Abstract:
The interwoven mosaic of Sri Lankan society, in which religion and politics have been
closely intertwined, has resulted in an irreversible socially-accepted entity. Considered
more of a norm, this union, it could be contested is one of opportunity, yet the social
fabric has come to embody, to an extent, this assimilation. Irrespective of the person,
party or popular belief, the need for the inclusion of the religious with that pertaining
to governance and state, is a given aspect today. Across the political spectrum
notwithstanding the faith, the reliance on and adherence to one's belief becomes an
integral part of the politics practiced. Or so it is continuously claimed and attempted to
be perpetually portrayed. Similarly the religious hierarchy provides counsel and
guidance, even interfering, in the state apparatus, all of which however takes place
within a relatively well-created and mostly well-defined space. This paper argues that
while this irreversible union, attributed mainly to the socio-cultural dimension, has been
apparently carved in stone, it is however a dichotomy as that which is truly preached
through religion is never practiced in politics and that which is practiced is by and large
in contradiction to that which was preached. From an International Relations
perspective, the revival of the debate between Idealism and Realism is brought to
fruition as the religious-political union, though accepted as inherent in the state
structure, is, it is argued at odds with each other. The subsequent clash that occurs,
within this union, is mostly smothered over, as practitioners on either side of the divide
refuse to accept or remain sublimely ignorant. This paper thus attempts to raise and
respond to the question of how such a union exists. Why are adherents so keen to
portray a supposed union? Isn't the difference greater than the commonality? More
relevantly, does a union actually exist, when reflected upon from a theoretical/
theological perspective? Is opportunity the prime objective?
