By Fareez Farook –

Fareez Farook

Sri Lanka finds itself at a critical juncture, the kind of moment in history that reveals the entrenched contradictions of power structures and opens a fleeting opportunity for radical change. For decades, the country has been locked in a cycle of political manipulation, where a ruling elite, detached from the needs of the population, has leveraged state resources for personal enrichment. This small, insular class has repeatedly siphoned wealth from the people, ensuring the persistence of economic hardship for the masses while they enjoy the privileges of power. Yet, with the election of Anura Kumara Dissanayake, a figure who presents himself as a humble representative of the people, Sri Lanka might be facing a rare moment: the possibility to upend this corrupt system.

However, it would be naïve to think that a single election or a solitary leader can rectify the deeply ingrained issues that define Sri Lanka’s political landscape. Power, as history has repeatedly shown, is rarely relinquished voluntarily. Those who have long benefited from the existing structure—political elites, business oligarchs, religious factions—will not disappear quietly into the night. It is in this context that we must analyze whether the current moment is an opening for substantive, structural transformation or simply a reconfiguration of power within the same framework of exploitation.

Unmasking the Political Reality

To understand how a society comes to be ruled by corrupt interests, it is necessary to explore the mechanisms of control. The ruling classes in Sri Lanka, much like their counterparts elsewhere, have long maintained their grip on power through a combination of coercion and consent—relying on both the violence of the state and the complicity of the populace.

The rise of President Dissanayake, at least in rhetoric, represents a rejection of this old order. His promises of transparency, simplicity, and a governance model centered on public welfare rather than private accumulation offer a sharp contrast to the behavior of his predecessors. The excessive wealth and luxurious lifestyles enjoyed by former leaders—fueled by taxes extracted from a struggling population—are emblematic of the broader global phenomenon where the state apparatus is employed not for the public good but to enrich a select few. As Karl Marx wrote, “The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.”

The critical question facing Sri Lanka is whether Dissanayake’s government can disrupt this system or if it will be absorbed into the very structures it seeks to reform. Can this administration, given the deep entrenchment of economic and political elites, genuinely serve the interests of the people, or will it merely replicate the failures of the past under a new guise?

The Necessity of Institutional Change

Any serious attempt to dismantle corruption must go beyond surface-level reforms and challenge the fundamental institutions that perpetuate it. Sri Lanka’s political framework has long been characterized by a concentration of power in a narrow elite. This power manifests not only in formal political office but also in the extensive networks of patronage, business interests, and religious factions that hold sway over the state.

Decentralization and Transparency

One of the first steps to curtailing corruption is to decentralize power and create genuine mechanisms of accountability. Yet, decentralization in itself is not a panacea. If not accompanied by robust institutional checks, it risks devolving power into local fiefdoms, where corruption is simply redistributed. Transparency must extend to all facets of governance. Sri Lanka could look to models like Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), which has gained global recognition for its role in combating corruption. Singapore’s transformation, though often lauded, was not just the result of top-down measures but also the enforcement of laws that treated all citizens—elite and commoner alike—equally.

Yet, it must be understood that Singapore’s experience, while instructive, is not entirely replicable. Singapore’s anti-corruption drive worked in a global environment where it had favorable conditions—investment, a strategic location, and an authoritarian model that could suppress dissent in the name of development. Sri Lanka, on the other hand, has far more complex social dynamics, including entrenched ethnic and religious divisions that have historically been exploited by political actors.

The Rule of Law and the Judiciary

The judiciary, ideally an impartial enforcer of the law, is often co-opted by powerful interests. In Sri Lanka, the legal system has frequently been manipulated to serve the interests of those in power, leaving ordinary citizens to fend for themselves in a system rigged against them. For any meaningful change, the judiciary must operate independently of political influence. This cannot simply be a superficial change but must involve a comprehensive overhaul, including protections for judicial appointments and tenure, transparency in legal proceedings, and the establishment of an independent anti-corruption commission with the power to investigate and prosecute cases without interference.

In a society that has been conditioned to accept corruption as an inevitable feature of governance, the role of whistleblowers becomes essential. But, without legal safeguards, whistleblowers are routinely silenced through intimidation or violence. Sri Lanka must institute rigorous protections for those who expose corruption, ensuring that they are not punished for challenging the system.

Economic Justice and Inequality

The corrupt political system in Sri Lanka is closely tied to economic exploitation. Past administrations prioritized the accumulation of wealth for a select few, leaving the majority of the population in poverty or near-poverty conditions. Public resources were diverted into vanity projects and unnecessary luxuries while essential services like healthcare, education, and social welfare were neglected.

The economic model that prioritizes growth for the elite while ignoring the needs of the many is unsustainable. Economic redistribution, through progressive taxation, land reform, and the dismantling of monopolies, must be a cornerstone of any strategy to create a just society. The creation of a welfare state that ensures universal access to basic needs is not only a moral imperative but also a practical necessity if Sri Lanka is to avoid future social upheaval.

Unity Beyond Religious and Ethnic Divisions

Sri Lanka’s political class has long capitalized on religious and ethnic divisions to maintain power. Sectarian politics has allowed the elite to deflect attention from systemic inequalities by pitting various communities against one another. The politics of identity has been used to obscure the real economic and social issues that plague the country.

President Dissanayake, in contrast to many of his predecessors, has advocated for a secular government that transcends these divisions. Yet, the task of dismantling sectarian politics is formidable. It requires a sustained effort to reframe the national discourse, shifting away from the manipulation of religious sentiment and towards an emphasis on solidarity across lines of ethnicity, caste, and language.

This cannot be accomplished by rhetoric alone. The entire political and educational infrastructure must be reoriented to foster a national identity that prioritizes the collective well-being of all citizens. The success of such a project depends not only on the government but on the active participation of the people in rejecting the old frameworks of division.

As Antonio Gramsci pointed out, “The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.” Sri Lanka’s current state is one where the old forms of governance and power are collapsing, but the shape of the new has yet to fully materialize. The risk is that, in this vacuum, new forms of authoritarianism, oppression, or exploitation could take root unless vigilant action is taken by the people to guard against them.

Conclusion: A Moment of Choice

Sri Lanka now stands at a crossroads. The election of Anura Kumara Dissanayake represents, potentially, a break from the past. Yet, to achieve a genuinely just and corruption-free society, the country must not only rely on the goodwill of a single leader but also on the active engagement of its citizenry. The structures that have perpetuated inequality and corruption must be dismantled through collective action.

Power, as history shows, will not concede without a struggle. If the people of Sri Lanka fail to grasp this moment, they risk allowing the same old patterns to reassert themselves in new forms. To paraphrase George Orwell, “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims… but accomplices.” The choice is now in their hands.