“Authoritarian Echoes: Mass Oath-Taking in Sri Lankan Government Officers Sparks Human Rights Concerns”

Hyder Ali – Paris

Critics and human rights advocates are raising alarms over mass-style oath-taking ceremonies held at the start of the new year in Sri Lankan state institutions, including the Prime Minister’s Office. The practice is being compared to authoritarian rituals that prioritize blind loyalty over democratic accountability and the rule of law. The report draws parallels with historical totalitarian symbols, noting that modern democracies typically reject such choreographed displays of obedience in favor of institutional transparency and freedom of conscience.

Serious concerns have been raised following reports that several government offices in Sri Lanka, including the Prime Minister’s Office and its staff, engaged in mass-style oath-taking rituals at the beginning of the new year. Critics argue that such practices resemble authoritarian traditions rather than the principles of modern democratic governance.

Observers note that these displays do not align with contemporary democratic values. Instead, they are seen as promoting a culture of forced conformity, blind loyalty, and political symbolism, rather than a genuine commitment to the Constitution, the rule of law, and the protection of fundamental rights.

Human rights advocates emphasize that the international community has long rejected such political rituals, and in many countries, they are banned or heavily restricted due to their historical misuse.

International Context and Historical Precedents

Historically, mass political oaths and loyalty gestures — most notably the Nazi salute used in Nazi Germany — were employed as instruments of totalitarian control. These practices were closely linked to some of the gravest crimes in modern history, including genocide and widespread political repression.

•   Germany and Austria criminalize such symbols and gestures under constitutional law
•   France prosecutes their use when they involve glorification of Nazism, incitement to hatred, or apology for crimes against humanity
•   Many European Union countries restrict or prohibit similar practices due to historical responsibility

Under modern human-rights standards, such rituals are commonly associated with:
• Totalitarianism
• Forced political loyalty
• Suppression of freedom of thought
• Ideological domination
• State violence

According to historians and legal scholars, these practices played a direct role in enabling mass human-rights violations, including genocide, political repression, elimination of dissent, and racial or ideological persecution.

Democratic Norms and Human Rights Concerns

In democratic societies today, symbolic displays that prioritize obedience over conscience are widely rejected. Public officials are expected to demonstrate accountability through transparent governance, respect for institutions, and adherence to the law — not through choreographed political rituals.

Critics point out that Sri Lanka has already endured the consequences of ideological experiments, personality-driven politics, and symbolic theatrics. At a time of economic hardship and institutional strain, they argue the country requires effective governance, accountability, and respect for human rights, rather than symbolic actions rooted in the past.

Such practices, they warn, send a dangerous message:
• Loyalty over law
• Obedience over conscience
• Symbolism over substance

Legal experts further stress that a democratic government is accountable to the people and the Constitution, not to ritualistic pledges or political ideology. Introducing politically charged oath-taking within state institutions, they argue, sets a negative precedent, particularly for public servants who are expected to remain neutral, professional, and independent.

In any modern democracy, compulsory or politically motivated oath-taking within government offices raises serious concerns related to freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, both of which are protected under international human-rights law.

Calls for Reflection

Critics conclude that Sri Lanka does not require political theatre, but rather transparent leadership, strong institutions, and genuine respect for democratic norms.

They stress that such practices should be openly questioned and strongly condemned, warning that they must never be normalized in a country that claims to move forward as a democracy governed by law rather than ideology.