Features

Democracy Building Initiatives under Yahapalanaya Regime: Lessons learned

Published

4 years ago

2022/04/18

Beginning of the Yahapalana rule: Former President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe sharing a light moment during the National Unity government

By Prof. Gamini Keerawella

(This article is based on the research conducted by RCSS in collaboration with the University of South Carolina Rule of Law Collective (ROLC). The research team consisted of Prof. Gamini Keerawella, Prof. Sarjoon Athambawa, Dr. Menik Wakkambura, Dr. Ramesh Ramasamy, Ms. Nimmi Jayathilake, Ms. Shavini de Silva.)

1. The democracy-building initiatives during the National Unity Government (2015-2019), commonly known as Yahapalanaya regime, represent the first concerted attempt taken towards political reforms in post-war Sri Lanka. At the end of the war in 2009, historic opportunity was available for Sri Lanka to embark on a new political journey by revitalising democratic institutions and processes. However, the continuation of democratic backsliding and faltering on the path of national reconciliation even after the end of the war created a need and conditions for a regime change in 2015.

It was a collective attempt to transform the negative peace (absence of armed conflict) into a foundation for positive peace. Democracy building is by no means a smooth and lineal process. Even though, the vigor of political reforms and democratic impulses of the National Unity Government dissipated by the end of its tenure, the initiatives taken at the beginning in establishing good governance and democracy-building marked a timely break in the authoritarian trend in Sri Lanka. These initiatives widened the space for a new discourse on democracy against the backdrop of long-term travails of democracy.

2. The regime change in 2015 and democratic reforms initiated under the NUG highlighted the potential of the people in halting the authoritarian trends and taking steps towards democracy building in the country. Unpacking these initiatives helps understand the workings of democratic political dynamics and the peoples’ power in post-war Sri Lanka. Before 2015, a perception was meticulously cultivated throughout the country that President Mahinda Rajapaksa was so strong and popular that he cannot be defeated. The driving force that destroyed that perception was civil society organisations.

The regime change in 2015 was interpreted as a victory of people for democracy against authoritarian abuse of power. Experiences under the Yahapalana regime also highlighted the certain limitations of peoples’ intervention beyond elections. After the initial enthusiasm for regime change was over, the people did not sustain their interests. In the main, they withdrew from political process allowing the political leaders to set the tone of political narrative. It highlighted the importance of constant vigilance and effective intervention throughout on the part of civil society.

3. The interest and commitment of the National Unity Government to fulfill the mandate of democratic reforms and good governance on which it was elected disappeared rapidly after taking initial strides. There was no roadmap for the government to move forward on the path of good governance.

The vacillation and bewildering delay in many key policy domains become the hallmark of the NUG. Even before two years, the cracks within the regime came to the surface and the co-habitation arrangement proved to be a failure. However, the democracy-building endeavour in the period 2015-2019 was not at all a sterile venture. Even though many initiatives did not retain after November 2019, its impact could not be erased so easily. The freedom of information has been added to the Fundamental Rights Chapter so that it became a judicially enforceable right. One of the durable legacies of the NUG has been the Right to Information Act.

4. The experiences under the NUG also highlighted the constraints and problems faced by democracy building in a country like Sri Lanka. Democracy building is not a linear process. It is also important to unpack what accounts for setbacks of the democracy-building endeavours of the NUG. The personality clash between the President and the Prime Minister contributed by no small measure to the downfall of the NUG. But the disagreements and conflicts between the two centres of power in the NUG cannot be relegated simply to personality factors. All the forces and groups who made the regime change in 2015 possible are responsible for its downfall, too. When disagreements and divergence between the two centres of power in the NUG surfaced there was no effective internal mechanism for de-escalation, containment, and conflict resolution.

The untimely demise of Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha affected severely the civil controlling power of the political leadership. The Remaining leadership of CSOs did not have the charismatic stature and legitimacy that Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha had to intervene effectively. The experience also highlighted the certain weakness of the civil society organisations in Sri Lanka. There was no central leadership for CSOs after the passing away of Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha. At first, their energy was channeled to a single target: to defeat the Rajapaksa regime. Once it was achieved, the different interests among CSOs surfaced.

5. It is also important to note that the civil-political movement for democratic reforms is a process and discourse with different waves. The particular wave that brought the Rajapaksa regime down in 2015 slowly emerged from 2011. In the face of many constraints and problems due to the repressive measures of the regime and some structural weaknesses of the civil society itself, the movement was progressing slowly in the first three years.

It witnessed momentum at the beginning of 2014, but it is still a Colombo and other main cities-centered movement that had a long way to go in getting rooted in the rural countryside. By the time of the declaration of early Presidential Elections in November 2014, the democracy reform agenda and its road map of the civil-political movement were not fully developed. In 2014, a qualitatively different phase in democratic reform discourse unfolded with the discussions between NMJS and the political parties. More intensive discussions and debates on main aspects of constitutional reforms, going beyond the slogan of the abolition of Executive Presidency, was taking place. Intentionally or not, the early call for Presidential Election detailed the process.

The pro-democratic reform civil groups and political parties were in agreement on the common candidate for the presidential race. He was hurriedly selected. There was no detailed discussion between the common candidate and the CSOs and other political parties before he was selected. The MOU was signed hurriedly. In the context of the election campaign rush, there was no time and space for a comprehensive agreement between the common candidate and the democratic forces on the political roadmap, except a hurriedly prepared 100-day programme. These shortcomings contributed to the setbacks and hiccups in the democratic reform agenda after the NUG came to power.

6. In the context of internationalisation of the ethnic problem and human rights issue, how to handle the external actors remained a key challenge that Sri Lanka faced in 2015. Having deviated from the hostile attitude towards the international Human Rights bodies, the NUG expressed its willingness to work closely with the international community, especially the UN. the NUG handled external actors satisfactorily and tried to come to some understanding with them.

In analyzing the role of external actors, first of all, the NUG took multiplicity of external actors into account. Further more, external actors remained a key variable exerting influence as a critical maneuver for democratic reforms in Sri Lanka in the period 2015-2019, especially in the peace-building sector and achieving of minority rights. However, the sustainability of democratic reforms seemed dependent on the cooperation between external actors and the political leadership of the NUG and domestic political dynamism that shaped image building of the external actors.

The failure of external actors to take into account domestic political dynamics often resulted in the erosion of credibility and effectiveness of their role. This becomes a sensitive yet crucial factor in dealing with the democratic reforms in Sri Lanka.

Further, the external influences on peace building often showed a sense of coerciveness, such as requirement of regular reporting to international monitoring bodies like UNHRC. Sri Lanka’s agreement to co-sponsor the post-war peace-building resolutions was interpreted as a naïve and inappropriate move without taking ground realities into account. Moreover, the time-line of UNHRC resolutions was viewed as unrealistic. The external role, depending on the context and modus operandi, could be counter productive and generates unintended constrains, derailing the entire process.

7. The NUG prioritised reconciliation as an overarching policy frame. The approach of the National Unity Government regarding the process of reconciliation takes into account four broad area: truth seeking; right to justice: reparation and; non-recurrence. It is also emphasized that the mechanisms to be established in order to address issues in these four areas must be independent, credible and empowered.

One of the major shortcomings of national reconciliation was the lack of a long-term national plan for repairing the damage caused by the 26-year-long civil war, where psychological damage, hatred, and memory prevailed in communities as barriers to sustainable reconciliation. Moreover, there was a lack of visionary leadership and institutional structures that could foster reconciliation, such as the functions of the Office of Missing Persons, the reparation bill and its execution, and various judicial and non-judicial actions for non-recurrence were also not effective.

8. The UNF has failed in building a minimal winning connected coalition – which considers more than numbers and focuses also on ensuring that there is a sufficient shared ideology among the members of a coalition to and pursue policy change – what achieved was ‘minimal winning coalitions’- a coalition that is no bigger than necessary to have a majority in government.

The NUG failed to abolish the Executive Presidency while the arrangement made in the 19^th amendment to control the powers of President induced for power competition between the President and the Prime Minister.

9. Another important lesson learned from the democratic experiences during 2015-2019 was that it is rather difficult to go forward with the democratic reforms without breaking the dominance of the political class. The social and political force behind the authoritarian political project of the political class that came forward after the 1956 political change. The real political force behind the Rajapaksa regime was the political class. This explains why President Mahinda Rajapaksa commanded a considerable support base in the country except for the North and the East despite his authoritarian stance. NUG failed to overcome the dominance of the well-stretched political class who has been the real driving force behind the authoritarian political project. Breaking the dominance of the political class is not easy; nevertheless, it is essential for the progress of democratic political reforms. The attempts taken in the direction of state reforms to strengthen good governance failed because they touched only the outer ditch of the authoritarian social and political structures of the state. Antonio Gramsci describes the state as ‘an outer ditch, behind which there stands a powerful system of fortresses and earthworks’. The political class that is the champion of the authoritarian political culture represents the fortress and earthwork of the authoritarian state. Figuring out how to mobilize social forces to break not only the outer ditch but also the fortresses and earthworks of the authoritarian state with comprehensive political reforms is the fundamental problem in democratic reforms in Sri Lanka.

10. The NUG experiences highlighted the fact that democracy building must be an integral element of a broader political project of state reforms, aimed at developing an inclusive ideology for the state, related institutional frame, and building democratic citizenship. In the post-war context, national reconciliation, a political solution to the ethnic problem, and building an inclusive state must receive priority in democracy building. For National reconciliation to be effective and sustainable, it should be carried out with a clear strategic vision and plan to politically and socially empower the communities who were marginalized and alienated from the main political process. Democracy is not only a system of government by also a way of life, a mode of behavior, and an ideology. In a multi-ethnic country, majoritarian political culture is an anti-thesis to democratic norms and practices. The majoritarian political culture that prevailed in the body politic of Sri Lanka is a grave hindrance to democratic reforms to ensure the integration of minorities in the decision-making process done based on equality and partnership. NUG failed to launch an effective campaign to promote democratic culture in countering the majoritarian mindset. Ultimately, NUG also became a hostage of the majoritarian political culture and faltered in taking critical decisions to show the minority community it is genuine in promoting national reconciliation. Some aspects of besieged and island mentality of the majority community are often used to fan the support for an authoritarian political project. Having failed to effectively address key main barriers to democratic reforms, namely, the majoritarian political thinking and the power of the political class, the democracy-building initiatives appeared to be only cosmetic without getting rooted in the body politic. The vacillation and bewildering delay in many key policy domains including national reconciliation, the emergence of two centers of power, and lack of articulation between the two which crippled the general efficacy of administration gave renewed currency to a cry of ‘National Security State’ at the expense of the democracy-building political project, especially after the Easter Sunday carnage.

11. Democracy-building experiences during 2015-2019 highlighted the importance of the role of political leaders in implementing the mandate for democratic reforms and also the constant vigilance on the part of the citizens to check and monitor whether the political leaders adhere to the mandate. Their commitment to the principles of good governance and democratic reforms quickly faded away once in power. In this context, constant vigilance on the part of the civic democratic process is an essential condition for the continuation of democratic reforms. Why did the commitment of the political leadership of NUG to democratic political reforms disappear rapidly after taking a few initial strides? Why did the civil forces fail to intervene effectively, except at the beginning, when the leaders were vacillating and evading the implementation of the expected reforms? At the end of the day, the political leaders who stood with the democratic reform movement at the 2015 Presidential Election seemed to have used evolving urge of the people for democratic reforms only as a political slogan to come to power. How certain key appointments were made soon after NUG assumed power indicated that they were have not deviated from the practice of nepotism of the previous regime. The civil forces did not effectively intervene to check such behavior. The experiences under NUG indicated that it was not easy to proceed with the existing political leadership who were tempered in the corrupt political practices for years in pursuing substantive democratic reforms. The Central Bank bond scam and how others in the government came forward to conceal it destroyed the good governance credibility of the NUG, substantiating the above indication. The importance of building a new generation of political leaders who are truly committed to democratic reforms in Sri Lanka are highlighted by many.

12. Another lesson to be learned from the democratic building initiatives under NGU is that it is rather difficult to count on Sri Lankan business elites to promote democratic reforms. Ideologically and socially powerful business community could play a vital role as a driving force for democracy building. The economic dependency and political impotency of the Sri Lankan bourgeoisie, mainly of the business upper class, were clearly illustrated in the period 2015-2019. The establishment of the rule of war, transparency, independence of the judiciary, and controlling the excessive power of the Executive with the intuitional check and balance system would benefit the business community in no small measure. Sri Lanka’s state-dependent business community counts on the state for protection, support and subsidies for its survival. As a result, they are incapable of playing an independent and strong role in influencing the political authority as far as democracy. They are always subservient to the regime in power. They failed to play an independent role as a bulwark of democracy in pushing forward the democratic reform agenda.

13. It is also important to note that ‘traditional’ trade unions that were at the forefront in the struggle for democracy in the past did not play a significant role in democratic building initiatives during 2015-2019. The changed behavior of the conventional trade union sector can be explained due to the structural changes witnessed in the industrial and service sectors of the economy and the decline of old Left ideology in the trade union movement. In the changed political and economic environment, a new brood of professional groups/organizations and the youth have come forward to fill the vacuum created by inaction of the moribund traditional trade union sector. The democracy-building attempts need to take these changes into serious consideration and should count on the new social forces, especially the youth and professional groups, and mobilizing them by using social media and art/music in which they are quite savvy.

All News Advertisement

Features

When Batting Was Poetry: Remembering David Gower

Published

9 hours ago

2026/02/1

Thilina Walpola

For many Sri Lankans growing up in the late nineteen fifties and early sixties, our cricketing heroes were Englishmen. I am not entirely sure why that was. Perhaps it was a colonial hangover, or perhaps it reflected the way cricket was taught locally, with an emphasis on technical correctness, a high left elbow, and the bat close to the pad. English cricket, with its traditions and orthodoxy, became the benchmark.

I, on the other hand, could not see beyond Sir Garfield Sobers and the West Indian team. Sir Garfield remains my all-time hero, although only by a whisker ahead of Muttiah Muralitharan. For me, Caribbean flair and attacking cricket were infinitely superior to the Englishmen’s conservatism and defensive approach.

That said, England has produced many outstanding cricketers, with David Gower and Ian Botham being my favourites. Players such as Colin Cowdrey, Tom Graveney, Mike Denness, Tony Lewis, Mike Brealey, Alan Knott, Derek Underwood, Tony Greig, and David Gower were great ambassadors for England, particularly when touring the South Asian subcontinent, which posed certain challenges for touring sides until about three decades ago. Their calm and dignified conduct when touring is a contrast to the behaviour of the current lot.

I am no longer an avid cricket viewer, largely because my blood pressure tends to rise when I watch our Sri Lankan players. Therefore, I was pleasantly surprised recently when I was flipping through the TV channels to hear David Gower’s familiar voice commentating. It brought back fond memories of watching him bat during my time in the UK. I used to look forward to the summer for two reasons. To feel the sun on my back and watch David Gower bat!

A debut that announced a star

One of my most vivid cricketing memories is watching, in 1978, a young English batsman pull the very first ball he faced in Test cricket to the boundary. Most debutants play cautiously, trying to avoid the dreaded zero, but Gower nonchalantly swivelled and pulled a short ball from Pakistan’s Liaquat Ali for four. It was immediately apparent that a special talent had arrived.

To place that moment in perspective, Marvan Atapattu—an excellent Sri Lankan batsman—took three Tests and four innings to score his first run, yet later compiled 16 Test centuries.

Gower went on to score 56 in his first innings and captivated spectators with his full repertoire of strokes, particularly his exquisite cover drive. It is often said that a left-hander’s cover drive is one of the most pleasurable sights in cricket, and watching Sobers, Gower, or Brian Lara execute the cover drive made the entrance ticket worthwhile.

A young talent in a time of change

Gower made his Test debut at just 21, rare for an English player of that era. World cricket was in turmoil due to the Kerry Packer revolution, and England had lost senior players such as Tony Greig, Alan Knott, and Derek Underwood. Selectors were searching for young talent, and Gower’s inclusion injected fresh impetus.

Gower scored his first Test century in only his fourth match, just a month after his debut, against New Zealand, and a few months later scored his maiden Ashes century at Perth.

He finished with 18 Test centuries from 117 matches. His finest test innings, in my view, was the magnificent 154 not out at Kingston in 1981 against Holding, Marshall, Croft, and Garner. Batting for nearly eight hours and facing 403 balls, he set aside flair for determination to save the Test.

He and Ian Botham also benefited from playing their initial years under Mike Brealey, an average batsman but an outstanding leader. Rodney Hogg, the Australian fast bowler, famously said Brealey had a ‘degree in people’, and both young stars flourished under his guidance.

Captaincy and criticism and overall record

Few English batsmen delighted and frustrated spectators and analysts as much as Gower. The languid cover drive, so elegant and so pleasurable to the spectators, also resulted in a fair number of dismissals that, at times, gave the impression of carelessness to both spectators and journalists.

Despite his approach, which at times appeared casual, he was appointed as captain of the English team in 1983 and served for three years before being removed in 1986. He was again appointed captain in 1989 for the Ashes series. He led England in 1985 to a famous Ashes series win as well as a series win in India in1984-85.

In the eyes of some, the captaincy might not have been the best suited to his style of play. However, he scored 732 runs whilst captaining the team during the 1985 Ashes series, proving that he was able handle the pressure.

Under Gower, England lost two consecutive series to the great West Indian teams 5-0, which led to the coining of the phrase “Blackwashed”! He was somewhat unlucky that he captained the English team when the West Indies were at the peak, possessing a fearsome array of fast bowlers.

David Gower scored 3,269 test runs against Australia in 42 test matches. He scored nine centuries and 12 fifties, averaging nearly 45 runs per inning. His record against Australia as an English batsman is only second to Sir Jack Hobbs. Scoring runs against Australia has been a yardstick in determining how good a batsman is. Therefore, his record against Australia can easily rebut the critics who said that he was too casual. He scored 8,231 runs in 117 test matches and 3,170 runs in 114 One Day Internationals.

A gentleman of the game free of controversies

Unlike the other great English cricketer at the time, Ian Botham, David was not involved in any controversies during his illustrious career. The only incident that generated negative press was a low-level flight he undertook in a vintage Tiger Moth biplane in Queensland during the 1990-91 Ashes tour of Australia. The team management and the English press, as usual, made a mountain out of a molehill. David retired from international cricket in 1992.

In 1984, during the tour of India, due to the uncertain security situation after the assassination of the then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the English team travelled to Sri Lanka for a couple of matches. I was fortunate enough to get David to sign his book “With Time to Spare”. This was soon after he returned to the pavilion after being dismissed. There was no refusal or rudeness when I requested his signature.

He was polite and obliged despite still being in pads. Although I did not know David Gower, his willingness that day to oblige a spectator exemplified the man’s true character. A gentleman who played the game as it should be, and a great ambassador of England and world cricket. He was inducted into the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame in 2009 and appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in 1992 for his services to sport.

By Sanjeewa Jayaweera

Features

Sri Lanka Through Loving Eyes:A Call to Fix What Truly Matters

Published

10 hours ago

2026/02/1

Thilina Walpola

Love of country, pride, and the responsibility to be honest

I am a Sri Lankan who has lived in Australia for the past 38 years. Australia has been very good to my family and me, yet Sri Lanka has never stopped being home. That connection endures, which is why we return every second year—sometimes even annually—not out of nostalgia, but out of love and pride in our country.

My recent visit reaffirmed much of what makes Sri Lanka exceptional: its people, culture, landscapes, and hospitality remain truly world-class. Yet loving one’s country also demands honesty, particularly when shortcomings risk undermining our future as a serious global tourism destination.

When Sacred and Iconic Sites Fall Short

One of the most confronting experiences occurred during our visit to Sri Pada (Adam’s Peak). This sacred site, revered across multiple faiths, attracts pilgrims and tourists from around the world. Sadly, the severe lack of basic amenities—especially clean, accessible toilets—was deeply disappointing. At moments of real need, facilities were either unavailable or unhygienic.

This is not a luxury issue. It is a matter of dignity.

For a site of such immense religious and cultural significance, the absence of adequate sanitation is unacceptable. If Sri Lanka is to meet its ambitious tourism targets, essential infrastructure, such as public toilets, must be prioritized immediately at Sri Pada and at all major tourist and pilgrimage sites.

Infrastructure strain is also evident in Ella, particularly around the iconic Nine Arches Bridge. While the attraction itself is breathtaking, access to the site is poorly suited to the sheer volume of visitors. We were required to walk up a steep, uneven slope to reach the railway lines—manageable for some, but certainly not ideal or safe for elderly visitors, families, or those with mobility challenges. With tourist numbers continuing to surge, access paths, safety measures, and crowd management urgently needs to be upgraded.

Missed opportunities and first impressions

Our visit to Yala National Park, particularly Block 5, was another missed opportunity. While the natural environment remains extraordinary, the overall experience did not meet expectations. Notably, our guide—experienced and deeply knowledgeable—offered several practical suggestions for improving visitor experience and conservation outcomes. Unfortunately, he also noted that such feedback often “falls on deaf ears.” Ignoring insights from those on the ground is a loss Sri Lanka can ill afford.

First impressions also matter, and this is where Bandaranaike International Airport still falls short. While recent renovations have improved the physical space, customs and immigration processes lack coherence during peak hours. Poorly formed queues, inconsistent enforcement, and inefficient passenger flow create unnecessary delays and frustration—often the very first experience visitors have of Sri Lanka.

Excellence exists—and the fundamentals must follow

That said, there is much to celebrate.

Our stays at several hotels, especially The Kingsbury, were outstanding. The service, hospitality, and quality of food were exceptional—on par with the best anywhere in the world. These experiences demonstrate that Sri Lanka already possesses the talent and capability to deliver excellence when systems and leadership align.

This contrast is precisely why the existing gaps are so frustrating: they are solvable.

Sri Lankans living overseas will always defend our country against unfair criticism and negative global narratives. But defending Sri Lanka does not mean remaining silent when basic standards are not met. True patriotism lies in constructive honesty.

If Sri Lanka is serious about welcoming the world, it must urgently address fundamentals: sanitation at sacred sites, safe access to major attractions, well-managed national parks, and efficient airport processes. These are not optional extras—they are the foundation of sustainable tourism.

This is not written in criticism, but in love. Sri Lanka deserves better, and so do the millions of visitors who come each year, eager to experience the beauty, spirituality, and warmth that our country offers so effortlessly.

The writer can be reached at Jerome.adparagraphams@gmail.com

By Jerome Adams

Features

Seething Global Discontents and Sri Lanka’s Tea Cup Storms

Published

10 hours ago

2026/02/1

Thilina Walpola

Seething Global Discontents and Sri Lanka’s Tea Cup Storms

Global temperatures in January have been polar opposite – plus 50 Celsius down under in Australia, and minus 45 Celsius up here in North America (I live in Canada). Between extremes of many kinds, not just thermal, the world order stands ruptured. That was the succinct message in what was perhaps the most widely circulated and listened to speeches of this century, delivered by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at Davos, in January. But all is not lost. Who seems to be getting lost in the mayhem of his own making is Donald Trump himself, the President of the United States and the world’s disruptor in chief.

After a year of issuing executive orders of all kinds, President Trump is being forced to retreat in Minneapolis, Minnesota, by the public reaction to the knee-jerk shooting and killing of two protesters in three weeks by federal immigration control and border patrol agents. The latter have been sent by the Administration to implement Trump’s orders for the arbitrary apprehension of anyone looking like an immigrant to be followed by equally arbitrary deportation.

The Proper Way

Many Americans are not opposed to deporting illegal and criminal immigrants, but all Americans like their government to do things the proper way. It is not the proper way in the US to send federal border and immigration agents to swarm urban neighbourhood streets and arrest neighbours among neighbours, children among other school children, and the employed among other employees – merely because they look different, they speak with an accent, or they are not carrying their papers on their person.

Americans generally swear by the Second Amendment and its questionably interpretive right allowing them to carry guns. But they have no tolerance when they see government forces turn their guns on fellow citizens. Trump and his administration cronies went too far and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Barely a month has passed in 2026, but Trump’s second term has already run into multiple storms.

There’s more to come between now and midterm elections in November. In the highly entrenched American system of checks and balances it is virtually impossible to throw a government out of office – lock, stock and barrel. Trump will complete his term, but more likely as a lame duck than an ordering executive. At the same time, the wounds that he has created will linger long even after he is gone.

Equally on the external front, it may not be possible to immediately reverse the disruptions caused by Trump after his term is over, but other countries and leaders are beginning to get tired of him and are looking for alternatives bypassing Trump, and by the same token bypassing the US. His attempt to do a Venezuela over Greenland has been spectacularly pushed back by a belatedly awakening Europe and America’s other western allies such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The wags have been quick to remind us that he is mostly a TACO (Trump always chickens out) Trump.

Grandiose Scheme or Failure

His grandiose scheme to establish a global Board of Peace with himself as lifetime Chair is all but becoming a starter. No country or leader of significant consequence has accepted the invitation. The motley collection of acceptors includes five East European countries, three Central Asian countries, eight Middle Eastern countries, two from South America, and four from Asia – Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia and Pakistan. The latter’s rush to join the club will foreclose any chance of India joining the Board. Countries are allowed a term of three years, but if you cough up $1 billion, could be member for life. Trump has declared himself to be lifetime chair of the Board, but he is not likely to contribute a dime. He might claim expenses, though. The Board of Peace was meant to be set up for the restoration of Gaza, but Trump has turned it into a retirement project for himself.

There is also the ridiculous absurdity of Trump continuing as chair even after his term ends and there is a different president in Washington. How will that arrangement work? If the next president turns out to be a Democrat, Trump may deny the US a seat on the board, cash or no cash. That may prove to be good for the UN and its long overdue restructuring. Although Trump’s Board has raised alarms about the threat it poses to the UN, the UN may end up being the inadvertent beneficiary of Trump’s mercurial madness.

The world is also beginning to push back on Trump’s tariffs. Rather, Trump’s tariffs are spurring other countries to forge new trade alliances and strike new trade deals. On Tuesday, India and EU struck the ‘mother of all’ trade deals between them, leaving America the poorer for it. Almost the next day , British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Chinese leader Xi Jinping announced in Beijing that they had struck a string of deals on travel, trade and investments. “Not a Big Bang Free Trade Deal” yet, but that seems to be the goal. The Canadian Prime Minister has been globe-trotting to strike trade deals and create investment opportunities. He struck a good reciprocal deal with China, is looking to India, and has turned to South Korea and a consortium from Germany and Norway to submit bids for a massive submarine supply contract supplemented by investments in manufacturing and mineral industries. The informal first-right-of-refusal privilege that US had in Canada for defense contracts is now gone, thanks to Trump.

The disruptions that Trump has created in the world order may not be permanent or wholly irreversible, as Prime Minister Carney warned at Davos. But even the short term effects of Trump’s disruptions will be significant to all of US trading partners, especially smaller countries like Sri Lanka. Regardless of what they think of Trump, leaders of governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens from the negative effects of Trump’s tariffs. That will be in addition to everything else that governments have to do even if they do not have Trump’s disruptions to deal with.

Bland or Boisterous

Against the backdrop of Trump-induced global convulsions, politics in Sri Lanka is in a very stable mode. This is not to diminish the difficulties and challenges that the vast majority of Sri Lankans are facing – in meeting their daily needs, educating their children, finding employment for the youth, accessing timely health care and securing affordable care for the elderly. The challenges are especially severe for those devastated by cyclone Ditwah.

Politically, however, the government is not being tested by the opposition. And the once boisterous JVP/NPP has suddenly become ‘bland’ in government. “Bland works,” is a Canadian political quote coined by Bill Davis a nationally prominent premier of the Province of Ontario. Davis was responding to reporters looking for dramatic politics instead of boring blandness. He was Premier of Ontario for 14 years (1971-1985) and won four consecutive elections before retiring.

No one knows for how long the NPP government will be in power in Sri Lanka or how many more elections it is going to win, but there is no question that the government is singularly focused on winning the next parliamentary election, or both the presidential and parliamentary elections – depending on what happens to the system of directly electing the executive president.

The government is trying to grow comfortable in being on cruise control to see through the next parliamentary election. Its critics on the other hand, are picking on anything that happens on any day to blame or lampoon the government. The government for all its tight control of its members and messaging is not being able to put out quickly the fires that have been erupting. There are the now recurrent matters of the two AGs (non-appointment of the Auditor General and alleged attacks on the Attorney General) and the two ERs (Educational Reform and Electricity Reform), the timing of the PC elections, and the status of constitutional changes to end the system of directly electing the president.

There are also criticisms of high profile resignations due to government interference and questionable interdictions. Two recent resignations have drawn public attention and criticism, viz., the resignation of former Air Chief Marshal Harsha Abeywickrama from his position as the Chairman of Airport & Aviation Services, and the earlier resignation of Attorney-at-Law Ramani Jayasundara from her position as Chair of the National Women’s Commission. Both have been attributed to political interferences. In addition, the interdiction of the Deputy Secretary General of Parliament has also raised eyebrows and criticisms. The interdiction in parliament could not have come at a worse time for the government – just before the passing away of Nihal Seniviratne, who had served Sri Lanka’s parliament for 33 years and the last 13 of them as its distinguished Secretary General.

In a more political sense, echoes of the old JVP boisterousness periodically emanate in the statements of the JVP veteran and current Cabinet Minister K.D. Lal Kantha. Newspaper columnists love to pounce on his provocative pronouncements and make all manner of prognostications. Mr. Lal Kantha’s latest reported musing was that: “It is true our government is in power, but we still don’t have state power. We will bring about a revolution soon and seize state power as well.”

This was after he had reportedly taken exception to filmmaker Asoka Handagama’s one liner: “governing isn’t as easy as it looks when you are in the opposition,” and allegedly threatened to answer such jibes no matter who stood in the way and what they were wearing “black robes, national suits or the saffron.” Ironically, it was the ‘saffron part’ that allegedly led to the resignation of Harsha Abeywickrama from the Airport & Aviation Services. And President AKD himself has come under fire for his Thaipongal Day statement in Jaffna about Sinhala Buddhist pilgrims travelling all the way from the south to observe sil at the Tiisa Vihare in Thayiddy, Jaffna.

The Vihare has been the subject of controversy as it was allegedly built under military auspices on the property of local people who evacuated during the war. Being a master of the spoken word, the President could have pleaded with the pilgrims to show some sensitivity and empathy to the displaced Tamil people rather than blaming them (pilgrims) of ‘hatred.’ The real villains are those who sequestered property and constructed the building, and the government should direct its ire on them and not the pilgrims.

In the scheme of global things, Sri Lanka’s political skirmishes are still teacup storms. Yet it is never nice to spill your tea in public. Public embarrassments can be politically hurtful. As for Minister Lal Kantha’s distinction between governmental mandate and state power – this is a false dichotomy in a fundamentally practical sense. He may or may not be aware of it, but this distinction quite pre-occupied the ideologues of the 1970-75 United Front government. Their answer of appointing Permanent Secretaries from outside the civil service was hardly an answer, and in some instances the cure turned out to be worse than the disease.

As well, what used to be a leftist pre-occupation is now a right wing insistence especially in America with Trump’s identification of the so called ‘deep state’ as the enemy of the people. I don’t think the NPP government wants to go there. Rather, it should show creative originality in making the state, whether deep or shallow, to be of service to the people. There is a general recognition that the government has been doing just that in providing redress to the people impacted by the cyclone. A sign of that recognition is the number of people contributing to the disaster relief fund and in substantial amounts. The government should not betray this trust but build on it for the benefit of all. And better do it blandly than boisterously.

by Rajan Philips