Sri Lanka’s next test: Balancing recovery with democratic integrity

It is essential that Sri Lankans be afforded the opportunity to pursue both economic recovery and the safeguarding of democratic principles. They rightfully deserve both.

Sri Lanka currently stands at a pivotal juncture in its modern history. Following the challenges brought on by economic collapse, the nation is gradually regaining a sense of macroeconomic stability. Growth is returning, foreign-exchange pressures are easing, and the Government is making strides toward restoring fiscal and monetary credibility. However, beneath the optimistic narratives of recovery remains a crucial question: what type of political and institutional framework will support this resurgence?

This question is significant as the country embarks not only on economic rebuilding but also on restoring public trust in its institutions. These two endeavours are intricately connected. Sri Lankans should not be compelled to choose between economic progress and the maintenance of democratic safeguards; both are necessary and should ideally complement each other. Economic recovery that lacks transparency and accountability risks becoming fragile and exclusionary, while democratic institutions that cannot ensure economic security may eventually erode public confidence.

The real challenge, therefore, lies not in choosing between prosperity and democracy, but in constructing a political framework where democracy bolsters prosperity, and prosperity, in turn, reinforces democratic values. This is the critical test that lies before the Government of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake.

Navigating a strong mandate

The National People’s Power (NPP) Government has entered office with a significant parliamentary mandate, securing 159 out of the 225 seats in the 2024 general election. Such a majority is legitimate when attained through democratic means and should not be misconstrued as evidence of authoritarianism or a threat to democratic processes. Nevertheless, with such power comes an increased responsibility.

As political constraints within Parliament diminish, the importance of institutions outside Parliament—such as the judiciary, the Election Commission, independent commissions, the professional public service, the media, civil society, and the constitutional rights of citizens—becomes even more pronounced. While a substantial majority can enhance Governmental efficacy, it also necessitates a stronger commitment to restraint, revealing the paradox inherent in democratic governance.

A truly effective Government will recognise that its majority is temporary, while the institutions of the Republic are intended to endure.

Addressing Constitutional matters

The ongoing discussions surrounding the Twenty-Second Amendment warrant careful consideration. Proposed changes to the constitution have raised important questions about judicial independence and the balance of power between the political branches of Government and the judiciary.

The Government asserts that reforms in the administration of justice are needed, arguing that allowing experienced judges to remain in position can help alleviate delays and vacancies. The Supreme Court has reviewed the legislation, determining that the constitutional amendment could progress without a referendum, contingent upon specified changes. Following this review, Parliament approved the Twenty-Second Amendment with the required special majority. This legal process adhered to constitutional stipulations. However, it is essential to recognise that constitutional legality does not always equate to constitutional wisdom.

The core issue is not solely whether a Government possesses the legal authority to legislate, but whether the institutions established to scrutinise the exercise of that authority remain sufficiently independent to fulfill their constitutional roles. This distinction is paramount. The judiciary serves a critical function beyond mere governance; it is tasked with reviewing public power and protecting constitutional rights. Thus, judicial independence takes on heightened importance during periods of significant Governmental authority.

Concerns of one-party dominance

The current political landscape has understandably raised concerns among observers regarding the potential emergence of one-party dominance in Sri Lanka. While this concern should be approached with seriousness, it is essential not to exaggerate or dismiss it. Sri Lanka is still characterised as a multiparty electoral democracy, with opposition parties having representation in Parliament. There is no substantial basis for labeling the country a one-party state. Nevertheless, a distinction exists between one-party dominance and a scenario where institutional opposition, public scrutiny, and pluralism slowly lose their practical relevance.

The appropriate response requires not panic but proactive institutional vigilance. Key questions should guide this discourse: Will Parliament continue to engage in meaningful scrutiny of Government legislation? Will opposition parties retain legitimate political space to challenge the Government? Will the judiciary maintain its independence to adjudicate against the Government when necessary? Will public institutions adhere to professionalism rather than political dependence? Will journalists, academics, lawyers, and civil society organisations be able to freely express criticism of Government policies? And crucially, will such critiques continue to be viewed as integral to democratic life rather than as acts of opposition?

These inquiries apply not solely to the NPP but should be directed at every political entity seeking governance. 

Understanding recovery beyond economic metrics

The economic context is vital in our institutional discussions. While acknowledging the progress achieved since the economic crisis of 2022, it is equally important to note that macroeconomic recovery does not imply that households have regained their footing. Recent figures indicate continued economic growth, with an expansion of 4.2% in the second quarter of 2026. Concurrently, inflation has risen, reaching 8.1% in August. These statistics tell two distinct narratives: one of macroeconomic stabilisation and the other reflecting the lived experiences of households.

For policymakers, a 4.2% growth rate signifies economic advancement; however, for families grappling with rising costs—such as food, transportation, rent, and utilities—their sense of recovery may feel less tangible.

This distinction should not be dismissed as mere political rhetoric. Reports indicate that poverty levels in Sri Lanka remain well above pre-crisis figures, with household incomes and living standards yet to fully rebound.

Thus, while Sri Lanka is on the path to recovery, many citizens still face challenges that have not yet been addressed.

