Connect with us

Features

2024 SL presidential election: A significant shift towards liberal leftist politics

Published

on

Anura Kumara

By Amarasiri de Silva

The 2024 Sri Lankan presidential election is considered a watershed moment for several key reasons. One of the most significant aspects is the peaceful transfer of power from a neoliberal administration to the left-oriented National People’s Power (NPP), led by Anura Kumara Dissanayake. The NPP, supported by the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), marked a significant shift in the country’s political landscape. Historically, the JVP was involved in two armed uprisings in 1971 and 1989 in attempts to seize control through revolutionary means, both of which failed and were violently suppressed by the government.

The election results in 2024 reflect the public’s disillusionment with traditional political parties, particularly in light of the economic crises that have plagued Sri Lanka since 2022. Ranil Wickremesinghe, the neoliberal incumbent, played a pivotal role in stabilising the economy after widespread protests ousted the Rajapaksa government. However, despite his efforts to gain public trust, the voters, particularly the younger generation, demanded change and were drawn to the progressive and socialist policies of the NPP.

The peaceful electoral victory of the NPP, with such a revolutionary past, marks a new chapter in Sri Lankan politics. This election reflects a shift from armed struggle to democratic participation, cementing the NPP’s position as a legitimate political force. Moreover, this outcome challenges the entrenched political elite and signals a potential restructuring of Sri Lanka’s political and economic system. Originating from a farming community in Anuradhapura, Dissanayake embodies the character of an ordinary citizen, contrasting with the traditional rulers of the country who come from the Radala high caste or high-class families. This marks a significant shift in Sri Lanka’s political landscape.

The 2024 Sri Lankan presidential election result, which saw the victory of the leftist NPP, backed by the JVP, is not just a change of government but a direct challenge to the long-standing political elite that has dominated the country for decades. This entrenched political class, primarily represented by parties like the UNP and the SLFP, or the SLPP or Pohottuwa, has been heavily associated with neoliberal policies, dynastic politics, and a failure to address deep socio-economic inequalities. The victory of the NPP, a party with socialist leanings, marks a significant departure from this status quo.

The shift signals a potential restructuring of both the political and economic systems in Sri Lanka. Politically, the NPP’s rise reflects a growing rejection of elite control and the consolidation of power among a few families, like the Rajapaksas, Bandaranaikes, and Wickremesinghe’s political lineage. For years, these elites shaped the country’s policies, focusing on liberal economic reforms, often criticized for favouring the wealthy and exacerbating income disparities. The NPP’s success, bolstered by the JVP’s revolutionary past, suggests a new direction, focusing on redistributing political power and fostering a more egalitarian economic structure​. Although the percentage increase of the NPP in the presidential election is attributed to the division between the UNP and the SJB, it is deeply rooted in the people’s desire for a fundamental system change. This is clearly reflected in the significant increase in the NPP’s voter base. This dramatic rise underscores the growing public demand for change and the NPP’s ability to capture the sentiments of a population eager for a new political direction. The electorate’s growing disillusionment with traditional political parties and failure to address socio-economic inequalities and governance issues has driven voters to seek an alternative in the NPP, reflecting a broader demand for transformative change in the country’s political and economic landscape.

Ranil Wickremesinghe, representing the UNP, and Sajith Premadasa, leading the SJB, have each garnered substantial support. However, their division has fragmented the votes that would otherwise likely consolidate under one party. This indicates that if the UNP and SJB had remained unified or had formed a coalition, they would have likely outperformed the NPP, reducing the latter’s influence and growth in parliamentary electoral results.

The fragmentation in the centre-right and centre-left political spaces, dominated by the UNP and SJB, has thus contributed to a scenario where a previously smaller political force like the NPP can make significant gains, as the Opposition’s division has weakened their ability to retain a majority vote share. Therefore, the NPP’s rise does not solely reflect an increase in its inherent support but rather the strategic consequences of a divided Opposition.

