By Adolf
The resounding defeat suffered by Donald Trump and the Republican Party in the US midterm elections should serve as a serious wake-up call for President Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) and his government in Sri Lanka. The American electorate has sent a powerful message: political popularity, electoral mandates and promises of change do not give any government a licence to govern without accountability.
The Democrats’ sweeping victory, securing control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, represents a significant rejection of Trump’s style of leadership. It is a reminder that voters eventually hold governments accountable, irrespective of how powerful or politically dominant they may appear.
There are important lessons here for Sri Lanka.
The NPP government came to power promising a new political culture, clean governance, equality before the law and an end to the abuses of previous administrations. These were powerful promises that resonated with a public exhausted by corruption, economic mismanagement and political privilege.
However, there is a growing concern that the government is beginning to display some of the very tendencies it promised to eliminate.
The perceived politicisation of the justice system, the selective application of the law and the use of the police to pursue or intimidate political opponents raise serious questions about the independence of institutions. Playing with constitutional conventions and institutions to advance political objectives is dangerous in any democracy.
What is particularly troubling is the apparent lack of equal urgency in addressing allegations of wrongdoing within the government hierarchy itself. Accountability cannot be selective. It cannot be a weapon reserved for political opponents while those within the corridors of power are treated differently.
The public also expects transparency when it comes to government dealings with businesses and commercial interests. Any perception that politically connected businesses or supporters receive preferential treatment undermines confidence in the government’s commitment to clean governance. The standards applied to private citizens and businesses must also apply to those enjoying proximity to political power. Businessmen who think money can buy everyone is in for a rude shock with the new generation of leaders.
Political leadership must also be distinguished from political intimidation. Ridiculing opponents, resorting to personal attacks and making veiled threats through the use of state institutions are not demonstrations of strength. They are signs of an increasingly intolerant political culture. A President must rise above party politics and demonstrate statesmanship, restraint and respect for dissent.
Meanwhile, ordinary Sri Lankans are struggling with the rising cost of living. Taxation continues to place a significant burden on households and businesses, while many citizens question whether the benefits promised to the poor and vulnerable are materialising at the pace expected.
The government cannot indefinitely ask people to make sacrifices without demonstrating tangible improvements in their lives. Economic hardship, broken promises and the perception that political priorities are taking precedence over people’s welfare will eventually erode public confidence.
The danger for AKD is that the government may be confusing its electoral mandate with an unlimited licence to exercise power. An overwhelming parliamentary majority is not a substitute for checks and balances. In fact, the greater the parliamentary majority, the greater the responsibility to exercise power with restraint.
Sri Lanka’s political history offers ample evidence of what happens when governments begin to believe they are invincible. Power changes hands, political fortunes reverse and those who once exercised authority without restraint can find themselves on the receiving end of the same institutions they once controlled.
There is an even greater danger when accountability is driven by vengeance rather than justice. If institutions are weakened, precedents are established and political retribution becomes normalised, the next administration may simply repeat the same practices, perhaps with twice the intensity. The cycle of political victimisation will continue, with little regard for the rule of law.
The American election demonstrates that voters may tolerate political rhetoric for a time, but they will ultimately judge governments by their conduct, economic performance and respect for democratic institutions.
AKD still has an opportunity to correct course. He must demonstrate that the rule of law applies equally to friends and opponents, that independent institutions are protected, that public money is respected and that economic relief reaches ordinary citizens.The political honeymoon does not last forever. Nor does an electoral mandate.The party will eventually be over. The question is whether AKD will learn from the warning before Sri Lankan voters deliver their own verdict.
