Columns

• Ruling NPP/JVP likely to win most councils despite concerns over a possible dent in its popularity
• Big tussle for second place between faltering SJB and resurgent SLPP
• Presence of diplomats and Communist Party representatives from China and Viet Nam adds global significance to well-attended NPP/JVP rally
• Firebrand Indian delegate unleashes a blistering attack on Modi in her speech at rally

By Our Political Editor

In a bid to gauge its grassroots mandate, the National People’s Power/Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna government is facing its first countrywide popularity test.

On Tuesday, May 6, 17,156,338 registered voters will head to the polls to choose councillors for 339 local councils—a decisive measure of the administration’s appeal from the village level up. The voter strength, now updated every three months, makes it the biggest election in Sri Lanka, Election Commission Chairman R.M.A.L. Ratnayake told the Sunday Times.

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, still in the early months of his tenure following his September 21 electoral triumph, now finds his government’s record under the microscope. Despite the two-thirds majority commanded in Parliament secured on November 14 last year, this local-council-level exercise poses an immediate litmus test for both policy and performance. He not only seeks to have most of these bodies under his government’s control but also aims at doing so with the impending provincial council elections. Hence, another round of personal campaigns is on the cards. For him, the campaign has been akin to one at the national level, something not seen among other party leaders.

The well-attended NPP/JVP May Day rally at Galle Face Green. Pic by Eshan Fernando

Since the elections—both presidential and parliamentary—the public has seen no rabbits pulled from hats, no surprise achievements, just the slow unravelling of lofty pledges. The grand promise of bringing big-time bribery kingpins to justice has remained elusive. Some figures are tangled in a bureaucratic web of investigations. Others have become a political football between prosecutors and investigators, each blaming the other for stalled progress. The investigators insist cases were not forthcoming despite their efforts, while prosecutors lament that the evidence presented has been weak—half-baked and unsustainable in a court of law. Even the few cases that have reached the courtroom have centered on violations committed under previous administration or before. Some have found themselves safer despite strong accusations. Justice, it seems, is perpetually trapped in the past, never quite catching up to the present.

Most people left the SJB's Thalawakale May Day rally after leader Sajith Premadasa left early. Pic Shantha Chandrasiri

Then came the most glaring anticlimax. A well-publicised blockbuster film is preceded by a high-pitched campaign—the excitement builds, the audience anticipates. Similarly, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, standing before election crowds, assured the nation that by April 21—the sixth anniversary—those masterminds behind the Easter Sunday massacres would be unmasked. The nation braced itself, expecting dramatic arrests or groundbreaking revelations. What it got instead was bureaucratic deflection: the Presidential Secretariat announced that the final report from the Janak de Silva Commission of Inquiry had been handed to the Police and the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) for study and recommendations on indictments. Four years ago, the same final report had already been forwarded to the Attorney General, leading to multiple indictments. Still, the core accusations linger in limbo within the CID and Terrorism Investigation Division (TID).

The SLPP's May Day rally at Nugegoda drew a promising crowd. Pic Indika Handuwala

There are some classic examples of the delays. The CID is on the trail of Kapila Chandrasena, SriLankan Airlines’ onetime Chief Executive Officer (CEO), who accepted a bribe of two million US dollars from Airbus—easily the biggest amount in a single case of bribery—but no extradition process has begun. Ironically, Chandrasena was in Sri Lanka weeks ago playing golf at the Royal Colombo Golf Club and enjoying drinks. Obviously the CID had not informed the Immigration officers that they were on the lookout for him.

There is also the case of Ahamed Thalib Lukman Thalib and his son, Lukman Thalib Ahamed, for the Terrorism Investigation Division (TID). They are known to be residing in Australia. This is for their alleged involvement in the Easter Sunday incidents. They are still conducting investigations. It is only thereafter that extradition proceedings, if any, could be thought of. The TID has, however, taken steps to confiscate property belonging to them in Sri Lanka. Their names have been included in the United Nations Regulations No 1 of 2012 in the list of designated persons, groups and entities. This list includes individuals and entities related to terrorism and terrorist financing at the national level.

Another promise—this one equally charged—concerned former presidents and their official residences. The election campaign thundered with vows of reclaiming these luxurious state-funded bungalows, ending the tradition of former leaders whom they claimed were living lavishly at taxpayer expense. Mahinda Rajapaksa was at the centre of this fight, as government leaders made public appeals demanding he vacate his sprawling official residence at Wijerama Mawatha, a stone’s throw away from the British High Commission. He stayed put defiantly.

In January, President Dissanayake stood before a rally in Katukurunda, Kalutara, delivering a fiery declaration: “I personally commissioned the valuation of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s residence in Colombo through the Government Valuation Department. Just the house—not the land—is valued at Rs 4.6 million per month. The Constitution entitles a former president to a residence or a third of their salary. We will take over this property and give him his entitled salary portion—Rs. 30,000. If he wants to keep the house, he must pay the difference. Otherwise, he must vacate. This is how we build a country. Enough of misleading the people, enough of living luxuriously on public funds.” The rhetoric was forceful. The urgency was clear. Three months later, the issue has faded into silence, swallowed by the very machinery it sought to dismantle.

The script is familiar—the drumbeat of reform, the dramatic calls for accountability, and the inevitable retreat into bureaucratic inertia. Pledges made in the heat of election campaigns evaporate as soon as the dust settles, leaving behind not justice, not change, but the quiet disappointment of a public that, once again, expected more. This version sharpens the narrative, tightening transitions while ensuring that each segment complements the overarching theme: a government entangled in its own rhetoric, unable—or unwilling—to deliver on its most potent promises. Of course, one must be mindful of the obstacles they face with a largely ineffective police force and growing amateurism among some ministers.

