Эксперт предложил Шри-Ланке создать систему мониторинга общественного мнения без слежки

Taking the Pulse Before the Crisis: What Sri Lanka Can Learn—and Must Not Copy—from the Soviet Komsomol System Posted on September 8th, 2026 Dr Sarath Obeysekera During my years of study in the Soviet Union, I became aware of what appeared to be an informal and sometimes discreet network of politically conscious young intellectuals operating within universities, workplaces and state organisations. Through Komsomol and Communist Party structures, information about the attitudes, concerns and political mood of students and employees could travel upwards. My impression at the time was that the system was interested not merely in identifying who supported or criticised the Soviet system, but also in understanding changing attitudes within society. Whether every aspect of what we observed was formally organised in this manner is a matter for historians to establish. Nevertheless, there is an important lesson here for Sri Lanka. A government attempting major economic and social reforms cannot afford to govern from Colombo while remaining unaware of what people are actually thinking in villages, universities, factories, offices, professional organisations and among the younger generation. Ministers and senior officials often receive information after it has passed through several layers of bureaucracy and political filtering. By the time dissatisfaction reaches the leadership, it may already have developed into public anger, industrial action, demonstrations or electoral rejection. Sri Lanka therefore needs a modern mechanism for continuously taking the pulse of the people. This should emphatically not become a Sri Lankan version of the Stasi, KGB or any other secret-police organisation. Nor should citizens be classified into files as pro-government” and anti-government.” Political disagreement is an essential part of a functioning democracy, and criticism of a government should never itself become grounds for surveillance. Instead, the governing political movement could establish a nationwide Grassroots Political and Social Feedback Network, particularly involving educated and independent-minded young people. They could maintain contact with universities, professional bodies, workplaces, farmers, fishermen, entrepreneurs, transport workers, public servants and communities throughout the country. Their purpose should be to report issues rather than individuals. A useful report to the political leadership would not say, This lecturer is anti-government” or this student supports the opposition.” It should instead say: University students in this region are increasingly concerned about employment opportunities”; small businesses are becoming frustrated by this particular regulation”; farmers support the objective of this reform but believe its implementation is failing”; or young people understand the economic reforms but feel that their benefits have not yet reached their families.” That distinction is crucial. The objective is not to discover who is against the government, but to understand why people are becoming dissatisfied with the government. Such a network could become an early-warning mechanism. Engineers continuously monitor vibration, temperature, pressure and other parameters of important machinery because an abnormal trend detected early can prevent a catastrophic failure. Governments require a similar system of political condition monitoring. It would also protect the leadership from one of the greatest dangers facing any powerful government—the creation of an information bubble. Political organisers naturally like to report successful meetings, enthusiastic crowds and favourable opinions. Government officials may hesitate to deliver unpleasant news. Ministers can consequently develop the impression that policies are popular when dissatisfaction is quietly accumulating underneath. A credible feedback organisation must therefore reward people for reporting uncomfortable truths. Indeed, the leadership should pay particular attention to criticism coming from people who do not normally support the ruling party. An intelligent critic can sometimes provide more valuable information than a hundred loyal supporters. Modern technology makes such a system considerably more sophisticated than anything available during the Soviet period. Properly designed opinion surveys, anonymous digital feedback, analysis of aggregated public social-media discussion, university research, constituency consultations and reports from professional and community organisations could be brought together into a national political dashboard.” There must, however, be firm safeguards. No secret dossiers on citizens should be maintained merely because of their political opinions. Government employment, university admission, promotions or public services must never depend upon political loyalty. The police and national intelligence services should remain separate from ordinary political opinion research. Information should normally be aggregated and anonymised so that the leadership sees social trends rather than lists of political opponents. This is where Sri Lanka can learn from history without repeating its darker chapters. The valuable lesson from the Soviet experience is not the surveillance state. It is the recognition that leadership requires continuous information from the grassroots. A reforming government needs eyes and ears throughout society—but those eyes and ears should identify problems, frustrations, expectations and changing public sentiment, not enemies. Used properly, such a mechanism could give a government something extremely valuable: an early warning that a seemingly popular policy is creating unexpected hardship, that bureaucracy is undermining a good reform, or that public confidence is beginning to weaken. The principle can therefore be expressed very simply: Do not secretly monitor the people. Systematically listen to them. That would give Sri Lanka the benefits of an organised national feedback mechanism without descending into the methods associated with the Stasi, KGB or other instruments of political surveillance. Regards Dr Sarath Obeysekera