By Asoka S. Seneviratne –

As Sri Lanka continues its arduous journey toward economic stabilization, the national discourse has unfortunately been cluttered with political theatrics. Recent public commentary regarding the country’s looming foreign debt obligations—specifically the US$14.7 billion debt repayment milestone slated for 2028—has revealed a troubling pattern of fear-mongering from former political leadership.

Rather than offering constructive policy alternatives or acknowledging accountability for the legacy of debt they left behind, certain political figures have resorted to apocalyptic rhetoric reminiscent of fairy tales. This article examines (i) the undeniable origins of our 2028 debt burden, (ii) contrasts the current government’s proactive export-led recovery strategy with past governance failures, and (iii) evaluates why cultivating a climate of fear serves partisan ambition rather than the national interest.

The 2028 Debt Horizon and the Burden of Accountability

The fiscal reality facing Sri Lanka is clear: the country must navigate substantial external debt repayments, culminating in significant refinancing and repayment demands around 2028. However, discussing these figures in a vacuum is intellectually dishonest.

Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe frequently raises alarms about these numbers as if he were a detached observer. The public must be reminded that he is, in fact, a principal architect of this very crisis. During the 2015–2019 administration, Mr. Wickremesinghe, alongside former President Maithripala Sirisena, aggressively borrowed over US$12 billion via International Sovereign Bonds (ISBs) at exorbitant, commercial interest rates. To lecture the nation now on obligations that their own administration compounded is a profound irony.

Furthermore, his attempts to distance himself from these fiscal outcomes ignore the hard economic data of his tenure. The reliance on short-term foreign borrowing did nothing to build productive export capacity or ease structural vulnerabilities. Instead, it systematically mortgaged future stability for immediate political expediency. To present himself today as an economic savior is an affront to collective public memory. The staggering debt maturities of 2028 are not an act of nature, but the direct harvest of policies he championed. History will record that those who sowed the seeds of this crisis cannot possibly be trusted to reap the solutions.

Cultivating a Fear Factor: Politics Over Policy

A former head of state carries a moral and institutional obligation to project stability, maturity, and constructive patriotism, especially during national recovery. Instead, recent public utterances from Mr. Wickremesinghe have deliberately cultivated an atmosphere of panic and impending doom—even vaguely invoking the specter of a conflict in 2028.

This is not the behavior of a statesman assisting a nation through recovery; it is the strategy of a political opportunist waiting for catastrophe to strike, hoping to position himself as a reluctant rescuer. Such a low and defeatist mentality is unworthy of someone who once held the highest office in the land and damages Sri Lanka’s credibility on the global stage.

Furthermore, using public platforms to sow panic rather than offering credible, substantive policy solutions reflects a profound bankruptcy of statesmanship. True leaders stand shoulder to shoulder with the public through periods of immense hardship, working constructively to lay down robust economic foundations. To actively root for institutional failure just to score partisan points is an egregious betrayal of public trust. When history evaluates this critical juncture, it will judge harshly those who prioritized their own political resurrection over the hard-fought stability of the nation. Sri Lanka deserves mature, steadfast stewardship, not hollow prophecies of doom delivered by the very figures who compromised its financial future.

Viconomics, Begonomics, and Horanomics: A Retrospective on Economic Mismanagement

The current economic fragility is not an act of God; it is the direct cumulative result of decades of structural mismanagement. According to a famous journalist in Sri Lanka, the hallmarks of past economic strategies can be accurately categorized into three damaging models:

Viconomics: The systematic disposal, leasing, or monetization of vital state assets and national resources to obtain short-term foreign-exchange or fiscal relief, without creating sufficient long-term productive value to strengthen the economy. Hambantota Port is a striking example. In 2017, the Sirisena–Wickremesinghe government entered into a 99-year concession with China Merchants Port, transferring a controlling interest in the port-operating company in return for an investment of about US$1.12 billion. The deeper problem was using a valuable national asset to relieve an immediate external-financing constraint rather than generating sustainable foreign exchange through exports and productivity growth.

Begonomics: The unmitigated habit of repeatedly running to international lenders for high-interest loans, only to squander those inflows on superficial luxuries, consumption, and politically expedient projects. This creates a vicious intergenerational cycle: borrow to spend, spend without creating sufficient productive capacity, face another financing gap, and borrow again, diverting scarce resources away from education, healthcare, and infrastructure.

Horanomics: Governance driven by systemic corruption, a lack of transparency, and patronage networks. It describes a political culture in which public institutions are captured by vested interests, public resources are treated as private spoils, and accountability is deliberately weakened to reward political allies and connected business interests.

The political generations that championed these methods are now lecturing the public on fiscal prudence. The public deserves not lectures from the architects of the past, but accountability, transparency, and a commitment to doing things differently.