Economically, the NPP victory signals a potential shift toward policies prioritising social welfare, public ownership, and economic equity. The neoliberal approach championed by past governments, which included deregulation, privatisation, and aligning with global financial institutions like the IMF, faced strong opposition from the NPP and JVP. The NPP has advocated for state intervention in key sectors, wealth redistribution, and addressing the economic needs of the working class, a stark contrast to the elite-driven policies that favoured corporate interests and foreign investments​.

This outcome also challenges the traditional role of Sri Lanka in the global economy. As a small developing nation, Sri Lanka has long depended on foreign aid, loans, and investment from international actors, especially during its economic crisis. The NPP’s victory may signal a recalibration of these relationships, as the party has criticized the terms of engagement with global financial institutions, calling for more autonomy and a greater focus on domestic development​. In summary, the 2024 election represents more than just a change in leadership; it signals a broader transformation in Sri Lanka’s political and economic system, aiming to dismantle elite control and refocus governance on social justice and economic equity.

Despite the strong backing of the NPP from the oppressed and working-class voters in the 2024 Sri Lankan Presidential Election, a noticeable gap emerged in support from ethnic minorities, particularly in the North and upcountry regions. These regions are home to significant and Muslim and Tamil populations, who have historically been marginalized and continue to face social, political, and economic discrimination.

While the NPP’s platform of social justice, equity, and anti-elite rhetoric resonated with many of the country’s Sinhalese working class, the party’s message did not seem to fully address the complex grievances and historical trauma faced by these ethnic minorities. The Tamil population in the Northern Province, for instance, has long held concerns over unresolved issues from the civil war, such as the demand for justice, truth-seeking for alleged war crimes, and a genuine political solution that would grant them greater autonomy. The electoral results from the Batticaloa district reveal that the Tamil population in the region has yet to demonstrate significant allegiance to the NPP in recent elections. Batticaloa, located in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka, is predominantly inhabited by Tamils and Muslims. Tamil nationalist sentiments and concerns over ethnic rights, governance, and autonomy have historically shaped the political landscape in this region.

The NPP, primarily identified with the Sinhala-majority JVP, has traditionally struggled to gain traction in the Tamil electorate. This is mainly due to the party’s historical associations and lack of focus on the specific grievances of the Tamil community, such as demands for regional autonomy, post-war reconciliation, and devolution of power. The NPP’s broader, more nationalist platform has not resonated as strongly with the Tamil voters, who tend to align with parties that explicitly advocate for Tamil rights and representation, such as the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) and other regional parties.

This trend was visible in the 2020 parliamentary elections and other recent elections. The NPP failed to make significant inroads in Batticaloa, with most Tamil voters favouring more localised, ethnic-based parties that they perceive as better representing their political aspirations. This lack of support for the NPP in Batticaloa can also be attributed to the deep-rooted ethnic tensions in Sri Lanka’s political sphere. Many Tamil voters may view the NPP as part of the broader Sinhala-majority political establishment, which has historically been in opposition to Tamil demands for autonomy and justice for wartime grievances. Thus, the Batticaloa results underscore the NPP’s challenges in gaining support among Tamil populations, who remain more aligned with parties that advocate for their specific ethnic and regional concerns. This reflects a broader pattern in Sri Lankan politics, where ethnic identities and regional issues often dictate voting patterns.

The NPP’s position on these matters, while generally supportive of reconciliation, may have been perceived as insufficiently robust or sensitive to the specific needs of the Tamil community. Similarly, in the upcountry regions, which Tamil-speaking plantation workers of Indian origin largely inhabit, there remains a deep history of socio-economic deprivation. While the NPP’s economic agenda could benefit these groups, there may have been doubts about whether the party could deliver on its promises, given its primary appeal to a predominantly Sinhalese electorate. Ethnic minorities in these areas may also have been wary of aligning with a party rooted in Sinhalese-majoritarian political culture despite the NPP’s efforts to position itself as a multi-ethnic, inclusive political force​.

