Two years of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake

Two years ago, Sri Lanka crossed a political threshold with the election of Anura Kumara Dissanayake as President as it represented the dramatic arrival of a political force that had long stood outside the country’s traditional centres of power and an outright rejection of the status quo that had dominated for eight decades.

Until this moment, Sri Lankan politics had been dominated by familiar parties, political families and established elites. In September 2024, that order was disrupted. Dissanayake, the candidate of the National People’s Power, won 42.31% of the first preference vote and ultimately secured the Presidency after preferences were counted.

His victory was, above all, a vote against the establishment. It was born out of the anger and disillusionment that had followed the economic collapse of 2022 and the spectacular failure of the political class that had presided over it. Voters were not merely choosing a new president but were demanding a different political culture.

Two years later, it is possible to say that Dissanayake has, in important respects, risen to the responsibility of governing. Governing is infinitely harder than opposing. In opposition, promises are inexpensive but in Government, every promise collides with fiscal constraints, institutions, international commitments and competing public expectations.

The economic inheritance was particularly unforgiving. Yet,

 the Government has largely maintained the IMF framework, while pursuing reforms intended to restore stability and confidence. That has required political discipline, particularly from a left leaning movement whose traditional rhetoric was far more sceptical of some of the policies now necessary to keep the economy on a sustainable path.

Perhaps the clearest area in which Dissanayake has demonstrated that his Government is different is corruption. One of the main demands of the citizenry was to change the entrenched system of corruption that had seeped into every aspect of admiration.  Despite the slow pace, allegations of bribery or corruption have translated into investigations and prosecutions. Arrests and prosecutions involving powerful political figures have also demonstrated a willingness to bring corruption allegations into the criminal-justice system in contrast to the Yahapalana regime,    

 which too came into office on a platform of anti-corruption.

On reconciliation and human rights however, the Government has not yet displayed the political courage that the moment demands. Families of the disappeared, including their own personnel from the 1987-89 era, continue to seek answers, while questions of accountability, justice and the rights of minorities remain unresolved.  This is precisely where Dissanayake's historic mandate should matter. A President, who emerged by challenging the old political order, and gaining the trust of the minorities, has an opportunity to go beyond the cautious formulas of previous Governments. Reconciliation requires the courage to confront difficult truths, acknowledge suffering across communities and build institutions capable of delivering justice without fear or favour.

The second anniversary of Dissanayake's election should therefore be neither a celebration nor a condemnation. It should be a moment of accountability. The people, voted for change did not elect merely another Government. They opened the door to a different political era. Dissanayake has shown that an outsider can govern, and that the rhetoric of clean Government can translate into institutional action. The unfinished question is whether he will also use that unprecedented political capital to address the country's deepest wounds.