By Firdous MHM –
Firdous MHM
The Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) government embodies the culmination of the Aragalaya—a people’s uprising that revealed Sri Lanka’s governance failures rooted in decades of corruption, economic mismanagement, and systemic inefficiency. It emerged as a beacon of hope, symbolizing a rejection of the status quo and a demand for transformative change. However, its success hinges on addressing the deep-rooted flaws of the system it aims to reform.
Flawed Governance Structure
A critical starting point in understanding the challenges facing the AKD government is the flawed governance structure in Sri Lanka, which undermines democratic principles, making them the first casualty. While the country holds peaceful elections, the governance system operates above the law, allowing elected governments to have discretionary power to disregard public expectations with neither accountability nor responsibility. This failure to ensure accountability is entrenched within Sri Lanka’s constitutional framework, which nominally guarantees civil and political rights but significantly limits their enforcement.
The unchecked power of the executive and legislative bodies, coupled with lack of judicial independence, exacerbates this issue. For instance, Article 35(1) of the Constitution grants the President immunity to the President from legal proceedings during their term of office, effectively shielding executive actions from judicial review and accountability. Similarly, Article 121(1) restricts judicial review of legislation to pre-enactment stages, preventing courts from scrutinizing laws once passed. This creates a cycle where citizens exercise their right to vote, but the process ultimately validates a system that allows those in power to act without facing consequences.
Moreover, the judiciary’s role within this system further reinforces unaccountable governance. Structurally, the judiciary is subordinated within a parliamentary framework where legislative and executive roles overlap. Judges may also be appointed to executive roles by the President, further undermining impartiality. This lack of separation of powers directly affects the ability of the judiciary to function as an independent check on executive actions. These structural flaws enable executive decisions to be deemed non-justiciable, even when they blatantly disregard public interest. For instance, Article 80(3) bars judicial review of a law after it is enacted, ensuring that legislation cannot be challenged even when it violates constitutional principles. Such limitations ensure that the judiciary upholds the status quo, rather than acting as an independent arbiter of justice and accountability. This systemic failure perpetuates governance dysfunction.
Constitutional Neglect of Socio-Economic Rights
The tragedy of Sri Lanka’s governance extends beyond governance and into the realm of socio-economic rights, where constitutional neglect has resulted in profound consequences for the most vulnerable populations in the country. The constitution explicitly absolves the government of responsibility to protect these rights, which should be a core duty of any democratic state. This neglect is further exacerbated by Article 27 of the Constitution, which outlines Directive Principles of State Policy aimed at promoting social and economic welfare, but Article 29 declares these principles non-justiciable, ensuring they cannot be enforced through legal proceedings.
This omission has left the government with little legal obligation to guarantee socio-economic rights, which deepens inequality. The most vulnerable populations bear the brunt of this neglect, as the government is neither bound to guarantee these rights nor held accountable for failing to do so. This systemic disregard further entrenches social inequities and undermines efforts to uplift marginalized groups. Simultaneously, the government prioritizes control over civil and political rights, consolidating its authority while neglecting its socio-economic obligations, which only strengthens the existing governance model.
Simultaneously, the failure to enshrine socio-economic rights within a binding legal framework has had far-reaching implications, extending beyond constitutional neglect into the very process of policy development. Without a clear commitment to enforceable socio-economic rights, the government’s policy-making process has been marred by a lack of accountability, transparency, and long-term vision. This lack of foresight further undermines efforts to address systemic governance issues, resulting in policies that fail to meet the needs of the people.
Policy Development and the Erosion of Accountability
The process of policy development in Sri Lanka has faced significant challenges, contributing to the erosion of public trust and accountability. Critics argue that the formulation of policies often lacked transparency, inclusivity, and evidence-based approaches. Instead of addressing the pressing socio-economic needs of the populace, many policies were designed to serve short-term political agendas or specific interest groups. Such an approach has led to poorly designed policies that fail to meet the needs of the people.
Moreover, limited consultation with experts and the marginalization of community voices resulted in policies that were not only impractical but also deeply misaligned with societal needs. These critiques emphasize that the absence of a participatory framework in policy-making has widened the gap between governance institutions and the people they are meant to serve. Furthermore, the erosion of accountability in policy development has compounded these issues.
The erosion of accountability further exacerbated these issues. Mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and enforce the proper execution of policies were either ineffective or deliberately undermined. Corruption and a lack of transparency at various levels of governance fostered a culture of impunity, where political elites could escape scrutiny for their decisions. This culture of impunity has led to a continuous cycle of ineffective policy-making and the deepening of governance dysfunction. This cycle further perpetuates an environment where the government’s actions do not align with the needs of the population, hindering true reform efforts.