The gap in minority support likely reflects a broader historical pattern in Sri Lankan politics, where minority communities have been cautious about backing new political movements, especially those with a strong base among the Sinhalese majority. Instead, many of these voters may have supported more established minority-friendly parties or candidates, such as the TNA in the North or the UNP, which was traditionally seen as more accommodating to minority concerns. This divergence underscores the deep ethnic and regional cleavages that continue to shape Sri Lankan electoral politics, even in the context of a broader desire for change.

The 2024 presidential election results highlight significant challenges for the new NPP government, led by Anura Kumara Dissanayake. Despite their platform advocating for a unified and ethnically cohesive government, the election results show that the message has not fully resonated with the country’s ethnic minorities, particularly the Tamils in the North and the upcountry Tamil communities, as well as the Muslim population. This poses a significant challenge for the NPP, which must now find ways to reconcile these disparities while fostering ethnic harmony in both economic and political spheres.

The JVP, which forms the core of the NPP, has historically struggled to build a strong base among ethnic minorities. The JVP’s revolutionary roots and prior engagement in Sinhalese-majoritarian politics during the 1971 and 1989 uprisings may have contributed to a lingering perception among minorities that the party is more focused on Sinhalese interests. Although the NPP campaigned on a platform of equality and inclusivity, it seems that these promises did not sufficiently convince the Tamil and Muslim communities, who have long demanded autonomy, recognition of their identity, and solutions to lingering post-war grievances. For the Tamil population in the Northern Province, for instance, issues such as war crimes accountability, land rights, and devolution of power remain unresolved, and the NPP’s messaging on these fronts may have lacked the specificity or reassurance they were seeking.

In the upcountry regions, where Tamil-speaking plantation workers of Indian origin face entrenched socio-economic hardships, the NPP’s broader economic reforms, while potentially beneficial, did not seem to connect with the unique struggles of these communities. Similarly, Sri Lanka’s Muslim population has faced increasing marginalization and targeted violence in recent years, and the NPP’s ability to address these concerns may be viewed with skepticism, given the JVP’s lack of a strong track record in minority issues.

The new NPP government now faces a critical challenge: how to build trust with ethnic minorities and integrate them into its broader vision of economic and political development. Achieving ethnic harmony in a deeply divided country will require more than rhetoric; it will necessitate concrete policy measures that address these communities’ historical injustices and grievances. The NPP will need to engage in meaningful dialogue with minority leaders, create mechanisms for greater political autonomy in the North and East, and ensure that economic development reaches all parts of the country, especially those that have historically been left behind. These efforts are essential not only for the success of the NPP government but also for the long-term stability and unity of Sri Lanka​.

The NPP enjoyed overwhelming support from Sinhalese-majority districts in southern Sri Lanka, particularly from areas like Hambantota, Matara, and Galle. These regions are traditionally strongholds of the working and middle classes, including lower-middle-class workers, small-scale farmers, and rural laborers, including fisher folk. Many in these communities have faced longstanding economic hardships exacerbated by social disparities, stagnating wages, and a lack of equitable development. The NPP’s promise of economic reform, social justice, and redistributive policies appealed to these voters, who saw the NPP as a chance for significant change after decades of economic neglect by successive governments.

However, this support also presents a challenge for the NPP government. These regions have high expectations for concrete improvements in living standards, income growth, and social equity. The disparity between wealthier urban centers and rural southern districts has deepened over the years, and many rural voters feel marginalized by neoliberal policies that have primarily benefited Colombo and other urban hubs. Issues like insufficient access to quality education, healthcare, infrastructure development, and fair wages are critical concerns for these communities.

