By Anura K. T. De Silva –

Since gaining independence, Sri Lanka has struggled with persistent political stagnation, characterized by entrenched leadership, dynastic influence, and the concentration of political power within a relatively narrow circle of families and party elites. Political dynasties associated with the Bandaranaikes, Premadasas, Rajapaksas, and Wickremesinghes have played prominent roles in successive governments, often reinforcing a political culture in which retaining power takes precedence over fundamental structural reform. This entrenched system has constrained opportunities for fresh leadership and innovative economic thinking, while political crossovers and shifting parliamentary alliances have, at times, weakened legislative independence and accountability.

Patronage networks, nepotism, and the recurring exploitation of ethno-religious divisions have further undermined public confidence in governance. Rather than consistently addressing the country’s structural economic and institutional weaknesses, political actors have too often relied on short-term populism and identity-based mobilization to maintain their support. The result has been a system that struggles to renew itself, respond to changing public expectations, and hold those in power accountable.

The resulting institutional failures and limited opportunities for meaningful political participation have contributed to widespread public frustration, particularly among younger generations. Youth discontent was a significant factor in the insurrections of 1971 and 1987–1989, although these uprisings also had distinct ideological, social, and political causes. Decades later, the economic collapse of 2022, marked by severe shortages of food, fuel, medicines, and other essentials, brought public anger to a historic breaking point. The Aragalaya protest movement challenged the political establishment and exposed the consequences of prolonged failures in governance.

The elections of late 2024 subsequently marked a significant political realignment, rejecting many established political figures and dynastic power structures. The new Parliament represented a substantial generational and political renewal, with more than two-thirds of its members entering Parliament for the first time. This was an important democratic reset, but a change in political personnel alone cannot guarantee a transformation in the culture or structure of governance.

We should welcome this political reset without mistaking it for the completion of democratic reform

The prevailing system remains vulnerable to political loyalty taking precedence over public responsibility, with parties and personalities often commanding greater authority and allegiance than the citizens they are elected to serve. Replacing established political actors with new ones will not, by itself, eliminate these structural incentives. We must therefore reconsider the assumption that governance should be a permanent political career and explore ways to make public service a temporary civic responsibility rather than a route to enduring political power and privilege.

One promising approach is sortition—the selection of citizens by random draw to participate in public decision-making. Rooted in the democratic practices of ancient Athens, sortition offers an alternative or complement to representative electoral politics. Properly designed, it can reduce dependence on electioneering, political fundraising, and party machinery while creating greater opportunities for citizens to engage in impartial deliberation, evidence-based debate, and informed decision-making in the public interest. Random selection, combined with demographic representation, independent facilitation, expert testimony, and transparent procedures, can bring a broader cross-section of society into governance.

Sortition is not merely a theoretical proposition; contemporary democracies have already demonstrated its practical potential

In 2019, the German-speaking Community of Belgium established a permanent Citizens’ Dialogue framework combining a standing Citizens’ Council with deliberative citizens’ panels. Ireland has used citizens’ assemblies to examine highly contentious social and constitutional questions, including marriage equality and abortion. These assemblies brought randomly selected citizens together to hear expert evidence, consider competing perspectives, and formulate recommendations. Their work helped inform public debate and subsequent constitutional referendums on issues that had long presented significant political challenges.

At the municipal level, Paris established a permanent Citizens’ Assembly in 2021, while other European cities have experimented with deliberative bodies and hybrid models that bring randomly selected residents into dialogue with elected representatives. These experiences demonstrate that sortition can complement existing democratic institutions, although the powers, permanence, and influence of such bodies differ across jurisdictions. They also highlight an important principle: randomly selected citizens need not replace elected representatives to make a meaningful contribution to democratic accountability.

Sri Lanka should consider adapting this approach to strengthen constitutional governance and protect the public interest

Alongside reforming parliamentary representation to better reflect the population’s age and gender composition, the country could establish a permanent, sortition-based National Citizens’ Council as an independent institution complementing the elected legislature. Such a Council would provide a structured mechanism for informed public participation, bringing a demographically representative cross-section of citizens into deliberations on national policy, institutional accountability, and long-term structural reforms.

The Council could comprise a demographically representative cross-section of Sri Lankan citizens, selected through a transparent and independently administered lottery, with appropriate safeguards to ensure inclusion across regions, age groups, genders, socioeconomic backgrounds, and communities. Members could serve staggered, temporary terms, for example, one year, with adequate training, independent expert support, public hearings, and access to relevant government information.

Its constitutional mandate could include scrutinizing major macroeconomic policies and long-term fiscal commitments, reviewing the performance and independence of public institutions, examining proposed structural reforms, and convening national deliberations on issues requiring broad public consensus. It could also assess proposed appointments to independent commissions through transparent hearings and publish reasoned recommendations, subject to clearly defined constitutional procedures that preserve the lawful appointment powers of the relevant authorities.

To prevent the Council from becoming another political instrument, its composition, funding, procedures, and access to information would need strong legal protections. Its recommendations and the government’s responses should be published, with Parliament required to consider significant findings through a transparent process. Any authority to compel information, initiate investigations, or review appointments would need to be explicitly defined, proportionate, and consistent with the independence of existing constitutional institutions.

Such a Council would not eliminate the need for elections, political parties, or parliamentary representation. Instead, it would introduce an additional layer of democratic accountability, allowing ordinary citizens to contribute directly to deliberation and oversight without having to become career politicians or our democratic processes hijacked by political parties. Its purpose would be to complement electoral democracy with informed citizen participation, institutional scrutiny, and a longer-term perspective that extends beyond electoral cycles.

Sri Lanka’s experience has demonstrated that changing governments and political leaders is not enough if the underlying incentives and institutional arrangements remain unchanged. The deeper challenge is to build a system in which public office is a responsibility rather than a privilege, political power is constrained by constitutional safeguards, and citizens retain meaningful influence between elections.

The ultimate objective should not simply be to change who governs Sri Lanka, but to transform how governance itself is exercised, scrutinized, and held accountable

By combining elected representation with carefully designed citizen deliberation and oversight, Sri Lanka could take a meaningful step towards a more inclusive, resilient, and genuinely accountable democracy.