¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

THE fall of authoritarian leaders in the contemporary world, particularly in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Syria, highlights a common and broader disconnect between the priorities of ruling elites and the aspirations of their people. While all three cases are situated in Greater Asia, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh experienced British colonial rule, whereas Syria was under French control. In the context of colonial discourse, grievances are often shared universally. For example, protests against colonisers and their exploitative practices, as summarised by Jean-Paul Sartre’s very concept of tricontinentalism in his transformative book titled Colonialism and Neocolonialism. The term underscores the collective solidarity and interconnectedness of anti-colonial struggles across the Third World, especially the three continents of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

However, it is apparent that the leaders of these three countries continue to perpetuate colonial legacies, often described as neo-colonialism, which I prefer to term as ‘colonial hangovers.’ Their governance tends to neglect local demands and values while remaining influenced by the traumatic memories and systemic structures of their colonial past. Drawing on Machiavelli’s metaphor of the fox and the lion, successful governance requires not only cunning and strength but also alignment with the people’s aspiration — a factor often neglected by these three regimes. This failure in all these mostly similar cases mirrors the consequences of poor wheel alignment in vehicles, which causes erosion and instability and eventually leads to breakdown.

The fall of Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s presidency on July 13, 2022, was mainly rooted in economic mismanagement and a failure to address the population’s basic needs, rights and everyday privileges. His presidency symbolises the dangers of prioritising authoritarian ambition over the well-being of citizens. His administration pursued grandiose infrastructural projects with questionable long-term benefits, such as the Hambantota Port, which deepened national debt and increased reliance on external powers like China. The rush to organic farming, aimed at cutting costs and promoting environmental sustainability, ignored the socio-economic realities of farmers and the immediate food security needs of the nation. This policy change led to agricultural failures, food shortages and widespread discontent. The mass protests that culminated in Rajapaksa’s dramatic resignation reflect a populace no longer willing to tolerate leadership detached from their everyday struggles. This uprising mirrors anti-colonial movements, which readily underscore Sartre’s notion of tricontinentalism. The Sri Lankan leadership’s inability to break free from neo-colonial frameworks is evident in its reliance on international loans and aid. Much like the exploitative economic structures under British rule, these financial dependencies leave the country vulnerable to external pressures and undermine local agency. Policies shaped by global economic models often prioritise disproportionate debt repayment over grassroots development and public welfare.

This systemic issue is not unique to Sri Lanka. Similar patterns are observable in Bangladesh and Syria, where leaders have clung to colonial-era governance models emphasising control over collaboration. Machiavelli’s metaphor of the fox and the lion highlights the need for a balanced approach to leadership — one that combines strategic cunning with the strength to foster genuine alignment with public aspirations. Leaders in these nations, however, have consistently failed to achieve this equilibrium, which ultimately resulted in widespread dissatisfaction and decisive unrest. This disconnect ultimately forced Rajapaksa to flee to the Maldives and his exit bears similarities to Sheikh Hasina’s flight to India and Bashar al-Assad’s escape to Russia, each seeking safe refuge in their most trusted allies.

The tenure of Bangladesh’s founding president Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, though marked by aspirations for democratisation and freedom, was plagued by policies that failed to address the everyday fears and demands of the population, especially for not being aligned with his political party and its principles. His authoritarian style, institutionalised through banning all political parties, which signifies a single-party dictatorial peacemaking initiative and restricting media outlets, paired with economic mismanagement and food shortages, alienated the masses. It is a commonly believed conclusion that this disconnect culminated in his assassination in 1975, a stark reminder of the consequences of neglecting public sentiment. Sheikh Hasina, drawing on and amplifying her father’s political legacy as the sole leader of Bangladesh’s war of independence, has ruled the country for the past one and a half decades. This makes her the longest-serving female leader in world history. Her tenure, however, has been criticised for overlooking voting rights, participatory democratic principles and the suppression of dissent. Despite her government’s focus on ambitious and mega-infrastructural development, such as the Padma Bridge, Bangabandhu Tunnel and various flyovers, these achievements came with significant trade-offs. Her advisers and party loyalists often glorified these initiatives, possibly misleading her into prioritising them over more immediate and pressing needs.

Similar to Sri Lanka’s missteps, the emphasis on grand projects came at the cost of addressing critical issues such as job creation, robust education policies, improved healthcare and other essential rights enshrined in the constitution. While these infrastructural advancements were important, the neglect of the population’s immediate needs and aspirations eventually contributed to her political downfall, which finally led to her unprecedented fleeing the country on August 5.

Although Bashar al-Assad managed to hold onto power for years, his regime faced persistent legitimacy challenges due to decades of repression, economic collapse and its inability to meet the basic needs of the Syrian people. Most importantly, these failures contributed to one of the largest refugee crises in modern history. The regime’s reliance on fear to maintain control, rather than addressing demands for freedom and economic security, eventually led to Assad’s fall. On December 8, Syrian protesters succeeded in toppling Assad and forced him to flee to his most trusted ally, Russia — an event reminiscent of Sheikh Hasina’s earlier escape to her trusted neighbouring ally, India.

Conclusion

In all three cases, leaders prioritised a top-down vision of so-called ‘modernity-centric’ neoliberal development primarily only to sustain power. They all neglected the fundamental desires of their populations — eg, freedom from want and freedom from fear. Where the governments disregard the demands of their people, they are destined to face crises of legitimacy and eventual collapse. While Machiavelli’s principles of leadership may seem less relevant in the age of humanism and welfare states, they remain vital to statesmanship discourse. Alignment with the governed through responsive and inclusive governance is essential to both stability and legitimacy. Syria, like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, exemplifies the consequences of failing to address these critical areas. Its recurring cycles of instability reflect unresolved struggles rooted in colonial legacies and leadership failures. The collapse of the Rajapaksa, Hasina and Assad regimes serves as both a cautionary tale and a call for leaders to prioritise the aspirations and well-being of their people over self-serving agendas.

Ìý

Dr Sazzad Siddiqui is an associate professor and the acting chairman of the department of peace and conflict studies at the University of Dhaka. He holds an MPhil from the University of Bergen, Norway, and a PhD in hybrid peacebuilding from the University of New England, Australia.