To redress these grievances, the NPP government must focus on policies that address rural economic development, ensure better income distribution, and enhance social welfare systems. Programmes to improve agricultural productivity, provide subsidies for small businesses, and increase state investment in public services, like healthcare and education, will be key to bridging the socioeconomic gap. Additionally, addressing structural inequalities and creating more inclusive economic growth models will be necessary to ensure that the benefits of development are shared across the country, particularly in these southern districts that supported the NPP so strongly.​ In short, the NPP’s support base in the south reflects deep dissatisfaction with the status quo, and delivering on their expectations will require focused, equitable development strategies to tackle the economic and social challenges that have hindered growth in these communities.

Finally, in addition to the policies they propose for the country’s development, the NPP should consider adopting practical policies proposed by their Opposition, particularly the SJB.

An essential suggestion from the SJB involves introducing a system of digital economy, including providing a digital wallet for each individual. This system would allow citizens to manage their daily transactions and major purchases in a streamlined, secure digital format. Implementing such a policy could have far-reaching benefits for the new NPP government. Firstly, a digital economy with an integrated wallet system could increase government revenue by formalizing many aspects of the informal economy. It would enable a more efficient tax collection system, helping to reduce the gap between government expenditure and income. Moving towards a direct income tax system where financial transactions are monitored and taxed appropriately, this policy could generate significant revenue quickly. This would provide the necessary funds to meet the current fiscal challenges as the state grapples with a high expenditure-income gap that demands urgent solutions.

Moreover, the digital wallet could ease day-to-day financial transactions for citizens, fostering greater economic inclusivity, particularly among marginalized or underbanked communities. Creating more transparency and encouraging savings through digital means lay the foundation for a more modernized financial infrastructure.

As the NPP forms its new government, many are eager to see whether it will adopt such forward-thinking policies. Another key concern is how the NPP, with only three members in Parliament, will approach governance. There is speculation that the NPP might quickly dissolve Parliament and call for general elections. In such a scenario, the party could potentially gain enough seats to form a majority government. However, navigating the parliamentary process and creating a robust governance structure will be critical to maintaining the public’s trust and ensuring that policies like the digital economy are implemented effectively. I personally congratulate Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the new President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Trump-Xi meet more about economics rather than politics

Published

on

President Donald Trump meets President Xi Jinping in Beijing: Mutually beneficial ties aimed at. (CNN)

The fact that some of the US’ topmost figures in business, such as Tesla chief Elon Musk and major US chipmaker Jensen Huang of NVIDIA fame, occupied as nearly a prominent a position as President Donald Trump at the recent ‘historic and landmark’ visit by the latter to China underscores the continuing vital importance of business in US-China ties. Business seemed to outweigh politics to a considerable degree in importance during the visit although the political dimension in US-China ties appeared to be more ‘headline grabbing’.

To be sure, the political dimension cannot be downplayed. For very good reason China could be seen as holding the power balance somewhat evenly between East and West. The international politics commentator couldn’t be seen as overstating the case if he takes the position that China could exercise substantial influence over the East currently; that is Russia and Iran, in the main. The latter powers hold the key in the Eastern hemisphere to shaping international politics in the direction of further war or of influencing it towards a measure of peace.

For example, time and again China has prevented the West from ‘having its own way’, so to speak, in the UN Security Council, for instance, in respect of the ongoing conflicts involving Russia and Iran, by way of abstaining from voting or by vetoing declarations that it sees as deleterious. That is, China has been what could be seen as a ‘moderating influence’ in international politics thus far. It has helped to keep the power balance somewhat intact between East and West.

At present a meet is ongoing between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing. This happened almost immediately after the Trump visit. Apparently, Beijing is in an effort to project itself as treating the US and Russia even-handedly while underscoring that it is no ‘special friend’ of the US or the West.

This effort at adopting a non-partisan stance on contentious questions in international politics is also seen in Beijing’s policy position on the Hormuz tangle and issues growing out of it. The Chinese authorities are quoted as saying in this regard, for instance, that China is for ‘a comprehensive and lasting ceasefire in the Middle East’.

