By Rusiripala Tennakoon –
Rusiripala Tennakoon
Across Sri Lanka, a visible pattern has emerged in recent months. Annual budgets presented by local authorities controlled by ruling party groups have increasingly been defeated. From municipal councils to urban councils, these developments reflect a growing national disquiet rather than isolated political incidents.
Several leading local bodies have been among those affected. In certain instances, controversial manoeuvres have followed—ranging from procedural manipulation to questionable alliances—highlighting the ruling groups’ own admission that electoral or democratic endorsement alone may no longer be sufficient to retain control.
However, these budget defeats are double-edged weapons. While they appear to signal opposition strength and public dissatisfaction, they also carry the risk of boomeranging against the victors if not handled with foresight, discipline, and responsibility.
The recent defeat of the Colombo Municipal Council (CMC) budget offers a clear illustration of this danger.
A procedural victory without a substantive narrative
The CMC budget was defeated by a slender margin of just three votes. Yet, beyond the act of voting itself, there was no visible or publicly articulated critique of the budget’s inherent weaknesses. No structured objections, technical analyses, or alternative proposals were placed before the public in a systematic manner.
In such circumstances, the general public may understandably view the exercise as politically vindictive rather than principled. The absence of clearly stated reasons allows room for the perception that the opposition merely united to defeat the ruling group, not to defend the interests of Colombo’s citizens.
This is particularly significant because the law permits a defeated budget to be re-presented—largely unchanged—on the grounds that essential municipal services cannot be held hostage to political deadlock. In the absence of a recorded and reasoned critique, the ruling group can claim moral and legal legitimacy in doing so.
The reality behind the numbers
Yet the reality is far more troubling. The budget presented by the NPP-led administration reflects a worrying lack of administrative experience, fiscal realism, and institutional memory.
The most glaring weakness lies in its revenue projections.
Actual total revenue of the CMC amounted to approximately Rs. 15.6 billion in 2024, while revenue for the first nine months of 2025 stood at around Rs. 12.47 billion. Against this backdrop, the 2026 budget projects a total revenue figure of nearly Rs. 28 billion—almost a doubling of actual performance.
Such an assumption would be ambitious even under conditions of sweeping structural reform, improved collection efficiency, and the introduction of new revenue instruments. None of these have been credibly demonstrated.
Major sources of self-generated income—such as rates, taxes, rents, charges, sales, and interest—have historically underperformed relative to estimates. Yet the new budget fails to account for these past realities, instead presenting figures that appear preposterous when measured against empirical data from 2023, 2024, and 2025.
Nearly 26% of projected revenue is expected from external and anticipatory sources such as grants, reimbursements, and assistance. These inflows are inherently uncertain, subject to central government cash-flow constraints and policy changes, and lie outside the Council’s direct control.
Building recurrent expenditure and ambitious capital programmes on such speculative income is not prudent financial management—it is fiscal adventurism.
Expenditure built on illusion
The expenditure side of the budget compounds the risk. Recurrent expenditure is estimated at Rs. 16.79 billion, while capital expenditure accounts for over Rs. 12 billion, representing nearly 42% of total spending.
Capital expenditure of this magnitude demands rigorous prioritisation, phased implementation, and assured funding sources. None of these safeguards are adequately articulated. The projected surplus of Rs. 576 million is therefore not the product of efficiency or discipline, but of inflated revenue assumptions disconnected from reality.
Such budgeting practices invite stalled projects, unpaid contractor claims, service disruptions, and future liabilities that ultimately burden the citizens of Colombo.
The responsibility of the opposition
For the opposition, the lesson is clear. Unity at the point of voting is not enough. Without a coherent strategy, documented critique, and institutional engagement, political victories remain hollow.
The immediate task before opposition councillors is to translate their temporary unity into effective institutional oversight. Control and active participation in statutory committees—particularly finance, audit, and works committees—provide the legal and procedural tools necessary to safeguard the Council from mismanagement.
A responsible opposition must act as a shadow administration: scrutinising assumptions, questioning projections, demanding accountability, and offering alternative policy pathways. This is not obstruction. It is governance.
If such vigilance is absent, the ruling group may proceed unchecked, shielded by procedural legality while presiding over decisions that could irreversibly damage the financial stability of the CMC.
In moments like this, the real contest is not between parties—but between illusion and reality, between political theatre and public responsibility.
