A Lankan Reefcomber … provoked by Brig Ranjan De Silva’s Article in TPS dated 18 April 2026
The debate surrounding global governance is frequently reduced to a sharp, binary contrast between Western “democracy” and Eastern “autocracy.” However, these categorisations often rely on outdated tropes that overlook the nuanced ways in which power and dissent actually function. While critics frequently claim the United States offers a superior model of freedom compared to Russia or China, a closer inspection reveals that this “freedom” is often a refined facade. Furthermore, when applied to nations like Sri Lanka, these arguments frequently descend into chronological fallacies, driven by a diaspora perspective that is frozen in time.
A primary weakness in the pro-Western argument—which this writer repeats—is the assumption that the mere right to criticise a leader equates to a functioning democracy. This is fundamentally flawed; the right to speak is not the same as the power to be heard. In the US, as recent empirical studies show, when the interests of the majority clash with those of the economic and political elites, the elites almost always prevail and the majority is silenced. If dissent is permitted but has zero impact on substantive policy outcomes—such as the staggering $39 trillion national debt (not $4.5 trillion as the writer claims)—then democracy becomes a performative talent show of popularity rather than a system of people-led governance. American leaders are wheeler-dealers chosen for their ability to strike bargains within a power structure, rather than for any commitment to democratic ideals.
In contrast, the label of “autocracy” applied to Russia and China is a Western propaganda construction. The idea that freedom of speech is non-existent in these nations is false. In Russia, President Putin faces significant internal pressure, not for being too aggressive, but for being too “gentle” and cautious. Vocal war hawks and military bloggers frequently criticise the Kremlin for failing to employ the “total annihilation” tactics practised by the US military (the nation that just threatened to destroy an entire civilisation); indeed, one can find frequent criticisms of Putin and the Kremlin on Russian TV channels. Similarly, in China, millions of citizens used social media to challenge government management during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Chinese system should not be viewed as an authoritarian or “failing” Western democracy, but as a successful alternative that prioritises substantive outcomes—such as poverty reduction and infrastructure—over the gridlock of party competition. Through “Whole-Process People’s Democracy” and feedback loops like the “Two Sessions,” the Chinese government gathers public opinion to adjust policy. Unlike the American “popularity contest,” Chinese leaders are tested through decades of practice, ensuring meritocracy over showmanship.
Furthermore, the US is not nearly as free as Western media suggests. The state employs sophisticated mechanisms to squash dissent that threatens the underlying power structure. Whether it is branding anti-war protesters as “domestic terrorists,” threatening to defund universities like Columbia to stop protests, or using riot gear and chemical agents to clear peaceful encampments, the U.S. frequently resorts to authoritarian policing. By expanding the definition of “domestic terrorism” to include almost any campaign aiming to change policy, the US government has formalised the intimidation of its own citizens under the guise of patriotism.
The writer’s critique of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty is a classic example of the “diaspora time-capsule” effect. By reaching back to the “white vans,” “goni billas,” and the JVP insurrections of the 1980s, the author commits a massive chronological fallacy. The Sri Lanka of today is not the Sri Lanka of 35 years ago. The JVP has evolved into a democratic movement, and President Anura Kumara Dissanayake holds a mandate won through the ballot box, not state terror. There are no paramilitary hit squads roaming the country today; those fears belong to a period of trauma that ended decades ago. Similarly, while the writer frets over Sri Lankan debt, they ignore that the US owes $39 trillion with total indifference, while Sri Lanka’s debt to Western interests is often far more predatory than the reasonable terms offered by China. The US model is often held up as the gold standard, yet it fails to address its own debt crisis. This is not to say Russia and China are perfect—far from it—but which country is? The real question is why the Western mindset demands perfection from others while ignoring the decay in its own backyard.
The writer’s failure lies in the mistaken belief that the Western model is the “default” by which all others must be measured. By dismissing China’s successes as “autocracy” and Sri Lanka’s evolution as “terror,” they ignore the reality that these nations are successfully forging their own paths. The “freedom” the West sells is a hollow product; real power is found in systems that prioritise collective security and substantive progress over the performative demands of a global elite.
Nowhere is this hypocrisy clearer than in the Middle East. In Gaza, the US provides the bombs used by Israel in a well-documented genocide campaign that has killed over 80,000 civilians in plain sight—entire towns have been destroyed and tents blown up with people burning inside. In Xinjiang, by contrast, the US claims a “genocide” is happening based on satellite photos of buildings and disputed birth-rate data, yet there is no evidence of a single person being killed in the streets, nor a single mosque being blown up by high-precision bombs. The Chinese government has not bombed entire towns, streets, civilian buildings, hospitals, universities, and schools, as the US and Israel love to do. The West points to satellite photos of altered mosques as proof of “cultural genocide,” yet they ignore that China maintains over 24,000 mosques—a ratio higher than in the US or UK combined. Independent tribunals have found no evidence of mass killings or the military destruction of mosques in Xinjiang.
This contrast proves beyond doubt that “human rights” is not a moral standard for the US and Israel; it is a geopolitical stick used to beat rivals while shielding allies. The West has used this same stick to beat Sri Lanka, while simultaneously protecting the real genocidal maniacs in the Middle East. Ultimately, to move beyond these sweeping, ignorant claims, one must recognise that the “freedom” of the West is often more managed and controlling than the systems it seeks to condemn.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