Such a position has the effect of enhancing the perception that China is even-handed in its handling of divisive foreign policy posers. It is not openly anti-West nor is it weighing in with Iran and other Eastern actors that are opposed to the West in the West Asian theatre. A ‘comprehensive and lasting ceasefire’ implies that a solution needs to be arrived at that would be seen as fair by all quarters concerned.

On the highly sensitive Taiwan issue, President Xi was comparatively forthright during the Trump visit, but here too it was plain to see that Beijing was not intent on introducing a jarring, discordant note into the ongoing, largely cordial discussions with Washington. On the Taiwan question President Xi was quoted saying: ‘If mishandled, the two nations could collide even come into conflict.’ In other words, the US was cautioned that China’s interests need to be always borne in mind in its handling of the Taiwan issue.

The cautioning had the desired result because Trump in turn had reportedly conveyed to Taiwan that the latter’s concerns on the matter of independence had to be handled discreetly. He had told Taiwan plainly not to declare ‘independence.’

Accordingly, neither the US nor China had said or done anything that would have made either party lose face during their interaction. Apparently, both sides were sensitive to each others’ larger or national interests. And the economic interests of both powers were foremost among the latter considerations.

There is no glossing over or ignoring economic interests in the furtherance of ties between states. They are primal shaping forces of foreign policies and the fact that ‘economics drives politics’ is most apparent in US-China ties. That is, economic survival is fundamental.

Among the more memorable quotes from President Xi during the interaction, which also included US business leaders, was the following: ‘China’s doors will be open wider’ and US firms would have ‘broader prospects in the Chinese market.’

Xi went on to say that the sides had agreed to a ‘new positioning for ties’ based on ‘constructive strategic stability’. The implication here is that both sides would do well not to undermine existing, mutually beneficial economic relations in view of the wider national interests of both powers that are served by a continuation of these economic ties. That is, the way forward, in the words of the Chinese authorities, is ‘win-win cooperation.’

It is the above pronouncements by the Chinese authorities that probably led President Trump to gush that the talks were ‘very successful’ and of ‘historic and landmark’ importance. Such sentiments should only be expected of a billionaire US President, bent on economic empire-building.

One of the most important deals that were put through reportedly during the interaction was a Chinese agreement to buy some 200 Boeing jets and a ‘potential commitment to buy an additional 750 planes.’ However, details were not forthcoming on other business deals that may have been hatched.

Accordingly, from the viewpoint of the protagonists the talks went off well and the chances are that the sides would stand to gain substantially from unruffled future economic ties. However, there was no mention of whether the health of the world economy or the ongoing conflicts in West Asia were taken up for discussion.

Such neglect is regretful. Although the veritable economic power houses of the world, the US and China, are likely to thrive in the short and medium terms and their ruling strata could be expected to benefit enormously from these ongoing economic interactions the same could not be said of most of the rest of the world and its populations.

Needless to say, the ongoing oil and gas crisis, for instance, resulting from the conflict situation in West Asia, is taking a heavy toll on the majority of the world’s economies and the relevant publics. While no urgent intervention to ease the lot of the latter could be expected from the Trump administration there is much that China could do on this score.

China could use its good offices with the US to address the negative fallout on the poorer sections of the world from the present global economic crunch and urge the West to help in introducing systemic changes that could facilitate these positive outcomes. After all, China remains a socialist power.

Continue Reading

Features

The Quiet Shift: China as America’s “+1” in a Changing World Order

Published

on

Xi and Trump

“Everything ever said to me by any Chinese of any station during any visit was part of an intricate design”

— Henry Kissinger

That design may already be complete before this week’s , a meeting that could shape the future balance of global power.

The wind arrives quietly. By the time it is heard, history has already begun to turn. Across Asia, that wind is no longer distant. It carries with it the exhaustion of an old order and the uncertain birth of another. The question now is not whether the world will change. It is whether those who hold power possess the wisdom to guide that change toward something less violent than the century behind us.

