction within Sri Lankan Buddhism. (similarity 0.82)
• A monk-only party formed weeks before a vote could win parliamentary seats. (similarity 0.82)
• Modern challenges to the sangha, not primordial identity, explain monks’ political engagement. (similarity 0.82)
• Political parties strategically use monks for legitimacy while resisting their influence (similarity 0.81)
• Sinhalese Buddhist identity was antiquarian but its modern nationalist ideology is reinterpreted and manipulated (similarity 0.81)
• The monks’ party pursues parallel ethno-religious and war policies. (similarity 0.80)
• Sri Lankan party leaders compete to subordinate constitutional drafting to monk authority (similarity 0.80)
• Sinhalese Buddhist extremists define legitimate Sri Lankan identity as exclusively Sinhalese Buddhist (similarity 0.80)
• Extremist Sinhalese parties weaponized Buddhism against Tamil devolution (similarity 0.80)
• Monks built anachronistic historical claims to legitimize politicized Buddhism (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Sinhalese Buddhist identity was antiquarian but its modern nationalist ideology is reinterpreted and manipulated #corroborates (0.80) — Neil DeVotta, Sinhalese Buddhist Nationalist Ideology, 85
• Buddhist monks entered national politics only very gradually over decades #qualifies (0.75) — Neil DeVotta, Sinhalese Buddhist Nationalist Ideology, 170
• Ethnic parties shift toward moderation only after securing dominance over in-group rivals #corroborates (0.75) — Cathy Gormley-Heenan and Roger Macginty, Ethnic Outbidding and Party…, 103