By Adolf
The recent incident involving former Speaker Asoka Ranwala — beginning with questions over his claimed PhD credentials and culminating in a widely reported drunk-driving episode — has taken on an almost comic quality. Yet behind the public amusement lies a far more serious concern. The manner in which the episode appears to have been quietly managed, if not fully addressed, raises troubling questions about accountability under the current administration. This episode is not an isolated lapse. It points to a broader pattern in governance: an eagerness to pursue alleged wrongdoings of past administrations for political effect, while showing reluctance to confront issues emerging within the present government. Allegations relating to asset declarations, documentation irregularities and procedural lapses are frequently deflected or ignored. Such selectivity risks eroding the very principles of transparency and integrity that this administration claimed as its moral foundation.
Confrontations
At the same time, the President’s leadership style has become increasingly confrontational. He appears to thrive on conflict with the opposition, projecting an image of toughness and political bravado. Critics have likened him to an “Asian Trump,” a comparison that is more rhetorical than real. Donald Trump, controversial as he was, entered office as a billionaire with a substantial electoral base and later secured a second presidential term. AKD, by contrast, did not secure an outright majority of the popular vote. His victory was largely a by-product of a deeply divided opposition. The failure of Sajith Premadasa and Ranil Wickremesinghe to unite or manage their political differences created a pathway for AKD’s ascent to the Presidency. However, subsequent electoral outcomes suggest that this initial advantage has not translated into sustained public endorsement. The momentum seen at the general election was significantly diluted at the local government polls, where voter sentiment told a more sobering story. Even at the level of cooperative society elections — often a reliable barometer of grassroots opinion — the ruling coalition has repeatedly underperformed.
Cyclone Disaster
The government’s handling of the recent cyclone disaster may prove to be a defining moment. With estimates suggesting losses of nearly Rs. 300 billion and close to a thousand lives affected or lost, the response was widely seen as delayed and poorly coordinated. Natural disasters are the ultimate test of state capacity and leadership. In this instance, gaps in preparedness, communication and execution were evident, and public frustration was palpable.
Rather than acknowledging shortcomings and recalibrating, the administration appears increasingly defensive. Criticism is frequently dismissed as politically motivated, while dissent is met with hostility rather than engagement. This aversion to critique evokes the early warning signs of the previous administration, where insularity and an unwillingness to listen led to policy missteps and, ultimately, national crisis.
Sajith Premadasa
Effective political leadership demands restraint, perspective, and the maturity to rise above personal or political insecurity. Sri Lanka’s challenges require sustained focus on economic stabilisation, institutional credibility, disaster resilience, and social cohesion — not performative confrontation or selective accountability. If the current trajectory continues, the AKD government risks repeating the very errors that brought down its predecessor. The signals from the electorate are already evident. Whether the leadership chooses to heed them will shape not only its own political future, but the country’s direction in the years ahead. At the same time, this moment presents a critical test for the opposition. Sajith Premadasa, having contested and lost two presidential elections, must now decide whether he can credibly lead a renewed challenge. Electoral politics is as much about renewal as persistence. He cannot indefinitely shelter behind past controversies, including questions surrounding cultural funds or anxieties about prior business dealings, real or perceived. If concerns over potential action by the current administration inhibit his ability to lead decisively, then it may be time to step aside and allow a fresh, unencumbered leadership to emerge. Sri Lanka needs an opposition that inspires confidence, offers clarity of purpose, and presents a credible alternative ( there is Harsha de Silva, Sujewa Senansinghe, Dayasiri Jayasekara and Champaka Ranawake) — not one constrained by hesitation or defensive politics