Avoiding false dilemmas

This is where the discourse surrounding economic and democratic principles intersect. Sri Lankans should not be led to believe that democratic safeguards impede economic recovery, nor should they be persuaded that economic growth alone justifies diminished institutional accountability. Both of these notions represent false choices.

Emerging from a significant economic challenge demands not only effective governance but also transparent governance. It necessitates decisive economic action coupled with independent oversight. It calls for political stability without suppressing dissent. Strong leadership should be coupled with accountability rather than unchecked authority. Our goal must be to construct a state capable of decisive action while remaining committed to transparency and accountability—a hallmark of constitutional democracy.

Lessons from Sri Lanka’s own history

Sri Lanka need not look abroad to understand the dangers posed by concentrated political power. The nation’s constitutional history is replete with instances of shifts in executive authority, adjustments to institutional dynamics, and political manoeuvres aimed at altering governance norms. It is crucial to recognise that the lesson does not boil down to asserting that a particular political party is uniquely perilous. Instead, it highlights the need for institutional resilience, which should not be built solely on the goodwill of those temporarily in power.

A democratic framework cannot presume that all future leaders will adhere to established norms or that every parliamentary majority will act responsibly. Constitutions exist because political personalities change. As such, safeguards must be more robust than the individuals who occupy these positions. This is why fostering democratic resilience is essential.

Fostering awareness of complacency risks

As historian Timothy Snyder emphasises, there is a profound danger in democratic complacency, rooted in the belief that institutions will automatically protect themselves. Similarly, Hannah Arendt’s work sheds light on the relationship between political authority, truth, and the capacity of individuals to resist conformity. Neither perspective provides a concrete plan for Sri Lanka, but both serve as meaningful warnings.

Democratic systems rarely decline because citizens collectively choose to abandon democracy; rather, the erosion of institutions tends to be gradual. One safeguard may weaken, one independent institution may become politically tethered, and one constitutional principle may be reinterpreted. This slow slide can make it easy for Governments to grow accustomed to operating without effective resistance. Conversely, a generation may mistakenly believe that the safeguards protecting their democratic rights will perpetuate automatically.

Institutions endure when citizens actively defend them. Judges must champion judicial independence. Journalists should uphold factual integrity. Academics must protect intellectual freedom. Lawyers ought to defend the rule of law. Politicians in opposition must safeguard the right to challenge power — even if they themselves were in Government previously. Lastly, citizens must advocate for the principle that political adversaries are not enemies of the state.

Championing a new political compact

This holds particular significance for the NPP, which has assumed power promising transformative political change. The movement’s ascent was motivated by a widespread public yearning to move past a political culture marked by corruption, privilege, and impunity. While this mandate reflects a change, it also imposes a considerable responsibility.

A movement committed to transforming political culture must not merely adopt mechanisms of concentrated power, expecting citizens to trust that these will be wielded differently. It is imperative to demonstrate that change.

The distinction must be institutional. If the new political order is to be genuinely transformative, its success cannot simply hinge on one political movement substituting another. Instead, it should signify a profound shift in the relationship between Government and citizen. Citizens should not need to place their trust in a powerful Government; rather, that trust should be earned through robust institutional integrity.

The next generation’s expectations

Sri Lanka has already faced significant hardships due to economic mismanagement and institutional failures. It is vital that the next generation does not inherit further dilemmas of choice. They should not need to choose between prosperity and freedom, economic stability and judicial independence, effective governance and accountability, or political order and the right to dissent.

They deserve a society where these elements coexist harmoniously and reinforce one another. Recovery that is transparent, inclusive, and accountable can enhance democratic legitimacy, while democratic institutions that prioritize property rights, transparency, and the rule of law provide a solid foundation for sustainable economic development.

The crux of the matter is not a choice between prosperity and democracy. Rather, the challenge is to create a society in which prosperity is safeguarded by democratic principles, and democracy is fortified by economic prosperity.

Evaluating political leadership

In assessing President Dissanayake’s political leadership, the focus should not solely rest on economic growth rates, inflation, foreign-exchange reserves, or the number of laws enacted by Parliament. While these metrics are indeed important, they are not the sole indicators of successful governance. The more profound measure will be whether Sri Lanka emerges from this period with institutions that are stronger than those present when the current Government took office.

Will Parliament continue to play a meaningful role? Will the judiciary maintain its independence? Will constitutional boundaries be respected? Will dissent remain an acceptable part of the political landscape? Will the transfer of political power continue through free elections? And, critically, will those currently in power demonstrate the foresight to uphold institutions that might one day constrain a Government led by political opponents?

This last question may prove to be the most vital of all, emphasising that democratic leadership is not solely about acquiring power; it is about recognising the transitory nature of that power.

As we look to the future, Sri Lanka must cultivate a civic understanding that constitutional democracy is an ongoing endeavour, requiring maintenance, defence, and renewal by each generation. The NPP has the opportunity to demonstrate a rare commitment to both political strength and institutional restraint, proving that these ideals can indeed coalesce for the greater good.

The true legacy of this Government should not be a singularly dominant political movement, but rather the establishment of resilient institutions that can successfully govern, regardless of which party may be in power in the future. Achieving this balance will enhance the resilience of democracy, establishing a standard against which Sri Lanka’s current political moment will be evaluated.