By Roshan Pussewela –

Governments rise and fall not only on the strength of their policies but also on the people they entrust with critical responsibilities. Every appointment—especially at the highest levels—carries weight, influencing not just day-to-day governance but the long-term credibility and effectiveness of an administration. A well-placed advisor or director can steer a leader through crises and elevate a country’s global standing. Conversely, a poorly chosen individual can undermine an entire government’s credibility, sometimes irreversibly.

One of the most delicate and demanding areas of governance is international engagement and strategic communication. In an era where global narratives shape diplomatic ties, investment flows, and public perception, governments must be acutely aware of how they present themselves to the world. This is not just about managing media relations, it is about crafting a consistent and compelling narrative that aligns with national interests, reassures international partners, and counters misinformation.

The individuals entrusted with this responsibility must possess more than just experience in media or political organization. They must have an intricate understanding of global diplomacy, crisis communication, and the ability to navigate complex geopolitical landscapes. A misstep in international messaging can create unnecessary tensions, weaken credibility, and even impact economic partnerships. Many governments have suffered from such errors whether through ill-advised statements, inconsistent foreign policy narratives, or the appointment of individuals lacking the necessary expertise in global affairs.

History offers numerous cautionary tales. In 2017, when former U.S. President Donald Trump appointed Anthony Scaramucci as White House Communications Director, the decision was widely criticized due to his lack of experience in government communications. His tenure lasted just ten days, but the damage—internal chaos, media mockery, and a weakened perception of the administration—lasted far longer. Similarly, in the UK, Boris Johnson’s government faced backlash over Dominic Cummings, whose influence became a liability after public scandals, eroding trust in the administration’s decision-making.

Closer to home, Sri Lanka cannot afford such miscalculations. Positions related to international engagement and strategic communications demand individuals who not only understand media but also have a firm grasp of foreign policy. In a country seeking to repair its global image, attract investment, and strengthen diplomatic ties, this is not a secondary concern—it is fundamental to national stability. A government that fails to recognize the importance of expertise in this area risks not only misrepresenting itself to the world but also missing critical opportunities to build lasting international partnerships.

Moreover, political appointments must align with the ideological and strategic direction of the administration. While inclusivity and diversity of thought are valuable, key advisors should be individuals who understand and share the broader vision of the leadership. A government that brings in figures who have previously aligned with competing or even opposing political factions risks internal friction and diluted decision-making. If there is doubt about whether an advisor or director is working in the best interest of the administration, it weakens confidence both internally and among the public.

For a government that has promised systemic change, ensuring the right people are in the right roles is not just a matter of efficiency—it is a fundamental necessity. The decisions made today will shape not only the administration’s legacy but also the trust of the people who placed their faith in it.