Opposition must build politics of tomorrow

Last week’s much-publicised meeting of Opposition party leaders was presented as the beginning of a united challenge to the Government. In reality, it looked more like a reunion of the political establishment that voters emphatically rejected at the last general election. Missing was the new generation of leaders who might have emerged from the Opposition’s crushing electoral defeat and who could have offered fresh ideas, renewed credibility, and a genuine alternative.

Instead, the meeting was dominated by familiar faces, many of whom no longer command a parliamentary mandate and some who have no parliamentary representation at all. More troublingly, several participants continue to face judicial scrutiny over allegations of corruption and abuse of public office. Their presence reinforced the perception that this was less an exercise in political renewal than an attempt by discredited figures to regain relevance.

Beyond their collective Opposition to extending the retirement age of judges, it was difficult to identify a coherent political agenda binding these disparate parties together. The judicial retirement issue has been framed by Opposition leaders as an assault on judicial independence. Yet such rhetoric rings hollow when many of the same individuals were themselves architects of one of the gravest attacks on judicial independence in Sri Lanka’s recent history, the impeachment of a sitting Chief Justice. Having once undermined the judiciary for political expediency, they now seek to portray themselves as its defenders. Unsurprisingly, the public is likely to view this sudden conversion with considerable scepticism.

The Opposition’s attempt to manufacture unity around this single issue is therefore unlikely to gain significant public traction. Most Sri Lankans do not perceive the extension of judges’ retirement ages as an existential threat to the rule of law in the way Opposition leaders suggest while there is overwhelming support for the investigation and prosecution of corruption in the recent past.  Therefore, a coalition united primarily by procedural objections to judicial appointments, rather than a compelling vision for the country’s future, is unlikely to inspire voters.

Perhaps the greatest political casualty of this gathering is the current Opposition Leader, Sajith Premadasa. Whatever criticisms have been levelled against him over the years, he has thus far avoided the judicial proceedings and corruption allegations that have engulfed many of those with whom he now chooses to share a platform. That distinction mattered. It gave him and his party an opportunity to chart a different course from the patronage politics and corruption that defined much of Sri Lanka’s recent past.

By associating himself so closely with politicians whom the public overwhelmingly associates with corruption, cronyism, and political opportunism, Premadasa has squandered much of that advantage. Rather than presenting himself as the leader of a renewed Opposition, he risks being seen as merely another custodian of the old political order. In hitching his political fortunes to a broken wagon, he has weakened his credibility as a genuine alternative to the Government and reinforced the perception that the Opposition has learned little from its overwhelming electoral rejection.

This latest unity effort offers no new leadership, no coherent policy platform, and no compelling vision capable of reconnecting with an electorate that demanded profound political change. Instead, it risks further eroding public confidence in an Opposition already struggling to redefine itself.

That should concern everyone, regardless of political allegiance. Democracies function best when Governments face robust scrutiny from a credible, principled, and competent Opposition. Sri Lanka desperately needs an Opposition capable of holding those in power accountable while presenting realistic and inspiring alternatives. Unfortunately, last week’s gathering suggested that too many Opposition leaders remain preoccupied with reviving the politics of yesterday rather than building the politics of tomorrow.