By Asoka S. Seneviratne –

Prof. Asoka.S. Seneviratne

“The duty of an Opposition is to propose nothing, to oppose everything, and to turn out the Government.” ~ Lord Randolph Churchill (though often cited to illustrate the adversarial nature of politics, modern democratic theory adds a crucial caveat: this must be done in the national interest).

According to the principles of democracy and the British Westminster tradition, the Opposition is not merely a collection of critics; it is a vital, institutionalized component of a functioning parliament. It is the “Government-in-waiting.” Its existence ensures that power is not concentrated, that the executive remains accountable, and that the public always has a viable alternative. However, the current political landscape in Sri Lanka reveals a troubling shift. What we see today is not a “Loyal Opposition” but a fragmented collection of “opponents” whose actions often subvert the very democratic stability they claim to protect. This article explores the critical distinction between a functional “Opposition”—an institution of the state—and mere “opponents”—individuals or groups motivated by personal or partisan grievance.

The Westminster Ideal: A Partner in Governance

In the Westminster tradition, the Opposition is formally titled “His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.” The word “Loyal” is paramount—it signifies that while the party opposes the government’s policies, it remains loyal to the state and its institutions. A true Opposition acts as a watchdog, utilizing “Question Time” and “Shadow Cabinets” to provide rigorous scrutiny. It does not just say “no”; it explains “how” it would do better. In Sri Lanka, this institutionalized role has been replaced by a reactionary culture where opposition is personal rather than policy-driven.

The Numerical Crisis and the “National List” Performers

Following the political tsunami of the recent elections, the opposition has dwindled to just over 50 members against a government of 159. This imbalance has birthed a desperate style of politics. Among the remaining few, several entered Parliament via the National List, bypassing the crucible of a popular vote. Lacking a direct mandate, these members often resort to shouting and disruptive behavior to signal their presence. This is the mark of an opponent seeking attention, not an Opposition seeking better legislation.

Bitterness of the Displaced Elite

A significant portion of the current parliamentary opposition consists of former ministers and deputies. Having lost the perks of executive power, their “opposition” often feels like a prolonged grievance. Their noise in the chamber is frequently untethered from the bills at hand; it is instead a manifestation of power withdrawal. When legislators shout because they are no longer in control, they cease to function as a check on power and become a hindrance to the democratic process itself.

Defending the Indefensible: Corruption as “Victimization“

The most striking difference between a constructive Opposition and a destructive opponent is seen in the face of the law. A true Opposition upholds the integrity of the state. In Sri Lanka, however, we see the opposition rallying to defend party members prosecuted for bribery, waste, and corruption. By labeling judicial outcomes as “political victimization”—even when guilt is proven—they abandon their role as the nation’s ethical watchdog. They protect the “opponent” at the cost of the institution.

Obstructionism in the Face of National Crisis

In times of national disaster, the Westminster tradition dictates that the Opposition acts in the national interest. Yet, during the Dithwa  cyclone, the opposition chose to criticize the government’s relief efforts—which were significant—rather than providing support. Whether it is the humanitarian assistance to sunken Iranian ship victims or clarifying facts on the quality Charcoal imports, the opposition’s default mode is rejection. By refusing to acknowledge any government success, they lose the credibility required to critique government failures.

The Policy Vacuum: Where are the Alternatives?

The hallmark of an Opposition is the “Alternative Policy.” Currently, Sri Lankan opponents speak of “alternative” DSA (Debt Sustainability Analysis) frameworks or IMF deals, yet they provide no data. They demand tax reductions while ignoring the reality of state revenue. They claim to have solutions for the drug mafia and economic rapid-growth but keep these “programs” hidden. A group that offers no blueprint is not an Opposition; it is merely a group of critics waiting for the government to fail.

Summary 

The distinction between an Opposition and an opponent is the difference between a doctor and a heckler. The doctor identifies the ailment (the policy flaw) and prescribes a cure (the alternative). The heckler merely enjoys the sight of the patient suffering. Sri Lanka currently suffers from an overabundance of hecklers. From the misuse of the National List to the reflex of crying “victimization” whenever a corrupt official is caught, the current parliamentary minority has strayed far from the Westminster ideal of a “Loyal Opposition.”

A robust democracy requires a strong, constructive Opposition to prevent the concentration of power and maintain a vibrant discourse. When the opposition fails to offer alternatives and focuses instead on mindless obstructionism, the entire democratic experiment is weakened. For Sri Lanka to move forward, its political minority must evolve from being mere “opponents” of the government to becoming a true “Opposition” for the people.

*The writer, 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. He was a Senior Economist with the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (1972-1993). He can be reached at asoka.seneviratne@gmail.com