Since 1945, the United States has carried the burden of a global order built with its Western allies. To its credit, the world avoided another direct world war between great powers. The conflicts remained contained in distant lands—proxy wars fought in the shadows of ideology, oil, and influence. From Latin America to Asia, the American century expanded not only through prosperity, but through intervention. Yet empires, even democratic ones, grow tired. Fatigue settles slowly into institutions, alliances, and public memory. The role of global policeman no longer inspires certainty in Washington as it once did.

The “rules-based order” now confronts its own contradiction: it was built to be universal, yet it often appeared selective. During my recent visit to , a young researcher asked me quietly, “Does the West itself still believe in the rules-based order?” The question lingered long after the conversation ended. The rising century demands a more inclusive architecture—one that recognises the reality of Asian power, especially China.

My three years of field research across South and Southeast Asia, documented in , revealed a transformation too significant to dismiss as temporary. China has moved beyond being merely a competitor to the United States. In trade, infrastructure, technology, cultural diplomacy, and economic influence, Beijing has established itself as what may be called the world’s “US +1.”

Great powers often search for such a partner. History shows this tendency clearly. When an empire becomes overextended—burdened by wars, alliances, sanctions, tariffs, and crises—it seeks another center of gravity to stabilize the system it can no longer manage alone. The United States today faces disorder stretching from Venezuela to Iran, from Ukraine to the unsettled Middle East. In this landscape, China emerges not simply as a rival, but as a state powerful enough to broker peace where Washington alone no longer can.

Drawing from the lessons of the Nixon–Mao era, warned that “” The United States and China are now engaged in a long-term economic, technological, political, and strategic competition. Managing that competition wisely may become the defining challenge of this century. In such a deeply polarized and unstable world, recognising China as a “US +1” partner is not surrender, but strategic realism.

Donald Trump understood this reality before boarding his flight to meet Xi Jinping. Their meeting inside Zhongnanhai—the guarded compound where China’s leadership governs—was never merely ceremonial. It symbolized a deeper recognition already acknowledged quietly within the itself: China is the nearest peer competitor the United States has ever confronted. Before departing Washington, Trump seemed to reassess not only China’s strength, but its unavoidable position as a “” shaping the future global balance.

Yet the significance of a Trump–Xi meeting extends beyond trade wars, tariffs, or diplomatic spectacle. It presents an opportunity to confront two crises shaping the century ahead: global energy insecurity and regional instability. Washington increasingly understands the limits of direct engagement with Tehran. Decades of pressure, sanctions, and confrontation have produced exhaustion rather than resolution. In that vacuum, Beijing now possesses leverage that Washington does not.

For China, this is an opportunity to evolve from a development partner into a security actor. Xi Jinping’s (GSI) was never designed merely as rhetoric. It was intended as the next phase of Chinese influence—transforming economic dependence into strategic trust. The geopolitical spillover from the Iranian conflict now offers Beijing a historic opening to project itself as a stabilising force in the region, not against the United States, but alongside it as a “US +1” partner.

If China succeeds in helping stabilise the Gulf and secure energy corridors vital to Asia, it will reshape perceptions of Chinese power globally. Beijing would no longer be seen only as the builder of ports, railways, and industrial zones, but as a guarantor of regional balance. This transition—from infrastructure diplomacy to security diplomacy—may become one of the defining geopolitical shifts of the coming decade.

Xi Jinping does not seek open confrontation. His strategy is older, more patient, and perhaps more formidable because of its restraint. Beijing speaks not of domination, but of a “,” advanced through three instruments of influence: the Global Development Initiative (GDI), the Global Security Initiative (GSI), and the Global Civilization Initiative (GCI). These are not slogans alone. Across Asia, many governments increasingly trust China as a development partner more than any other power.

India, despite its ambitions, has not matched this scale of regional penetration. In both ASEAN and South Asia, China’s economic gravity is felt more deeply. Ports, railways, technology networks, and financial dependency have altered the geopolitical map quietly, without the spectacle of war.

