The meeting of 17 major opposition figures to discuss political strategies received wide publicity. Those who attended the meeting denied that it was to oppose the government. They said that it was to exchange ideas about recent political developments and to identify points of common concern. Several participants including former ministers Prof GL Peiris and Mano Ganesan informed the media that the purpose of the discussion was to promote dialogue among democratic forces and to explore ways of strengthening the institutions of democracy. The NPP government’s dominance comes with increasing public expectations, on economic revival, justice for incidents of past violence, and respect for minority rights. If the opposition is to reconnect with voters, they need to hold the government accountable with substance.

The members of the opposition who gathered together said that this was not a move to topple the government but to develop a common understanding on how to ensure that democratic values and promises made at the elections were implemented by the government. However, a serious problem faced by the opposition is that at the last presidential and general elections, they were nearly totally rejected by the electorate. The voice of the people at the Aragalaya protests that preceded the elections was that the politics of corruption and impunity needed to be totally rejected. The core demand at Galle Face was for new political leadership free of the taint of corruption and family rule. A year after the landmark elections, the opposition political parties continue to be seen in a negative light.

A national survey conducted by the Centre for Policy Alternatives earlier this year indicated that confidence in the political parties remained extremely low, with only 12% of respondents saying that they believed the traditional parties were capable of clean government. A survey by the National Peace Council before the presidential election showed widespread dissatisfaction with established political parties. Nearly 50% of respondents indicated that a new political force was necessary to resolve Sri Lanka’s crisis, and an overwhelming 90% called for a complete political system change. Even now, when opposition leaders attempt to mobilise people against particular government policies, the public does not respond in the way they might have done in the past.

Fear Factor
The presidential and general elections held last year saw a massive shift in power and legitimacy to the new NPP government which won more than a 2/3 majority in parliament. The most salient feature of the new government is its self-contained decision making style. It is reported that the government’s decisions are made after internal discussion and debate. But there is no similar debate and discussion with the opposition political parties or the larger civil society. The position taken by government leaders is that they have a clear public mandate to implement their policies and therefore see no need to dilute that mandate. The government’s decision making style means that the opposition political leaders are totally sidelined. They simply have no role to play.

In fact the government has no need to include the opposition in the decision making process as it has a 2/3 majority on its own. It also sees no need to include them as it sees them as failed politicians rejected by the people. This perception is reinforced by the fact that independent opinion polls continue to show that the level of public trust in the opposition parties remains very low. There is also the fact that the government is engaged in a sustained effort to bring to justice all those who held positions of power in the past, and who abused their power to make money or engage in illegal acts. Virtually every day, one or more prominent politician or public administrator find themselves subjected to questioning by the Bribery and Corruption Commission or Attorney General’s Department or being arrested by the police on a court warrant.

The inducement of the opposition to come together would be on account of the two factors mentioned above. It is unlikely that they can do anything to stop the government from pursuing its anti-corruption and anti-impunity agenda for which the people voted them into power. The government is strict enough to turn the searchlight inwards and even a government minister is under investigation for possible past offences. At the same time, the opposition fears that, unless they find a structured way of regaining public legitimacy, they will remain isolated and irrelevant. It is in this context that the idea of sub-national power sharing as a means of re-entry into politics has begun to receive attention and needs to be considered.

Restoring Balance
The opposition’s frustration at being marginalised from power at the central level can be mitigated by obtaining power at the sub-national level. They can demand that the long postponed provincial council elections should be held without delay. The provincial council system was established as a mechanism to share power with the ethnic and religious minorities, particularly in the northern and eastern provinces. However, it is also a mechanism to share power with the opposition in all of the nine provinces. Since the NPP currently holds a strong majority in the central legislature, it is highly unlikely that the opposition parties will dislodge it till at least the next general election. But at provincial level, they still have strong organisational bases and well known personalities who can mobilise votes.

The government has promised to hold provincial council elections in the first half of 2026. Mainstream political parties have not actively championed the provincial council system as they have seen it as a demand of the minorities. However, under the present circumstances, it makes sense for the opposition alliance to make this demand and also lobby for reforms to the provincial council system. One of the key features of this reform would be to remove the power of the centrally appointed governors to override decisions made by the elected provincial councils. The provincial councils have been operating under considerable constraints because of the ability of the governor to stop important decisions or delay them indefinitely. This power needs to be subject to judicial review and restricted to situations involving serious national interest, such as breakdown of law and order, in order to make provincial governance more meaningful.

The democratic system requires both effective government and effective opposition. Power-sharing through the electoral process offers a constitutional and peaceful means to restore that balance. For this reason, the opposition should seriously consider making the demand for provincial council elections a central part of its political strategy. In the past it was the ethnic and religious minority parties that sought such improvements in the provincial council system. Such improvements will not diminish the legitimacy of the central government, but will strengthen the institutions of democracy and open up space for negotiations and accommodation in the future. This would be a win-win situation for both the government and opposition, and also the country as a whole as devolution of power is key to national reconciliation.