By Lionel Bopage –

Dr. Lionel Bopage

The 2025 local government elections in Sri Lanka have sparked widespread political debate—and rightly so. These elections mark a turning point in the country’s grassroots political landscape. But as the dust settles, it is crucial to approach the results with analytical clarity rather than fall into the trap of misleading comparisons with presidential or parliamentary contests.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to fault analysts for drawing comparisons between these results and national elections. After all, the NPP campaigned for these local elections with the full weight of national leadership behind them. Both the President and the Prime Minister actively canvassed across the country, lending the elections a high-profile character. In doing so, the NPP invited national-level scrutiny of elections. From this perspective, the results highlight a sobering truth: despite such a concerted effort, the government struggled to maintain or earn the trust, confidence, and interest of the electorate, including from minority communities whose support has historically been critical.

Understanding the Nature of Local Elections

Local government elections are fundamentally distinct from national polls. They usually revolve around immediate, community-level issues—waste management, infrastructure, and public services—not the sweeping national ideologies that dominate presidential or parliamentary contests. Voter behaviour in these elections reflects this difference: turnout is typically lower, as some citizens see local polls as less consequential. Indeed, this election’s turnout was 61.88%, a reminder that enthusiasm at the grassroots does not always mirror national-level mobilisation.

Yet within this local context, the rise of the National People’s Power (NPP) is undeniably significant. Garnering 4.5 million votes (43.26%) and winning 3,927 out of 8,793 seats across the country, the NPP has emerged as the largest political force in Sri Lankan local government. It now leads in 266 councils—including 23 Municipal Councils, 26 Urban Councils, and 217 Pradeshiya Sabhas—signalling a decisive shift in voter sentiment at the community level.

Context Matters: Why Comparing Elections is Misleading

Some commentators have drawn direct lines between these local results and national election outcomes. But such comparisons can be misleading. Local, parliamentary, and presidential elections operate in distinct political ecosystems with varying voter motivations and engagement levels. Comparing them without regard for these dynamics is not only analytically flawed—it risks distorting the true significance of these results.

If anything, the NPP’s gains should be measured against prior local elections. And by that standard, the outcome is historic. The Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), with 21.69% of the vote and 1,767 seats, came a distant second. The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), once dominant, dropped to just 9.17% and failed to secure leadership in any local council. The United National Party (UNP) fared even worse, 4.69% of the vote and no council control. These numbers make it clear: the NPP has reshaped the local political map.

Voter Suppression and Misinformation

The NPP’s success is even more remarkable considering the obstacles it faced. The opposition, benefiting from the backing of many private media organisations and ample campaign funding, flooded the electorate with unverified claims and propaganda. Among the most prominent was the accusation that NPP leader AKD had invested in a Greek shipping company—a story that circulated widely before any response could be offered.

In the North and East, more insidious disinformation campaigns unfolded. Social media falsely linked Tamil-language campaign songs associated with Tamil nationalism and the LTTE to NPP MP Ilankumaran, despite no connection whatsoever. These tactics—employing fear and falsehood—are hallmarks of a political establishment losing its grip on power.

Other structural factors, like holding the election on a weekday rather than a public holiday, also likely reduced turnout. Coupled with voter fatigue and the general perception that local elections are less impactful than national ones, these issues dampened participation at a moment of potentially transformative change.

The Myth of “Liars vs. Criminals”

A particularly cynical narrative posits that voters had to choose between “liars” (NPP) and “criminals” (traditional parties). This logic collapses under scrutiny. Of 17 million eligible voters, only about 10 million cast ballots. The remaining 7 million did not vote—not because they were making a moral calculation, but likely due to a mix of disengagement, misinformation, and disillusionment.

Among those who did vote, the largest bloc chose the NPP. Rather than endorsing dishonesty, this signals a desire for an alternative to the deeply entrenched culture of corruption and impunity that characterises Sri Lanka’s traditional political class. Attempts to simplify the electorate’s motivations into binaries of “lies” and “crimes” not only insult public intelligence but also ignore the complexity of Sri Lanka’s current political awakening.

The Old Guard’s Desperation

If any doubt remained about the establishment’s resistance to change, it was dispelled by reports of post-election negotiations aimed at forming alliances among the SJB, UNP, and SLPP to block the NPP from securing council leaderships, even in areas where it won the most seats. This blatant subversion of democratic outcomes reinforces the view that Sri Lanka’s traditional political elite is more interested in preserving power than respecting the people’s will.

That said, the NPP must recognise that effective governance requires engagement across party lines. Not all members of rival camps are corrupt, and the NPP must be willing to collaborate where possible to deliver results. Maintaining democratic values in the aftermath of an electoral victory is just as important as campaigning on them.

Challenges from Within: Signs of Internal Contradictions

However, the NPP’s conduct during and after the elections raises some troubling questions about its commitment to the very “new political culture” it has championed. While the NPP’s rhetoric has consistently emphasised democratic renewal and clean governance, certain statements made by senior NPP leaders—including the President—veered into authoritarian and discriminatory territory. These remarks, directed toward specific communities, cast a shadow over the NPP’s reformist image.

More concerning is the apparent lack of corrective action. Some NPP spokespersons appeared emboldened by the NPP’s successes, showing signs of hubris and dismissing constructive criticism. Instead of using their platform to model the inclusive, accountable leadership they promised, they sometimes responded to dissent with condescension. The leadership’s silence in the face of such behaviour risks undermining public confidence in the NPP’s authenticity and moral credibility.

A Turning Point in Grassroots Politics

Ultimately, the 2025 local government elections reflect more than just discontent with the status quo—they reveal an electorate in search of honest, effective, and responsive leadership. The NPP’s rise is a testament to the power of grassroots mobilisation and the growing demand for political alternatives that speak to everyday concerns.

If the traditional parties double down on obstruction and misinformation, they may only deepen their estrangement from the public. Conversely, if the NPP takes seriously the responsibility that comes with its electoral mandate—by maintaining transparency, curbing internal authoritarianism, and fostering inclusive dialogue—it has the potential not only to reshape local governance but to usher in a long-awaited transformation of Sri Lankan political culture.