By January 2022 Sri Lanka was well on its way to becoming a failed state. Bankrupt, riddled with corruption from top to bottom and at the mercy of evil leaders, the country was on the edge of an abyss. It fitted the definition of a kakistocracy perfectly – a state governed by its least suitable or competent citizens and characterized by corruption, nepotism, incompetence, inefficiency, injustice and tyranny.

The fall of the most immoral leaders the country has ever witnessed, through a spontaneous people’s uprising, did little to alleviate the misery of its citizens since the parliament was still filled with murderers, thieves and liars and there was a president bent on viciously suppressing any form of dissent with tear gas, water cannon, arbitrary arrests and repressive legislation.

The system change that could not happen under these circumstances is on its way to being realized after the people finally had enough and this time were able to express their revulsion for the regime through the ballot box, delivering wins to President Anura Kumara Dissanayake and subsequently his National People’s Power (NPP) party.

The president and the government have an uphill task in trying to put the country on to a stable course. Neil DeVotta, Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Wake Forest University in the US, answers some pertinent questions about Sri Lanka’s prospects for the future.

QUESTION: How does the NPP win change Sri Lanka’s political landscape?

ANSWER: It represents a political realignment that is striking given the democratic regression the world has witnessed in the last two decades. Not only were the presidential and parliamentary elections free and fair but they also catapulted the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) to a position few – including members of the party – believed was attainable. When the aragalaya ended, its demand for a system change was not met. Gotabaya and Mahinda Rajapaksa were forced to flee and given that their ouster was among the activists’ main demands, one could claim the movement was a partial success. But the Rajapaksas were back in no time and it appeared the ‘GotaGoHome’ and’ MynaGoHome’ success was temporary. In that context, the NPP’s victories transformed the landscape not simply because of the group’s supermajority in Parliament but also because of what they could institute going forward.

Sri Lanka has been led by some venal and depraved individuals who were maestros at manipulating ethnoreligious tensions to mask their incompetence, corruption and malfeasance. It was at a point where even decent and relatively honest politicians had no choice but to put up with scoundrels to govern. In short, the country was a kakistocracy – a situation obtained when thugs and kleptocrats end up superintending government. There was a reason the aragalaya activists also wanted all 225 Members of Parliament ousted: it was because many felt that nothing was going to change unless Parliament was wiped clean. You cannot expect the corrupt in one party to police the corrupt in another party because they rely on each other. Well, the elections in 2024 are the closest we have come to having Parliament wiped clean. It is with good reason that some suggest this may be the best chance to transform the country’s governance. It is mainly in this sense, and in the relatively inclusive ethnoreligious tenor and optics being adopted by the President and his Cabinet, that the political landscape has changed.

Q: Are you hopeful that there will be a change in the political culture? 

A: Majoritarianism and ethnocracy have in the main dictated Sri Lanka’s political culture. The powerful constituencies that have benefitted from this reality will seek to keep it that way. And yet pursuing change is necessary if the country is to get out of the current abyss. I have long argued that becoming an ethnocracy is what slowly but surely undermined Sri Lanka across many areas. The corruption and impunity that led to bankruptcy are in no small measure related to the ethnocracy that successive governments instituted. The NPP’s manifesto seems to be more cognizant of this than what I have observed among other parties. Ultimately, the country’s fortunes will not change unless the way it is governed is changed. So, an agenda that drives the island in a more pluralistic direction even while minimizing corruption and waste is essential. Political, religious, media, business and academic elites all play a big role in working toward this.

From a pluralism standpoint, I was disappointed that the government failed to include a Muslim in its cabinet. And nonplussed why it failed to include any minorities in its Clean Sri Lanka program presidential task force. Surely this cannot be an oversight. And if not, how serious is the government when it discusses ethnoreligious amity and inclusion? Feeling represented is extremely important to minorities and it is so easy to do in Sri Lanka where there is no dearth of competent and qualified minorities. Given the significant minority support for the NPP especially in the northeast, the government should be going out of its way to shore up support among Tamils and Muslims, not providing them reasons to doubt their status as equal citizens.

Even so, there is good reason to feel hopeful. While tradition and insecurity play major roles in the political culture of countries like Sri Lanka, norms surrounding governance constitute a very important element as well. And the NPP, not being directly accountable for running Sri Lanka to the ground, has a real chance to alter the norms around governance and thereby change the island’s political culture for the better. Their quest to hold people accountable for corruption, the apparent determination to eradicate waste and support an inclusive polity stand to be impactful in this regard. They can call it Clean Sri Lanka but moving away from the political decay, kleptocracy and ethnocracy of the past will go a long way in transforming the island’s political culture.

Q: What would you say are the main priorities the government should concentrate on in the short and medium term?

A: Governments succeed or fail based on legitimacy. The JVP-led NPP has won fair and square so its political legitimacy in reaching the heights of power is indisputable. The quest to govern the island in an incorruptible manner and get the bureaucracy to operate transparently and efficiently should also burnish its meritocratic legitimacy. But the government’s biggest test will have to do with its performance legitimacy – i.e., how it handles the economy.

