By Adolf
Sri Lanka’s politics has always been shaped by its Constitution, but rarely has that been more evident than in the rise of its two most recent presidents. Both Ranil Wickremesinghe and Anura Kumara Dissanayake ascended to the highest office not through sweeping electoral mandates but through the workings of constitutional mechanics. That fact alone is a reminder of the fragility of political legitimacy in today’s Sri Lanka.
Ranil Wickremesinghe assumed the presidency in July 2022 at the lowest point in the nation’s modern history. The economy had collapsed. Foreign reserves were nearly depleted. People were queueing for fuel, gas, and food. Electricity cuts were paralyzing daily life. Public anger spilled into the streets, forcing a sitting president to flee. At that point, Parliament turned to Ranil — a man without a significant parliamentary group but with decades of political and administrative experience.What followed was, by any measure, a remarkable rescue operation. Ranil navigated debt negotiations with international creditors, re-established ties with the IMF, restored basic supplies, stabilized the currency, and prevented the complete breakdown of state institutions. For all his flaws — and there are many — it is undeniable that Ranil delivered at the very worst point in our history. His presidency may not have carried the strength of a popular mandate, but it carried the weight of responsibility. Anura Kumara Dissanayake, by contrast, comes to power at a very different moment. His election as president, like Ranil’s, was not the result of a landslide victory by the people but the product of the constitutional process. He enjoys a wave of expectation, particularly from younger generations and those disillusioned by decades of failed leadership. Yet, unlike Ranil, he has not yet had to prove himself in the crucible of crisis.
Anura Presidency
This is why his approach matters. Instead of focusing on reforms, institution-building, and credible governance, Anura has so far leaned heavily on rhetoric and threats directed at political opponents. Such a strategy may work in rallies, but it is dangerous in governance. Politics built on vengeance will not only distract from the urgent reforms the country needs, but could also backfire. By targeting rivals, Anura runs the risk of drawing attention to the darker chapters of his own movement’s past.
The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) is not without baggage. Its insurrections in the 1970s and 1980s left scars on Sri Lankan society — from killings and disappearances to widespread fear. While Anura represents a newer generation of leadership, the shadow of those atrocities has never fully disappeared. If his presidency becomes about settling scores, he could end up reawakening painful memories that undermine both his credibility and his ability to unify the country.
Governing
There are also immediate governance issues that cannot be swept aside. Allegations about the 300 containers, questionable land acquisitions, the misuse of vehicles by senior staff, and controversial imports of essentials such as potatoes and onions are serious. For a leader who campaigned on a platform of transparency, anti-corruption, and accountability, these issues are tests. They will determine whether his government is genuinely different from those that came before or just another administration weighed down by scandal. Ranil Wickremesinghe now stands at the twilight of a long political career. Whatever his shortcomings, he has been a central figure in Sri Lankan politics for over four decades. If he chooses to retire gracefully, offer guidance to the next generation, and play the role of elder statesman, he can secure a legacy of resilience and leadership during crisis. Clinging to politics , on the other hand, will only diminish his contributions. Anura Kumara Dissanayake, in turn, has an opportunity — and a warning. He has the chance to show that his brand of politics can move beyond confrontation and vengeance to constructive leadership. But he must also recognize the dangers of overreach. Spending more time talking and threatening opponents, rather than governing and delivering, will not only stall progress but may expose him and his party to renewed scrutiny over their past. Sri Lanka is at a crossroads. The Constitution may have been the vehicle through which both Ranil and Anura ascended to power, but constitutions do not bestow legitimacy. That must come from conduct in office, from humility, integrity, and delivery. Ranil has already proven that he could steady the ship when it was on the verge of sinking. Anura, with the benefit of calmer seas, must now prove that he can steer it toward a better future. The people of this country have heard enough promises. They want action. Ranil has already written his chapter. He should work with the next generation like Sajith Premadasa and Namal Rajapaksa. It is now Anura’s turn to decide whether his will be a story of transformation and decency — or just another missed opportunity in the long, weary history of Sri Lankan politics.