Academic Complacency and its Role in Sustaining the Status Quo
While academic scholarship ought to serve as the bridge toward progress by adopting a critical and progressive reading of the governance model, Sri Lanka’s academic institutions have often aligned themselves with the interests of the political elite, reinforcing a cycle of intellectual complacency that hinders transformative change. This intellectual stagnation is further compounded by the role academics play in policy development. Rather than fostering robust critiques or innovative solutions, academia has frequently supported policies and frameworks that uphold the status quo, reflecting a failure to engage meaningfully with the structural inequalities embedded in the system.
This intellectual complacency has further perpetuated governance failures. by allowing academic institutions to become complicit in reinforcing the political framework rather than challenging it. In turn, academic scholarship has largely failed to disrupt the socio-political dynamics that marginalize civil and socio-economic rights. The lack of actionable reform in academic discourse prioritizes political stability over social justice, further entrenching the dominance of the powerful while suppressing equitable progress. Such complacency has allowed systemic issues to persist, leaving the country stuck in a cycle of governance failure.
The resulting frustration and discontent gave rise to Aragalaya, a movement that symbolized a collective demand for justice, equity, and reform. Aragalaya acted as a platform for citizens to voice their grievances and explore new political and social experiments, ultimately challenging entrenched systems of power. This momentum created a pathway for transformative change, culminating in the rise of the National People’s Power (NPP) government, which promised a renewed commitment to addressing socio-economic rights and rebuilding governance structures in alignment with the aspirations of the people. The rise of the AKD government represents a crucial moment in the nation’s journey toward reform.
Emergence of NPP (JVP) Government
The NPP or its earlier version the JVP has been active in Sri Lanka’s political landscape for over three decades, primarily as a parliamentary opposition, with occasional collaboration with ruling powers, such as during Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga’s presidency. Despite its longstanding engagement as an opposition party, with legislative processes, executive policies, and budgetary decisions, the JVP has struggled to provide a critical and comprehensive analysis of the systemic governance flaws in the country. The party has largely centered its critique on corruption, a significant but singular aspect of Sri Lanka’s challenges, thereby neglecting the deeper structural and institutional issues.
This limited perspective has prevented the JVP/NPP from formulating substantial policy proposals, research-backed alternatives, or a transformative vision for reform. As a result, its approach has remained reactionary, lacking the intellectual depth required to drive systemic change and raising questions about its ability to effectively tackle the root causes of governance failures in Sri Lanka. These limitations call into question the NPP’s potential to realize its vision for reform, especially considering the complex and entrenched nature of Sri Lanka’s governance challenges.
NPP Presidential Election 2024 Manifesto
Within Sri Lankan constitutional context, the manifesto risks being perceived as aspirational rather than legally actionable. While it addresses governance failures, corruption, and socio-economic inequities, it lacks clarity on how these reforms align with constitutional provisions and the established legal framework. Sri Lanka’s centralized governance model, where the executive wields significant power, leaves legislative and judicial accountability largely discretionary. This systemic inertia undermines socio-economic rights, relegating them to unenforceable aspirations. Furthermore, the manifesto fails to delineate how constitutional and systemic barriers will be addressed to enable the envisioned transformation.
These gaps in the manifesto further undermine its credibility, exposing a significant strategic deficiency. By failing to present a concrete roadmap with clearly defined policies and measurable objectives to achieve its transformative goals, the manifesto risks remaining a set of abstract ideas. Effective realization of its vision requires simultaneous reforms across governance structures and the development of mechanisms within the executive, legislative, judicial, and academic domains to establish socio-economic rights as enforceable legal entitlements. Without such a framework, the manifesto’s goals may remain aspirational, without any real plan for implementation.
Does NPP Manifesto commit for the social economic rights as legal rights?
The manifesto’s approach to socio-economic rights lacks strategic depth. While it outlines a broad vision for achieving social equity and justice, it fails to present a coherent roadmap or set measurable goals that would turn its aspirations into actionable outcomes. For instance, although it highlights the need for increased public investment in education and healthcare, it does not specify how these investments will be equitably allocated, systematically monitored, or assessed for impact. Similarly, the manifesto’s commitment to social protection is undermined by the absence of detailed mechanisms to ensure transparency and effectiveness in the delivery of welfare programs.
To elevate socio-economic rights from policy aspirations to legal entitlements, the manifesto must go beyond broad commitments. For these rights to achieve the status of legal entitlements, they must be entrenched within a binding legal framework through constitutional amendments or specific legislation that explicitly guarantees and enforces them. As it stands, the manifesto represents a policy-level commitment rather than a legal obligation. Its alignment with the principle of progressive realization of socio-economic rights, as advocated by international human rights instruments like the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, reflects intent but not enforceability. Without amendments to address the constitutional limitations on justiciability and the establishment of robust enforcement mechanisms, these rights remain aspirational.
Does the Manifesto Commit to Strengthening Civil and Political Rights?