In , I compared three inward-looking national strategies shaping Asia today: Trump’s MAGA, Modi’s emerging economic nationalism , and Xi’s strategy. Among them, China has demonstrated the greatest structural resilience. Faced with American tariffs and decoupling pressures, Beijing diversified its supply chains across Central Asia, Europe, and Southeast Asia. Rail corridors now connect Chinese industry to European markets through Eurasia. ASEAN has surpassed the United States as China’s largest trading partner, while the European Union follows closely behind. Exports to America have declined sharply, yet China continues to expand. Trump, once defined by confrontation, now arrives seeking a new “” with China—an acknowledgment that economic rivalry alone can no longer define the relationship between the world’s two largest powers.

Unlike Washington, which increasingly retreats from multilateral institutions, Beijing presents itself as the defender of multilateralism. Whether genuine or strategic matters less than perception. In geopolitics, perception often becomes reality.

What emerges, then, is not surrender between rivals, but interdependence between powers too large to isolate one another. The future may not belong to a bipolar Cold War, but to a reluctant coexistence. The United States now recognises that China possesses diversified markets and partnerships capable of reducing dependence on America. China, in turn, understands that its long march toward global primacy still requires strategic engagement with the United States.

This is where the true geopolitical shift begins.

Many analysts continue to frame China solely as a threat. Yet history rarely moves through absolutes. The next world order may not be built through confrontation alone, but through uneasy partnership. Artificial intelligence, technological supremacy, economic stability, and global governance now demand cooperation between Washington and Beijing, whether either side admits it publicly or not.

Trump will likely celebrate his personal relationship with Xi, presenting himself as the American leader capable of negotiating a “better deal” with China than his predecessors. But beneath the rhetoric lies something larger: the gradual acceptance of China’s indispensable role in shaping the future international order.

Even the question of war increasingly returns to Beijing. If Washington seeks an understanding with Tehran, China’s influence becomes unavoidable. Iran listens to Beijing in ways it no longer listens to the West. This alone signals how profoundly the balance of power has shifted. And Xi, careful as always, refuses to openly inherit the mantle of global leadership. He delays, softens, and obscures intention. It is part of a longer strategy: to rise without provoking the final resistance of a declining hegemon too early.

History rarely announces its turning point. Empires fade slowly, while new powers rise quietly beneath the noise of the old order. Washington still holds immense power, but Beijing increasingly holds the patience, reach, and strategic depth to shape what comes after.

The century ahead may not belong to one power alone, but to the uneasy balance between Washington and Beijing. And in that silence, a new world order is already taking shape.

By Asanga Abeyagoonasekera

Continue Reading

Features

Egypt … here I come

Published

on

Chit-Chat Nethali Withanage

Three months ago, 19-year-old Nethali Withanage, with Brian Kerkoven as her mentor, walked the ramp at Colombo Fashion Week. On 06 June, she’ll walk for Sri Lanka in Hurghada, Egypt, as the country’s delegate to Top Model of the World 2026._

I caught up with Nethali as she prepares to fly out, this weekend, and here’s how our chit-chat went:

1. Tell me something about yourself?

I’m someone who blends creativity with ambition. I’ve always loved expressing myself, whether it’s through fashion, styling, or the way I present myself to the world. At the same time, I’m very driven and disciplined, especially when I was working, as a student counsellor, at Campus One, at a young age, where I’ve learned how to connect with people, understand them, and communicate with confidence. I believe I’m still evolving, and that’s what excites me the most … becoming better every single day.

2. What made you decide to be a model?

Modelling felt natural to me because it combines everything I love – fashion, confidence, and storytelling without words. I realised that modelling isn’t just about appearance, it’s about presence and how you carry your energy. I wanted to be part of an industry where I could express different sides of myself, while inspiring others to feel confident in their own skin.

3. What sets you apart from other models?

I would say my ability to connect. Whether it’s with the camera, a brand, or an audience, I bring authenticity. I also have a strong background in communication and sales, which gives me an edge in understanding how to represent a brand, not just wear it. I don’t want to just model clothes, I want to bring them to life.

