By Rajan Philips –

Rajan Philips

“Elections have consequences,” President Barak Obama triumphantly told congressional Republicans in 2009, as he began his historic first term as the first African-American President of the United States of America. But the election of Trump eight years later and Trump’s election again in 2024 have turned the tables on Obama’s boast. It is Trump and his MAGA (Make America Great Again) Republicans who are now crowing the throwback to Obama: “Elections have consequences!” More broadly, the election-consequence dialectic is also appropriate because 2024 was a year of exceptionally large number of elections and the consequences of their results are bound to be processed through much of the year 2025.

According to the National Democratic Institute that keeps a worldwide tab on elections, more than 100 countries had elections in 2024 including eight of the world’s ten most populous countries, viz., Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Russia and the United States, as well as the European Union. Of the two outliers, China has its own system, and Nigeria will have its general election in 2025.

More tellingly, in more than 80 countries the incumbent governing parties saw a fall in their vote share from the previous election; in a good number of them governing parties were thrown out of office. Such a large volume of turnovers has never happened before according to election chroniclers, not since 1905 when elections data base was started and not since 1894 when universal franchise was first introduced. In Brazil, Indonesia, the US and the UK, the incumbent governments were defeated. In Japan, the governing Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) was reduced to a minority government. In India and South Africa, the governing BJP and ANC held on to power but had their parliamentary majorities significantly reduced.

There were six elections in South Asia alone – besides the three sub-continental biggies, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Maldives held national elections in 2024. Bangladesh was the first to go with elections in January 2024 and the governing Awami League retaining power as expected, but against a handicapped opposition. What was not expected is that within eight months the Awami League government would be overthrown by a youth uprising and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina would be forced to flee the country after being in office for 15 years.

But the interim government in Bangladesh that was set up to provide a bridge to new elections and a newly elected government is overwhelmed by the challenges of governing and restoring normalcy. And Bangladesh, 53 years after its fiery birth in 1971, is once again caught up in yet another phase of chaos and uncertainty. In Pakistan, the February elections were made inconclusive and the Pakistan Muslim League of the Sharifs managed to hobble together a coalition government that kept Imran Khan in jail and his PTI party in opposition. Economic stability is said to have been restored but the political instability over Imran Khan continues.

A new twist to the plot is apparently originating in Washington. President elect Trump is reported to have picked Richard Grenell, a Trump loyalist with deep Republican roots, as his envoy for special missions abroad. Mr. Grenell is the most noted American supporter of Imran Khan and soon after his appointment by Trump, Grenell has posted on X – “Free Imran Khan!” Grenell has also compared Imran Khan’s jail trouble to Trump’s indictments in the US. Grenell’s new appointment and his support of Imran Khan has triggered speculations and discussions in Washington and in Pakistan.   

Sri Lankan Oasis

Relatively speaking, Sri Lanka has come out of its two national elections in 2024, quite unscathed unlike many other countries. This is all the more remarkable because of the momentous transfer of power from a decadent bunch of political bandicoots to a new generation of leaders and parliamentarians who are also the legatees of an old movement that was notorious for its intolerance, violence and even chauvinism. The credit and kudos truly belong to the people who through the peaceful exercise of their voting rights brought about sweeping changes in the executive and the legislature.

Truth be told, Sri Lankans have had their miseries for decades on end. The insurrection of 1971 and the riots of 1977 and 1981, not to mention the riots of 1958, were isolated occurrences and are now distant memories. But what began with the referendum of 1982 has been a steady and sequential unfolding of one crisis after another – the riots of 1983, the outbreak of Tamil political violence, the Indian intervention and second JVP uprising, long devastating periods of war between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan Army that ended in 2009, and the Rajapaksa era of the 21^st century that followed and precipitated its own implosion by provoking the aragalaya protests. It has been a relentless four decades of crises and chaos aggravated by the tsunami disaster twenty years ago – on December 26, 2004.

The people deserve the political respite that they have got for themselves by exercising their vote in the two national elections. Those elections too will have consequences, but they must be positive. And it is the responsibility of the new NPP government to make them positive by using its executive and legislative powers to deliver sustainable political stability and economic growth.

Last week, I suggested that President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and his NPP government have made a solid, if not spectacular, start in their first hundred days. One would hope that the solidity of governance will continue in 2025 and that there will be other indications throughout the year of the government’s positive intentions and initiatives.

Already, the President has indicated that the local government and provincial council elections will be held in 2025 and there have also been statements that the government is planning to introduce new constitutional changes within three years. So, we can expect considerable movements on these fronts in 2025. Another test for the new government will be in dealing with UNHRC in Geneva and it will be interesting to see how this encounter will play out given the NPP government’s new approach to an old problem.

The elephant in the cabinet room will of course be the economy. And there are several aspects to it. The government has its work cut out in dealing with rice crisis and food security. On the external front, the government’s main concern should be about expanding Sri Lanka’s export base in a systematic manner. This has not happened in forty seven years of economic liberalization and the sole exception has been the garment industry.

Even the garment sector is reportedly showing signs of stagnation, and its leading brands are relocating their production capacities to other countries. And the main garment industry still lacks its supporting industries for producing capital goods, spare parts and tools – all of which are still imported for garment production. In addition, the garment industry and manufacturing in general are hampered by high utility costs, infrastructure limitations and skilled labour shortages, which make Sri Lankan exports uncompetitive in the global market.   

The government should also pay attention to the technical (not left-ideological) criticisms of Sri Lanka’s debt restructuring agreements that were entered into by former President Ranil Wickremesinghe. Fo instance, analyzing the controversial Bond Deal in July 2024, Brad Setser an US Economist with the Council on Foreign Relations, has expressed concern that, “rather than reducing the risk of future debt trouble, Sri Lanka’s macro-linked bonds set up the risk that Sri Lanka will fall back into debt trouble in 2029 or 2030.”

The NPP government has rightly indicated that it could not repudiate the agreements entered into by Ranil Wickremesinghe. Even so, it is worthwhile taking a second look at the issue and even ask the former President for his opinion on the technical criticisms of the bond deal and to assess any potential risk that Sri Lanka might be facing in five or six years. The purpose here is not to assign political blame but to have a realistic assessment of potential future risks to the country that might be in the commitments that have been made for the modalities of debt repayment.