Shakeel nears century after 96-run stand with Ghori extends Pakistan’s dominance
India hold on to series lead after washout as New Zealand’s winning streak ends
Lahiru creates history with Youth Olympic silver
Sri Lanka fall for the green top trap
The infrastructure crisis at state universities
by Prof. Ranjith Bandara, PhD (Qld.) Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka
America’s midterm elections of 3 November 2026 have delivered a message that Sri Lankan politicians should neither dismiss nor misunderstand: no election victory gives a leader permanent ownership of public power. Democrats won both houses of Congress, constraining President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda. Trump was not on the ballot and remains President, but voters used the opportunity to impose an important political restraint.
The result is not evidence that American democracy is perfect. The United States struggles with polarisation, money in politics and disputes over democratic norms. Yet institutions can still provide a means of correction. For Sri Lanka, where elections have sometimes been delayed and political leaders have too often treated state institutions as extensions of party authority, the comparison is instructive.
Elections are a right, not a government favour
The clearest lesson concerns the regularity of elections. American midterms take place according to a legally established schedule, whether the governing party expects to win or lose. Even a powerful President cannot cancel them because the political climate is unfavourable. The Constitution also bars anyone from being elected president more than twice.
Sri Lanka presents a troubling contrast. Local elections, due in 2023, were postponed until May 2025. In August 2024, the Supreme Court held that the failure to conduct those polls violated fundamental rights. Election funding must not depend on executive convenience.
More seriously, Sri Lanka has held no provincial council election since 2014. Legal complications arising from the 2017 changes to the electoral system are real. A parliamentary committee is examining solutions in 2026. But prolonged legal deadlock cannot justify leaving an elected tier of government vacant indefinitely. Politicians who praise democracy while tolerating these delays must explain that contradiction. National elections cannot compensate for years without elected provincial representatives to answer citizens’ concerns about schools, healthcare and local administration.
The American elections demonstrate that popularity can evaporate surprisingly quickly. Republicans had control of Congress before the midterms; Democrats won both chambers in a backlash shaped by economic grievances, corruption concerns and opposition to the administration’s policies. Electoral authority is conditional, not hereditary.
Sri Lanka offers a relevant domestic comparison. The National People’s Power secured 159 parliamentary seats and about 61.6 percent of the vote in November 2024. In the May 2025 local elections, its national vote share was approximately 43.3 percent. Different turnout, candidates and local issues make a direct comparison imperfect. Nevertheless, they remind any governing party that an impressive majority is not an unlimited endorsement of every subsequent decision.
The lesson also applies to Opposition parties. A government’s declining popularity does not automatically confer public trust on its rivals. They must earn credibility through policy and conduct.
Citizens judge results, not political performances
According to American voter polling, high living costs were central to the midterm verdict, alongside concern about corruption and the direction of government. People judged promises against prices and security, not slogans.
Sri Lankan leaders should consider how familiar this sounds. Macroeconomic stabilisation after Sri Lanka’s economic crisis is essential. Yet stronger reserves, or growth figures, mean little to families unable to afford food, graduates without suitable jobs or enterprises burdened by debt.
Sound statistics are indispensable, but the question is whether economic gains reach households fairly and durably. Governments should publish credible evidence on employment, real incomes, poverty, access to services and the distribution of adjustment costs. Celebrating recovery before citizens experience it invites public disillusionment.
Power must never become personal property
One of the more disturbing findings of the American voter surveys was the prominence of public concern about government corruption and political self-interest. Allegations are not proof. Yet perceived self-interest can destroy legitimacy long before a court delivers a verdict.
Sri Lanka has repeatedly suffered from political patronage, questionable procurement practices, appointments driven by loyalty and the blurred boundary between public resources and party interests. No party holds a monopoly on these practices; they survive when winners refuse to scrutinise their own ranks.
Declarations of assets, transparent public contracts, independent audits, rules against conflicts of interest and impartial investigations should therefore be treated as ordinary obligations of office, not optional gestures. Accountability must rest on evidence and due process, not selective prosecution or political revenge.
Democracy requires institutions strong enough to say no
Midterm elections do not remove an American President. They change the balance of power in Congress, strengthening its capacity to scrutinise government, control legislation and investigate misconduct. The President retains substantial constitutional powers, including the veto. In the AP Voter Poll, roughly seven in 10 respondents said Congress had not provided enough checks on the President. Democracy depends on institutional restraints, not merely the character of election winners.
Sri Lanka needs the same principle in its own constitutional setting. Parliament should examine executive decisions instead of functioning as an automatic approval mechanism. The Election Commission must have reliable funding and operational independence. Courts, independent commissions, auditors and journalists need the freedom to question officials, without fear or favour.
A government confident in its integrity should not be threatened by criticism. A responsible Opposition, meanwhile, must distinguish legitimate scrutiny from obstruction designed merely to create instability.
Political loyalty cannot outrank public interest
Another lesson concerns leadership culture. Leaders, who surround themselves only with loyal supporters, gradually lose access to uncomfortable truths. Public institutions become instruments for protecting personalities, and dissenting advice is treated as betrayal. Such habits may produce apparent unity, but they reduce the government’s ability to correct mistakes.
Sri Lanka has experienced this problem under different political administrations. Political appointments and the expectation of unquestioning loyalty have too often weakened professional decision-making. Competence, integrity and independence of judgment must carry greater weight than party allegiance.
Political parties should practise internally the democracy they celebrate publicly: transparent candidate selection, meaningful debate, opportunities for women and younger members, and leadership that can be challenged without intimidation. Without internal reform, an electoral change may replace one circle of privilege with another.
Reforms Sri Lanka should undertake now
These lessons call for action rather than another round of speeches. Parliament should urgently resolve the legal obstacles to Provincial Council elections and publish a credible timetable. Funding for lawful elections should be protected from executive interference. Election spending and political donations should be disclosed transparently and existing accountability rules enforced consistently.
Parliamentary committees should be empowered to examine spending and appointments, with findings available to the public. Independent investigations should follow evidence wherever it leads. Economic recovery should be measured by household wellbeing as well as national aggregates. Opposition parties should propose workable alternatives, not simply await public frustration.
Above all, elected officials should abandon the assumption that the state belongs to whoever commands a parliamentary majority.
Sri Lanka deserves credit for competitive presidential and parliamentary elections in 2024 and for its capacity to change governments through the ballot. That democratic strength should not be obscured. Yet it cannot excuse long-delayed Provincial elections, earlier failures over local polls or persistent weaknesses in accountability.
The American midterms offer neither a perfect model nor a partisan formula. They offer a reminder that power is borrowed from citizens and is subject to continuing judgment. Political leaders who forget this may win elections but lose public confidence.
The most important lesson for every Sri Lankan politician, in government or Opposition, is, therefore, simple:
The people are not temporary guests in a politician’s democracy. Politicians are temporary trustees of the people’s democracy.
All News Advertisement Related Topics: Up Next Are we regressing?
Government makes charity difficult in Sri Lanka – Pethiyagoda
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
The government’s determination to tackle corruption, drug trafficking and organised crime is one of the most important challenges it has taken upon itself. The scale of the problem is evident from recent seizures of drugs at sea and at the airport, which indicate the enormous dimensions of the illicit drug trade. The street value of some consignments has reportedly approached staggering sums, running into hundreds of millions of dollars. The financial resources available to those involved in this trade must be immense. Their ability to corrupt individuals and institutions cannot be underestimated. The revelations of the involvement of persons connected with previous governments, their families and even members of the security forces in the drug trade are particularly disturbing. This is not simply a problem of law enforcement. It is a threat to the integrity of the State itself. The government appears to be approaching this challenge more systematically and seriously than any government in the past.
In two public engagements this past week, the President explained the government’s position. The first was a gathering of Buddhist monks and members of other religious communities, at Temple Trees to mark the first anniversary of Ratama Ekata, the national anti-drug programme. The purpose was to brief religious leaders on progress and enlist their support in carrying the message to communities throughout the country. The second was a trade union conference in Colombo, where the President responded to concerns about the proposed anti-terrorism and anti-crime legislation. At both, the President drew a distinction between two groups opposing the proposed laws. One consisted of criminal groups and those who give them patronage and protection. The other consisted of civil society organisations and human rights groups raising concerns from the perspective of democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law. The President said the government was prepared to listen to this second group and discuss the legislation with them, and that these were issues on which discussion and consensus needed to be obtained.
The Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (PSTB) would replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) of 1979, while the Prevention of Organised Crime Bill (POC Bill) would give the authorities new powers against organised crime. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has personally taken up the task of answering criticism from opposition parties, civil society and international human rights organisations. This shows that the two bills form central pillars of the government’s programme to restore the integrity of the State. However, concerns expressed regarding these two draft laws are substantial. In a 31-page communication made public this week, five United Nations human rights mandates warned that the POC Bill could increase the risk of torture and arbitrary detention. They pointed to police custody of 72 hours before a Magistrate’s review and detention for up to a year in police stations on ministerial authorisation. They also cited the admissibility of confessions to senior police officers, police access to phone records without court approval, surveillance of encrypted communications, and the possibility that trade unionists and protesters could fall within the law.
The President’s offer to reduce the 72-hour period to 48 hours, made in the course of a public speech, is a welcome sign of flexibility. The better test is whether the final text reaches the 24-hour norm of ordinary criminal procedure, or whether detention beyond it requires judicial approval. Sri Lanka’s experience under the PTA shows why this matters. Laws meant for exceptional threats can acquire a much wider application in practice. Bitter experience over nearly four decades has shown that people can spend years in detention without being charged, only eventually to be released without any charges being brought against them. The years they lose in detention can never be returned. They may lose the best and most productive years of their lives, their livelihoods and family relationships, without ever being found guilty of an offence. No subsequent release can compensate them for such a loss. This is precisely the kind of injustice that laws must be designed to prevent, rather than create the conditions in which it can occur.
There is a fundamental principle at stake. The liberty of individuals cannot be entrusted to the unfettered discretion of public officials or security forces. Whenever the State seeks to deprive a person of liberty, the judiciary must have an effective and decisive role. This is not a question of showing leniency towards those suspected of serious crimes. It is recognition that the power to arrest, detain and restrict the liberty of individuals is among the most important powers exercised by the State, and therefore requires the strongest safeguards. Law enforcement authorities must have the powers necessary to investigate and prosecute crime, but they cannot be the sole judges of how long a person may be deprived of liberty. That responsibility must remain firmly anchored in an independent judiciary. The State has a duty to protect society from criminals, but it also has an equally important duty to protect the innocent from the misuse of State power. The credibility of its efforts to combat crime depends on its ability to do both.
The role of the courts therefore needs to be strengthened in both bills. Decisions concerning prolonged detention, access to legal representation, the admissibility of confessions and restrictions on personal liberty should be subject to meaningful judicial scrutiny. The courts must have the authority to examine the necessity and proportionality of measures taken by the police and executive authorities, rather than merely endorse decisions already made by them. The breadth of certain definitions also raises questions about whether individuals could be brought within the ambit of the law on the basis of their associations or other characteristics rather than evidence of criminal conduct. A system in which members of the security establishment can exercise extensive powers while judicial officers have limited ability to intervene would weaken the constitutional safeguards that protect all citizens.
The President’s willingness to engage with civil society and human rights critics is a positive indicator. So is his assurance that the bills will not be rushed through Parliament, but considered only after comprehensive discussion and wider consensus. He has directed the Minister of Justice to engage with stakeholders. The fact that the Supreme Court is considering the PSTB, and that both bills have been challenged on constitutional grounds, provides another important avenue for scrutiny. The government has indicated that it will consider the Court’s determination and proposals for amendment. These developments offer a chance to improve the legislation rather than turn the debate into a confrontation between the government and its critics. The test of the government’s commitment to good governance will be whether it incorporates reasonable criticism into the final laws, including changes to provisions it originally thought necessary.
An aspect of good governance is to bring about changes that will stand the test of time. The government needs to demonstrate that it has effective mechanisms for ensuring that future legislation is subjected to independent scrutiny, meaningful consultation with the Bar Association, trade unions, media bodies, civil society and opposition parties, and rigorous human rights assessment before it reaches Parliament. The credibility of a government is measured not only by its determination to combat crime or its willingness to listen to criticism, but also by the care with which it exercises its legislative powers. Legislation should be built on sound legal foundations, informed public consultation and democratic consensus, rather than corrected only after its weaknesses have become matters of public controversy. Consensus may take longer to build, but the resulting changes are more likely to be accepted, respected and sustained. The challenge is not simply to enact laws that are strong enough to confront organised crime today, but to establish laws and institutions that will protect society and individual liberty under governments of the future.
I honestly thought our legendary singer / entertainer, Sohan Weerasinghe, was playing around with AI and projecting a new image of himself on social media, especially on Facebook.
Although in his… (that’s a secret where his age is concerned) what was seen on social media was a ‘forties look Sohan.’
Believe me, in reality Sohan has given himself a new look and he quite rightly says as long as he is on stage he believes he should look like a star.
To achieve his new, trendy look, Sohan says he went on a diet, adding that sugar was the culprit.
“Four months of serious dieting, 30 minutes of daily walking, low salt diet, and absolutely no sugar, has given me this new look. And walking has got to be brisk – a speed where you can talk but not sing!”
The forties look star is still very much top of the pops in the entertainment scene.
The big event, before the year is out, is ‘Dancing Through The Decades,’ where the legendary artiste will usher in 2027, along with Corrine, Rukshan, Annesley and Damian, and the band AROH.
A true legend of Sri Lankan music, Sohan has won the hearts of all music lovers, here and abroad.
By profession, he is a lawyer! He practiced law for a short while and then decided music would be his full-time career — what a brave, legendary jump!
When he stepped into The X-Periments scene, he made it a household name as Sohan & The X’Periments.
Sohan belongs to that rare breed who made music a living narrative of culture and heritage, taking Sri Lankan music from modest halls to grand stages in Oman, Australia, Europe, Toronto and beyond.
Versatile, with a captivating voice and magnetic stage presence, and with performances all over the world, Sohan continues to ride the crest of the wave.
And, of course, what is Sohan without his lady fans! From his early days to now, the ladies absolutely adore his presence on stage — his smooth voice, his charming smile, his gentlemanly charisma, and that twinkle in his eye when he sings a love ballad!
He has sung with almost all the leading ladies of Sri Lanka’s music industry, and the audience, especially the ladies, just swoon!
That’s the Sohan magic — a true heartthrob entertainer! A legend, forever young!
The entertainment scene, in Dubai, is getting back to normal, they say, with a calendar of concerts, festivals and family events, and with the SEVEN NOTES Live Band, made up of Sri Lankans who work by day (doing full-time jobs in Dubai), and, at night, producing high quality music on stage.
Yes, they do have a busy itinerary and will be seen in action at Mathaka Yathra, Christmas Baila Fiesta, Mathakayata Mage, and Sudu Araliya Mala over the next few weeks.
In the meanwhile, Niluk Uswaththa, of SEVEN NOTES fame, is working on some originals.
He says he has done two original and is planning to release another original soon.
The two originals are ‘Malak Se Oba,’ with Niluk handling the lyrics, music, and vocals, and ‘Mathakada.’
The lyrics for ‘Mathakada’ were penned by Buddhika Athapaththu, while Niluk did the music and vocals.
However, one is only hoping that the current Middle East crisis wouldn’t suddenly escalate and change the setup in Dubai.
Searching for leadership: Can we bring back qualities of our golden years?
Wins for Dialog Axiata and Green Miracle Grand on Wednesday
Mendis and Udara steady ship with warm-up fifties
Prospect of ‘spaceport’ on Sri Lanka’s east coast
Batting frailties give Sri Lanka food for thought
Why the Jaffna Man Eats So Much Murunga
Sri Lankan Airlines loss amplified to Rs35Bn by monetary debasement
Copyright © 2020 Upali Newspapers (Pvt) Ltd. Solution by LankaCom Privacy Policy
Loading comments…