There comes a point in the life of every government when it is no longer judged by the promises it made in opposition but by the decisions it takes in office. Sri Lanka’s present administration is now approaching that point
Few would dispute that the country is in a more stable position than it was three years ago. Inflation has eased, foreign reserves have improved, tourism has recovered steadily and confidence has begun to return to sections of the business community. That is good news for every Sri Lankan, irrespective of political persuasion.
Yet economic recovery, welcome though it is, cannot become the sole measure of national progress.
The electorate voted for something larger than a better balance sheet. It voted for cleaner government, stronger institutions, greater transparency and the assurance that the law would apply equally to the powerful and the powerless alike.
Those expectations have not diminished simply because economic indicators have improved.
The Government has inherited institutions weakened by years of political interference, inconsistent decision-making and declining public confidence. No administration can rebuild those institutions overnight, nor should anyone reasonably expect it to do so.
What the public is entitled to expect, however, is a clear sense that the direction of travel is different.
That means appointments must withstand scrutiny. Public procurement must become increasingly transparent. Independent institutions must be allowed to function without fear or favour. Investigations, wherever they lead, must be allowed to reach their lawful conclusion without political interference or the appearance of it.
None of these principles should depend upon which party occupies office. They are the foundations upon which democratic government rests.
The Opposition, too, has responsibilities. Criticism is an essential part of democracy, but criticism without credible alternatives quickly loses its force. The country deserves a Government that governs well and an Opposition capable of holding it properly to account.
Sri Lanka has experienced too many cycles in which one administration condemns the conduct of its predecessor only to discover, once in office, that reform is considerably more difficult than rhetoric.
Breaking that cycle is perhaps the greatest challenge facing those who sought and received the people’s trust.
Governments are remembered less for the speeches they make than for the institutions they leave behind.
If this administration succeeds in strengthening those institutions, it will have achieved something of lasting value.
If it does not, history may conclude that it managed the economy better than some of its predecessors but failed to deliver the deeper reforms that many believed the country had voted for.
The honeymoon may be drawing to a close. The expectations are not.
Be that as it may.
