undefined | Better HN

0 pointsepolanski6d ago0 comments

It did, under Bandaranaike.

In 1971 the government declared an unlawful state of emergency that stayed in force for 6 years suspending civil liberties, suppressing press freedom and giving the executive wide powers. The constitution was updated, by the parliament, the same constitution prolonged the current government mandate for two years without elections.

What you're talking about are the events of 1978.

And, as you probably know, during the 80s, that presidential and authoritarian shift only got worse.

But my point stands, 1970s Sri Lanka, is still to date, the last parliamentary republic to turn authoritarian. Didn't cite this randomly.

0 comments

graemep6d ago

In 1971 there was an insurrection that nearly succeeded in overthrowing the government so the emergency was initially justified.

I think we have different definition of authoritarian: yours is broader. Sri Lanka did continue to have elections and changes of government even at its worst, but I would only call it authoritarian in the period when there was clearly a lack of freedom of the press (when journalists risked being disappeared).

My definition strengthens your point as by that time Sri Lanka had a presidential system.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

graemep6d ago

In 1971 there was an insurrection that nearly succeeded in overthrowing the government so the emergency was initially justified.

My definition strengthens your point as by that time Sri Lanka had a presidential system.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse