What defines a government are its major achievements or drawbacks, not what is written in its election manifesto. This is what it would be remembered for. They become synonymous with its leaders, be it success or failure.
So, J.R. Jayewardene is remembered for overhauling the political landscape with an executive presidential system, introducing an open economy and the Mahaveli irrigation scheme but also for introducing a corrupt, ‘win at any cost’ political culture. Ranasinghe Premadasa, short though his reign was, will be remembered for the ‘Udagama’ concept and kick-starting the apparel industry but also for the ruthless suppression of democratic dissent.
That there is nothing major to remember Chandrika Kumaratunga by, is itself telling as she is the country’s longest serving President; perhaps we can credit her with launching Lakshman Kadirgamar into politics. Mahinda Rajapaksa will be remembered both for ending the Eelam war and taking political cronyism and corruption to new heights.
Maithripala Sirisena will be remembered for mismanaging the Easter attacks and the 52-day constitutional coup and Gotabaya Rajapaksa for his ignominious departure, the first public rebellion against an Executive President. What then will Anura Kumara Dissanayake, the country’s first left-leaning President be remembered for?
Dissanayake campaigned from the National Peoples’ Power (NPP), and amalgam of political and civil organisations of which the radically left leaning Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) was the majority stakeholder. Dissanayake leads both the JVP and the NPP. That itself maybe a paradox but the creation of the NPP was a masterstroke in political strategising. The JVP was unable to attract the votes of the so-called ‘middle class’ who were disillusioned with decades of two-party rule but still wary of the JVP due to their insurgent past. The NPP, with its intellectual façade spearheaded by Harini Amarasuriya, gave the JVP a veneer of respectability.
Dissanayake’s Address to the Nation on Independence Day is revealing of the dilemma he faces: he must balance the ideology of the radical left that the JVP is steeped in with both the moderate expectations of the NPP and the voters it attracted as well as the harsh realities of governing a country embedded in a pro-market economy.
That is why some sections of his speech could be mistaken to have been an extract from Ranil Wickremesinghe’s: “We are aware that the world operates in a competitive and divided global marketplace…; The country’s economy must be built on a new vision of economic development. In pursuit of this goal, extensive dialogue is already underway with industrialists, entrepreneurs, government officials and the general public to shape a sustainable and inclusive economic path for Sri Lanka”.
When Dissanayake first took office as President, there were jitters in the business sector and the corporate world that he might order an about turn in economic policy. Thrust forcibly into a fiscal straitjacket by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), he couldn’t do that, even if he wanted to. As if to signal this, Dissanayake retained Ranil Wickremesinghe’s Treasury Secretary and Central Bank Governor. So, the “we will re-negotiate with the IMF” turned out to be one of the first campaign promises that were broken.
Over the next one year and a bit, Dissanayake, who is also Finance Minister, has become increasingly comfortable with these IMF-dictated economic policies. As Dissanayake proudly proclaimed in his Address to the Nation last week, “The year 2025 marked unprecedented progress across all key economic indicators. It witnessed the lowest budget deficit since 1977, record-high government revenue after 2006, the largest current account balances in Sri Lanka’s history, the highest tax revenue collected by the Department of Inland Revenue and the sustained maintenance of bank interest rates at a long-term target, demonstrating remarkable economic stability”. None of this was achieved with left-oriented welfare measures but by strict adherence to prudent fiscal management which a right-of-centre government would have liked to boast about.
Dissanayake need not worry about disappointing the ‘hardcore’ within the JVP with his economic policy. He may not wish it, but his government hinges on him. It is a ‘one man show’ because most of those around him- Amarasuriya included- are performing far short of expectations. So, the ‘hardcore’ can ill afford to complain, let alone challenge him.
That does not mean all is hunky-dory for Dissanayake. The vast majority of ‘silent’ voters who would have voted for Sirisena in 2015 and for Gotabaya Rajapaksa in 2019 and then endorsed his ouster in 2022 before voting for Dissanayake are not expecting economic miracles from their new leader. They couldn’t care less about how he deals with the IMF. However, having armed him with a two-thirds majority and given him a countrywide mandate, they expect him to honour other key promises: abolish the executive presidential system, introduce a new Constitution, re-establish the rule of law and order and punish the corrupt and the criminal.
The latter two are occurring, albeit very slowly, hampered by delays in dispensing justice. So far, a few have been sent behind bars but the big fish still roam free but Dissanayake keeps reminding us in his public speeches that offenders will be punished. On the other hand, there is deafening silence about a new Constitution and abolishing the Executive Presidency.
One can understand the realpolitik of Dissanayake wanting to exhaust his first term before abolishing the Executive Presidency. However, even if he wishes to do so at that late stage, the process needs to start now. Changes need to be discussed in the public domain. That is not happening. Ironically, it was the opposition which recently conducted a seminar on a constitutional reform. The ruling party was invited but didn’t send a representative, a sign that is ominous.
Kumaratunga, Mahinda Rajapaksa and Sirisena all promised to abolish the Executive Presidency. They didn’t. If Anura Kumara Dissanayake goes into the next election promising to do so after another presidential election, his credibility will plummet and be on par with those predecessors. Would he want to be spoken of in the same vein? That decision still remains with him. The voters are watching and waiting to see which way he will turn. His signals are not promising.
