By Jehan Perera –

Jehan Perera

The government faces two major interrelated challenges: external economic constraints and internal governance weaknesses. While the economy shows signs of recovery, public dissatisfaction may grow if economic gains are not widely shared. The previous administration’s agreements with international creditors and the IMF have left little room for fiscal maneuverability, with Sri Lanka securing only a 20 percent debt reduction—considerably less than Argentina’s 50 percent reduction in 2020 or Greece’s 53.5 percent in 2012. This limited relief restricts the government’s ability to implement policies that could ease economic hardship and foster equitable growth.

Internally, the government is composed largely of individuals new to high-level administration, leading to potential inadequacies in governance. The limited experience of the new government team presents challenges in navigating complex decision-making processes, particularly in the wake of systemic corruption and mismanagement by their predecessors, which led to the country’s financial crisis. To restore public trust and institutional integrity, the new government will need to prioritize strategic policymaking, transparency, and institutional strengthening. Without addressing both economic constraints and governance inefficiencies, the government risks public disenchantment in the coming months.

The problem for the new government is that it needs to face the challenge of rebooting the economy with a team that is new to governance. The unfortunate reality is that the corruption and priority given to parochial interests by the governmental decision makers of the past was accompanied by support and similar compromises by those in the state administration. This has meant that the new government leaders have felt it necessary to appoint a set of new administrators to be in charge of the government machinery. Some of them may take longer than others to learn on the job, with the result that the government machinery is not working as effectively as it could in the short term.

Clean Lanka 

The problems that recently accompanied the Presidential Task Force for a Clean Sri Lanka and received adverse publicity may be attributed to taking on a mechanism that had its origins in an earlier initiative to deal primarily with environment related problems. According to this model the public sector is the “government or governmental institutions that provide policy directions, regulations and public services”. They are to work in partnership with the private sector which is “Business and private organisations that bring in resources, expertise and technology. They also contribute to the funding, innovation and efficiency of the partnership”. This model gave emphasis to public-private partnerships in which civil society would be the target to be “directly impacted by the partnership outcomes”.

The early initiatives of the Clean Lanka task force did not have the positive impact that was envisaged as it was non-consultative and attempted to enforce its views of the public-private partnership on target groups who felt victimized by the decisions made. The owners and drivers of private buses and trishaws who were the first targets have protested the decisions made. The environmental pollution and dangers to traffic that they were judged to be responsible for, was to them the outcome of their efforts to beautify and upgrade their modes of livelihood and which they had invested money in. The government has now agreed to a compromise where the proposed reforms have been given a time frame of three months to be implemented.

One of the initiatives of the government to deal constructively with this issue post-facto has been to invite civil society organisations to discuss the concept of the Clean Lanka task force and obtain their feedback. The government’s NGO Secretariat acted as the intermediary, inviting a select group of civil society organisations to a dialogue with the task force. This was a positive development as civil society groups have not been invited to participate in many of the government’s new initiatives. This has created an impression that the new government has been marginalizing them and relying instead on the government machinery and private sector. This negative impression has been strengthened by the sudden emergence of a set of government regulations that would erode their independence.

Modify Interventions 

Civil society organizations (CSOs) play a crucial role in democratic governance by addressing societal needs that neither the public sector (government) nor the private sector (businesses) fully meet. This is particularly significant for marginalized groups such as ethnic and religious minorities, women, and members of the LGBTIQ community, who often face systemic discrimination, lack of access to resources, and exclusion from political and economic decision-making processes. In many democratic societies, they function as a vital check on power, exposing corruption, abuses of authority, and failures in governance. Their work in areas such as investigative journalism, legal aid, and policy advocacy strengthens democratic institutions and ensures that governments remain responsive to citizens’ needs. As a result, the space for CSOs and NGOs is increasingly under threat worldwide.

Governments, especially authoritarian or semi-democratic regimes, often view civic organizations as adversaries rather than partners in governance. They impose restrictive laws, bureaucratic hurdles, and financial constraints to limit CSOs’ operations. Tactics such as criminalizing dissent, labeling NGOs as “foreign agents,” and employing digital surveillance further undermine their ability to function. CSOs in Sri Lanka have faced multiple attempts to restrict their independence for a variety of reasons. During the period of the war, some of them were accused of supporting the LTTE or undermining the government’s war effort. During the immediate post-war period they were accused of trying to revive the spirit of rebellion in the Tamil people and making the government vulnerable to international sanctions by supporting human rights initiatives.

At the present time, there are claims that NGOs pose a threat to international law by engaging in criminal money laundering. A new set of NGO regulations have suddenly emerged to subject them to government control. These include compelling NGOs to submit the names of their directors to the government for its approval. However, discussions with government leaders presents a more nuanced picture of reality. The government position on CSOs has not been formally conveyed but it is reported that President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has expressed his desire for an NGO-friendly government position. These positive sentiments and intentions will take some time to manifest themselves as the new government leaders and administrators become more familiar with the issues and apply their values and principles to administer the country.