The manifesto’s shortcomings in addressing socio-economic rights are mirrored in its approach to civil and political rights. While the NPP manifesto acknowledges the importance of civil and political rights, it falls short of providing a clear and actionable strategy to restore and enhance these rights in Sri Lanka. Although it prioritizes combating corruption, ensuring judicial independence, and fostering a people-centric governance model, it lacks detailed plans to address the entrenched constitutional and systemic challenges that hinder the rule of law and accountability. For instance, while the manifesto critiques the concentration of power in the executive and highlights the judiciary’s dependency on the legislative and executive branches, it does not propose substantive constitutional reforms or mechanisms to establish a genuine separation of powers and limit governmental overreach.
This lack of specificity undermines the manifesto’s credibility as a transformative political vision. The NPP manifesto identifies some symptoms of this failure but lacks actionable strategies to establish a robust rule of law, protect fundamental freedoms, and institutionalize accountability across all branches of government. It does not provide measurable goals or timelines to assess its commitments, such as judicial independence, legislative reform, or protections against executive overreach. This strategic gap undermines its credibility as a transformative political vision and raises doubts about its ability to effectively address the structural governance flaws that have historically eroded civil and political rights. Without a focused and well-defined roadmap, the manifesto risks being perceived as a set of aspirational ideals rather than a viable plan for systemic reform.
A way forward for AKD Government
To avoid falling into the same governance pitfalls that have plagued Sri Lanka for decades, the NPP must adopt a comprehensive and strategic roadmap grounded in the recognition that the prime role of government is to guarantee social and economic rights through governance that genuinely upholds civil and political rights. This necessitates a shift away from the prevailing power-centric governance model that superficially promises reforms for the civil and political rights while providing only loose commitments to the socio-economic rights. Therefore, integrating these rights holistically and binding them through enforceable frameworks becomes essential.
As a way forward, first, the AKD Government must initiate an academic and policy-driven project focused on producing actionable, well-researched proposals for institutionalizing socio-economic rights as legal entitlements. This effort should involve multidisciplinary collaboration, drawing on expertise from scholars, policy analysts, and civil society organizations. The goal would be to identify structural reforms necessary to embed socio-economic rights into Sri Lanka’s legal and constitutional framework, making these rights enforceable through the judicial system. Such collaboration would bridge the gap between vision and implementation, fostering practical solutions. The initiative should generate evidence-based solutions that include models for funding, monitoring, and evaluating socio-economic rights programs. By creating platforms for public dialogue, the government can build broad-based support for these reforms, ensuring that citizens are fully engaged in discussions about their rights and the importance of their enforcement.
Second, AKD Government must translate its broad vision into clear, measurable goals with concrete timelines. This includes establishing specific targets for reducing income inequality, improving access to healthcare, and ensuring equitable access to education for all. These targets will not only clarify the NPP’s commitments but also enhance accountability. The manifesto should be seen as a starting point rather than an aspirational document. By clearly aligning policy initiatives with measurable outcomes, the NPP can establish a more realistic path toward realizing its promises. It will also provide a basis for the public to assess the government’s progress, reinforcing trust and demonstrating that the NPP is serious about delivering transformative change.
Third, the systemic reforms aimed at creating a governance model based on the rule of law, accountability, and limited government must take precedence. Constitutional amendments are essential to clearly delineate the separation of powers, ensuring judicial independence and curbing executive overreach. Without these foundational reforms, any advancements in socio-economic rights would lack the necessary institutional support. Strengthening independent institutions, such as anti-corruption bodies, human rights commissions, and regulatory agencies, will be critical to holding the government accountable. Additionally, the NPP must put in place robust mechanisms for ensuring that all branches of government are answerable to the public. This includes revising the legal framework to guarantee that both civil and socio-economic rights are protected in a manner that ensures their enforceability, far beyond being mere aspirational goals.
Fourth, the AKD Government must ensure that public participation remains at the heart of governance. Strengthening public access to information, promoting transparency in government decision-making, and enacting laws that guarantee citizens’ ability to hold officials accountable will be vital for engendering trust in the reform process. Active citizen engagement will serve as both a check on power and a catalyst for meaningful reform. Furthermore, fostering a culture of inclusivity will ensure that the most vulnerable and marginalized voices are heard and addressed in policy discussions.
Finally, the AKD Government must acknowledge that codifying a new constitution, which includes socio-economic rights as legal entitlements alongside civil, political, and other rights, will be ineffective and outdated unless there is a concerted effort to build the capacity to realize and sustain these rights. Sustaining these rights requires both strong institutions and a shift in governance culture. This entails integrating socio-economic rights into the daily lives of citizens and establishing a governance framework capable of providing remedies for any infringements. By aligning governance with this transformative vision, the NPP can ensure that its promises translate into sustained and meaningful change.
*Firdous MHM is an academic specializing in constitution, law, and economy. He can be reached via mhmfirdous@hotmail.com
