By Raj Sivanathan –

The recent meeting between President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and representatives of the newly formed council of six Tamil and Muslim political parties should have represented a turning point in Sri Lanka’s efforts to resolve long-standing constitutional and governance issues. Instead, it has reinforced a growing public perception that political dialogue continues to substitute for political decision-making.

The representatives placed before the President a comprehensive list of concerns affecting Tamil-speaking communities, including constitutional reform, the long-delayed Provincial Council elections, land administration, and the actions of state institutions such as the Department of Archaeology, the Forest Department, and the Mahaweli Authority in the Northern, Eastern and Hill Country regions. These are not new grievances. They have been raised repeatedly by elected representatives, civil society organisations and affected communities over many years.

The President welcomed the establishment of a common forum bringing together Tamil and Muslim political parties and expressed appreciation for their decision to present these issues collectively. Such recognition is important. Constructive engagement between the Government and elected representatives remains essential in any democratic society.

However, dialogue alone cannot substitute for policy decisions.

The most significant issue discussed was the future of the Provincial Council system. For almost two years, the Government has consistently maintained that it is committed to conducting Provincial Council elections. Yet, following another high-level meeting, the public once again heard the familiar response that further discussions would be held with the committee chaired by Minister Vijitha Herath before any decision is announced.

This inevitably raises a legitimate public question:

If the Government’s position has remained unchanged for nearly two years, what practical purpose did this meeting serve?

The Provincial Council system is not a discretionary political arrangement. It is a constitutional institution established under the 13th Amendment and remains part of Sri Lanka’s constitutional framework. Regardless of differing political opinions regarding devolution, the continued postponement of Provincial Council elections creates an increasingly difficult constitutional and democratic question.

Representative democracy depends upon functioning institutions. Elections are not optional exercises that can be postponed indefinitely for administrative convenience or political calculation. When elected provincial institutions remain inactive for years, public confidence in constitutional governance inevitably declines.

This meeting therefore represented more than another consultation with minority political parties. It was an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate that constitutional commitments would be matched by administrative action, that political dialogue would produce measurable outcomes, and that difficult decisions would no longer be deferred.

That opportunity was missed.

Equally significant is the emergence of a united platform involving both Tamil and Muslim political parties. Despite their political differences, these parties have chosen to engage the Government through a common democratic forum. In a country where ethnic politics has often been characterised by fragmentation, this represents a constructive political development that deserves serious engagement rather than prolonged procedural responses.

Many Sri Lankans voted for President Anura Kumara Dissanayake believing his administration would depart from the decision-making culture of previous governments. Transparency, accountability and decisive governance were expected to become defining characteristics of the new administration. While structural reforms inevitably require careful consultation, consultation cannot become a permanent substitute for executive decision-making.

Political leadership is ultimately judged not by the number of meetings conducted, but by the willingness to make decisions on issues that successive governments have allowed to remain unresolved.

The Government still has an opportunity to restore public confidence.

It should announce a clear and realistic timetable for Provincial Council elections. It should publicly explain the remaining legal and administrative measures required to conduct those elections. It should also establish transparent mechanisms to address long-standing disputes concerning land administration, state institutions and governance in the Northern and Eastern Provinces.

These are not extraordinary political concessions. They are matters of constitutional governance, democratic accountability and equal citizenship.

The representatives of the Tamil and Muslim political parties have fulfilled their democratic responsibility by presenting the concerns of their communities directly to the Head of State.

The responsibility now rests with the Government.

Sri Lanka does not require another round of consultations without conclusions.

It requires decisions.

Because ultimately, democratic legitimacy is strengthened not by the number of dialogues a government convenes, but by the courage to convert dialogue into action.

History will judge this administration not by the promises it repeated, but by the commitments it finally fulfilled.