Furthermore, those who presided over years of systemic fiscal erosion have forfeited any moral authority to dictate the terms of national recovery. Their sudden concern for the economy rings hollow against the backdrop of reckless borrowing and institutional neglect that crippled the nation’s productive capacity. True fiscal prudence is not a convenient political slogan to be weaponized in times of hardship, but a consistent discipline rooted in integrity and sound governance. Sri Lanka cannot afford to be lectured by individuals whose policy failures directly necessitated the painful correctives we now endure. The path forward demands an unyielding commitment to transparency, where accountability is demanded, and leaders are judged by their measurable contributions rather than empty rhetoric.

The Government’s Comprehensive Export-Led Strategy

In sharp contrast to past reactive borrowing, the current administration is addressing the 2028 obligations through a structured, multi-faceted approach. Rather than relying on high-interest commercial debt, the government is actively engineering a comprehensive export-led growth plan to systematically earn necessary foreign exchange (FX). BOI  & EDB are profoundly committed to the above.

This framework focuses on diversifying trade, boosting value-added manufacturing, encouraging foreign direct investment in productive sectors, and establishing rigorous fiscal discipline. The objective is clear: build genuine economic resilience from within rather than digging deeper holes through high-interest borrowing.

Navigating External Shocks: From Dithwa to El Niño

Managing a national economy requires resilience against both fiscal liabilities and exogenous shocks. Following past disruptions, the country now faces the looming, massive socioeconomic impacts of El Niño, which threatens agricultural output and rural livelihoods.

The government is proactively drafting robust adaptation and mitigation strategies to protect ordinary citizens from bearing the brunt of these environmental and economic pressures.

It is precisely during such compounding crises that responsible leadership is tested—a test that past leaders like Mr. Wickremesinghe consistently fail by prioritizing political point-scoring over national welfare.

Furthermore, to use periods of intense economic stabilization as opportunistic springboards for partisan attacks demonstrates an unpardonable disregard for the well-being of ordinary citizens. True leadership demands the courage to stand accountable for past governance failures rather than manufacturing panic to obscure one’s own legacy. When a nation is charting a difficult path toward recovery, peddling apocalyptic narratives is not merely irresponsible—it is a direct assault on collective hope and national resilience. History will judge harshly those who chose the path of obstruction and fear-mongering when the country needed steady, constructive stewardship above all else. Sri Lanka’s future cannot and will not be held hostage by those who proved incapable of managing its present.

Geopolitical Breathing Space and Strategic Stability

Amidst these domestic and environmental challenges, positive external shifts offer valuable breathing space. The easing of geopolitical tensions and turbulent situations in the Middle East provides vital relief, particularly in stabilizing global energy markets and supply chains.

Visionary leadership leverages such windows of stability to consolidate internal economic reforms and secure trade partnerships. Unfortunately, instead of recognizing or valuing these stabilizing factors, opportunistic politicians choose to ignore them in favor of peddling doomsday narratives.

Meritocracy Versus Populist Rhetoric

Sri Lanka’s path forward demands a decisive break from the politics of personality and hollow rhetoric. True national recovery requires strict adherence to meritocracy, data-driven planning, and transparent institutional performance scorecards—principles long advocated by economists and planners who prioritize national interest over party politics. When leaders substitute evidence-based governance with political theater, they betray the sacrifices made by ordinary citizens who bore the heaviest burdens of past economic collapses.

Summary

Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe’s public posturing regarding the 2028 debt obligations is a transparent attempt to disown responsibility for the very ISB-driven debt crisis his administration exacerbated. By substituting constructive national engagement with fear-mongering and prophecies of conflict, he demonstrates a profound lack of statesmanship.

Meanwhile, the current government continues to methodically manage the economy, absorbing external shocks like El Niño and building a sustainable, export-oriented framework with minimal burden on the populace. Sri Lanka’s future will not be rescued by those who broke the economy in the first place, but by disciplined, transparent, and merit-based governance.

Conclusion

As French diplomat and statesman Charles Maurice de Talleyrand famously observed of those who learn nothing and forget nothing from history:

“They have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing.”

This timeless observation captures the essence of political figures who return to the public stage offering recycled failures packaged as foresight. Sri Lanka must firmly close the chapter on “Cashew Grandpas” and Cinderella economic tales, anchoring its future to rigorous planning, accountability, and the resilience of its people.

*The author, among many,  served as the Special Adviser to the Office of the President of Namibia from 2006 to 2012 and was a senior consultant with the UNDP for 20 years, and a Senior Economist with the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (1972-1992). He can be reached at asoka.seneviratne@gmail.com