Economic bankruptcy under the previous government is the only reason President Dissanayake and his colleagues are in power. Minimizing poverty and reducing the cost of living is rightly the government’s focus. And this it should be in the short, medium and long term. Transforming the economy will not be easy and additional crises ranging from environmental to global will make things more challenging. But the president and NPP seem determined to improve the lot of the most marginalized. If they can manage this while also carrying out some of the reforms noted in the NPP manifesto, especially reforms that ameliorate minority concerns, the country would be on a promising path. It will not be the syrupy ‘A Thriving Nation and Beautiful Life’ but it could be a country that is peaceful and stable.

Q: Several promises were made during the election campaign such as re-negotiating the IMF agreement but this is not going to be done. Do you think the public is getting disillusioned?

A: It is now settled that the government will follow through with the agreements the Wickremesinghe regime negotiated with the IMF and creditors. The government is determined to ensure stability and one can appreciate that given the claims made about how voting in the NPP would bring about the end of Sri Lanka. While I too think that the Wickremesinghe government could have negotiated a better deal with creditors, what would the consequences have been if the NPP government pigheadedly declared that it was disregarding hitherto negotiated agreements? The fallout would not have been pretty.

That noted, one wonders if the continuity the government is pursuing – not just with the IMF deal but on other matters is well – is merely to buy time or because it is afraid to institute bold policies. Some feared that the NPP would unleash radical changes but as of now, it seems averse to institute any changes. At this stage, I don’t think sticking with the IMF program makes the majority among the public disillusioned provided the government can meet expectations regarding poverty and the cost of living. The gloss that came with being catapulted to power has already faded somewhat and it will be interesting to see how the NPP does in upcoming local government and provincial government elections. But ultimately people will continue to support President Dissanayake and the NPP or rue the day they voted for them based on whether the government improves the economy. If it can do that while holding those accountable for past corruption to some degree and avoid scandal – not stupid mistakes like not vetting its MPs’ credentials but corrupt policies – both President Dissanayake and the NPP will get re-elected.

Q: People also voted for the NPP on the basis that it would repeal draconian laws such as the Online Safety Act (OSA), Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act (MMDA) but they are now backtracking. What can civil society do to make sure it keeps its word?

A: Democracy scholars will rightly assert that there is no democracy without civil society so the need for a robust civil society in Sri Lanka should be a non-negotiable common denominator for all concerned. Civil society enjoyed close ties to Chandrika Kumaratunga’s first government but its ties to this government are stronger thanks to the NPP’s constituent parts. So, there is no reason why all who clamour for more transparency and accountability cannot put pressure on the government to alter these laws in ways acceptable within a liberal democracy.

One of the most cited books in the social sciences is Albert Hirshman’s ‘Exit, Voice, and Loyalty’ which explains options for those operating in deteriorating circumstances. The constituencies representing this trio influence each other through their actions. For example, hundreds of thousands have exited Sri Lanka’s landscape for greener pastures, voluntarily or involuntarily due to the ethnic conflict and economic crises. We are all aware of the resulting brain drain. At the same time, thousands remained silent while corrupt and authoritarian politicians ran the country to the ground. Their apparent loyalty may have been due to fear or because they too benefited in some manner. But loyalty should be rooted in patriotism, not patronage at the expense of societal wellbeing. In this context, it is those who voice encouragement for and criticism against the government – i.e., civil society – that stand to change the landscape for the better. The more voices demanding change, the lesser the likelihood people will give up and exit and the greater the possibility for loyalty – i.e., patriotism – to increase. The voice provided by civil society at the national and local levels is impressive and they should double down on their activities to get the government to fulfil its promises.

Having dealt with some asylum claims pertaining to Tamils who were extorted and brutalized using the PTA, this is one statute currently, as codified that has no place in civilized society. Ultimately, the PTA mainly serves as a cudgel against minorities and some nationalists seem to derive a sadistic schadenfreude when it is employed against minorities, as it was against Dr Mohammad Shafi and other innocent Muslims, especially after the Easter Sunday bombings. The way non-minorities who have committed similar or worse crimes get charged under less repressive statutes points to the selective way it has been manipulated. The JVP’s cadre were also victims of the PTA so I am somewhat optimistic that there will be some movement on especially the PTA in due course. It seems certain elements within the military and Buddhist nationalists are the most against getting rid of the PTA since this has served their mercenary and ideological agendas very well. One may have to wait until some in today’s military hierarchy step down and the government gains more experience and confidence before there is a positive movement regarding the PTA. There is no similar pressure against reforming the OSA, so the sooner this is done in line with civil society’s demands the better.

The MMDA’s complications are more intra-religious than inter-religious but this should not be used as an excuse to keep it on the books, especially given its treatment of young girls. Some of the stories one hears smack of predatory behaviour with religion used as a convenient cover. The entire act represents patriarchy on steroids and is a blemish on the Muslim community whether its proponents realize it or not. Here too Muslim civil society stands to play a pivotal role because when the MMDA does get revised it will be thanks mainly to Muslim women operating within civil society.

-Neil DeVotta is a Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Wake Forest University, USA. He is currently working on a book manuscript, titled From Ethnocracy to Kakistocracy: Sri Lanka’s Pathway to Ruin, and his essays on Sri Lanka’s 2024 elections appear on the Stimson Centre online platform and in the January 2025 issue of the Journal of Democracy. Questions for DeVotta were posed by Groundviews where this interview was originally featured