4. What clothing do you prefer to model?

I enjoy modelling versatile styles, but I’m especially drawn to elegant and expressive fashion pieces that tells a story. I love looks that allow me to embody confidence and femininity, whether it’s a structured outfit or something soft and flowing.

5. What is the most important aspect of modelling?

Confidence combined with professionalism. Confidence allows you to own the moment, but professionalism ensures that you respect the work, the team, and the brand you represent. Both are equally important.

6. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?

I would say I’m learning to trust myself more and not overthink. I’ve realised that growth comes from embracing who you are, not constantly trying to change it. So instead of changing something, I’m focused on becoming more confident in my own voice.

7. School?

I did my O/Ls at Seventh Day Adventist High School Kandana, and, while at school, I was actively involved in creative activities. I enjoyed participating in English Day events that allowed me to express myself and interact with others. Those experiences helped me build confidence, teamwork, and communication skills, which continue to shape who I am today.

8. Happiest moment?

One of my happiest moments is realising how far I’ve come from being unsure of myself to stepping into opportunities, like modelling, and representing myself with confidence. That feeling of growth is something I truly value, and also a dream come true!

9. Your idea of perfect happiness?

Perfect happiness for me is peace of mind, being surrounded by people I love, doing what I’m passionate about, and feeling proud of who I am becoming.

10. Your ideal guy?

My ideal partner is someone who is respectful, supportive, and confident in himself. Someone who values growth, understands my ambitions, and encourages me to be the best version of myself.

11. Which living person do you most admire?

I admire strong, self-made individuals who have built their identity through hard work and resilience. People who stay true to themselves, despite challenges, inspire me, because they show that success is not just about talent, but also about strength and consistency.

12. Your most treasured possession?

My most treasured possession is my confidence. It’s something I’ve built over time, and it allows me to face challenges, take opportunities, and believe in myself, even when things are uncertain.

13. If you were marooned on a desert island, who would you like as your companion?

I would choose someone who is calm, positive, and resourceful, someone who can turn a difficult situation into an adventure. The right mindset matters more than anything.

14. Your most embarrassing moment?

I’m 19 and still haven’t faced any most embarrassing moment. But I would say I’ve had small moments where things didn’t go as planned, but I’ve learned to laugh at myself. Those moments remind me that perfection isn’t necessary; confidence is about how you recover, not how you avoid mistakes.

15. Done anything daring?

Pursuing modelling and stepping into competitions is something I consider daring. It pushed me out of my comfort zone and challenged me to grow, both personally and professionally.

16. Your ideal vacation?

My ideal vacation would be somewhere peaceful, yet beautiful, like a beach destination where I can relax, reflect, and reconnect with myself, while enjoying nature.

17. What kind of music are you into?

I choose music that matches my mood at that time, whether it’s calm and relaxing or energetic and uplifting. Music is something that helps me express emotions and stay inspired.

18. Favourite radio station?

Usually I don’t listen to radio stations but whenever I get into a car I would search for Yes FM because it has a refined balance of contemporary hits and timeless music. I appreciate how it maintains a vibrant yet sophisticated energy, keeping listeners engaged while creating a consistently uplifting atmosphere. It’s something I enjoy because it adds a sense of positivity and elegance to my day.

19. Favourite TV station?

At the moment, I don’t have a television at home, but growing up, my favourite TV station was ‘Nickelodeon’. I genuinely loved the shows and series it aired; they were fun, creative, and full of personality. It was something I always looked forward to, and those memories still bring a sense of joy and nostalgia, whenever I think about it.

20. Any major plans for the future?

My future plans are to grow in the modelling industry, work with international brands, build a strong personal brand and finish completing a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Studies. At the same time, I want to explore my creative side further, especially in fashion and business, so I can create something of my own one day.

Continue Reading

Trending