Despite the controversies surrounding the local government elections, the NPP/JVP government has maintained its foothold, albeit with challenges. The May 6 elections serve as a crucial test of the administration’s resilience. While the opposition frames the contest as a referendum on the government’s performance, the NPP/JVP’s core support remains intact, bolstered by its cost-cutting measures and governance reforms. Funding issues appear to have affected most contesting parties, bringing about a lower volume in their media campaigns.

Central to this dynamic is President Dissanayake himself, whose magnetic leadership style has shaped both policy direction and public perception. One is not wrong in saying that he has successfully launched a new political culture which has found wider acceptance. His emphasis on austerity—eschewing helicopters for domestic travel and downsizing delegations on foreign tours—has reinforced his image as a pragmatic reformer. Standing in his favour, with a few exceptions in his ranks, is the much-recognised cost-cutting exercise. This approach has ignited debate even within his own ranks, with detractors warning that an excess of frugality could erode Sri Lanka’s global engagement and strategic leverage. Cutting funding for media exposure during foreign visits has only deepened concerns, curbing public access to diplomatic developments and limiting the government’s ability to shape narratives on foreign policy. Even domestically that this remains a priority area appears lost.

A Western diplomat underscored the point with a revealing example: the so-called joint statement issued in Colombo regarding reciprocal tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump. It raised hopes locally. Yet, there was conspicuous silence from the embassy involved—no reciprocal issue, no follow-up, no clarification. “If every affected country released ‘joint statements’, the sheer volume would be overwhelming,” he remarked, exposing the disconnect between rhetoric and meaningful diplomatic action.

Another telling example surfaced at last Thursday’s well-attended NPP/JVP May Day rally at Galle Face Green. Among the crowd was a presence that did not go unnoticed—diplomats from two Colombo-based embassies: China and Vietnam. They stood alongside representatives from the Communist parties of both countries, who had arrived by invitation. Their delegation list revealed a striking level of engagement:

• China: Peng Xiubin (Director General, Southeast and South Asian Affairs, CPC), Chen Xuanbo (Deputy Director, CPC), Chen Yongpei (Class 1 Staff, CPC), Zhang Guyu (Staff Member/Translator, CPC), Jin Enze (Third Secretary, Chinese Embassy), Chen Yuan (Counsellor, Chinese Embassy)
• Viet Nam: Le Van Huong (Deputy Head of Mission, Vietnamese Embassy)

The Colombo diplomatic community took notice, some with raised eyebrows. But they were not the only foreign attendees. A three-member delegation from India also made their presence felt:

•   India: A.R. Sindhu, Member, CPI Marxist & National Secretary, Centre of Indian Trade Unions; Binoy Viswam (Former Kerala Minister); G. Devarajan (General Secretary, All India Forward Bloc).

At the heart of the May Day rally, firebrand leader Sindhu unleashed a blistering attack on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, accusing him of curtailing democratic rights and tightening the noose on dissent. She lambasted the Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP) government as the “most neoliberal, pro-imperialist” regime, one that, in her words, was “imposing virtual slavery” on the working class. Turning her gaze towards the ideological stronghold of the BJP, she condemned its parent organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), alleging that it was “spreading communal venom, targeting the minorities and the left.”

But her most striking moment came when she set her sights on Modi himself, who had stood on these very grounds as a celebrated state guest just three weeks ago. Criticising him was one thing—using the ruling party’s own platform to deliver sharp invectives was another. As she thundered on, an official from the Chinese Communist Party, seated beside her, watched with keen interest. He could be seen laughing at her remarks.

The sheer turnout at the NPP/JVP rally carried some fascinating insights. First, it reaffirmed their ability to mobilize mass gatherings with a disciplined, well-orchestrated event. While May Day rallies have historically attracted large crowds, this year’s outreach stretched further than usual, drawing members from areas previously less engaged. The display of strength was unmistakable, reinforcing their growing foothold—an undeniable factor heading into Tuesday’s local council elections.

It is another story with the main opposition. The abrupt end to the SJB rally in Talawakele, surrounded by lush tea gardens,  following Sajith Premadasa’s departure, underscores the party’s struggle to maintain momentum. The rows of empty chairs and dwindling crowd signal a deeper issue—one that could manifest in voter sentiment. This no doubt is a clear manifestation of the rising internal discontent in the party. So much so, a formidable section is set to raise issues with leader Premadasa over mounting issues. This is after the elections.

The SLPP’s resurgence, marked by Namal Rajapaksa’s well-attended rally, suggests a recalibration of political fortunes. Despite their previous electoral setback, they appear to be regaining ground. The contrast between these two events is telling: one party grappling with disengagement, the other capitalising on renewed support. Whilst notable, they are still constrained by the timeline of major national elections. Their ability to translate these rallies into sustained political gains will likely hinge on the upcoming local council elections, which could serve as a litmus test for their broader appeal.

If they manage to consolidate support at that level, it might provide them with the momentum needed to remain a formidable force when the presidential and parliamentary polls eventually roll around. But for now, their success will likely be measured in regional influence rather than sweeping national recovery. Given the SLPP’s evident traction, its ability to leverage local council elections will be a crucial indicator of its staying power. With rallies like Namal Rajapaksa’s show they have regained some footing, but translating that into lasting political influence requires more than sheer turnout demands strategic positioning, policy messaging, and public perception management.

Local council elections could serve as proving ground, allowing the SLPP to gauge its real electoral strength and refine its approach ahead of national contests. However, its resurgence might be tempered by lingering disenchantment among voters and the broader political volatility. If the SLPP secures significant wins at the local council level, it could provide the party with a launchpad for national recovery—but a lacklustre performance might confirm that its return is more flash than substance.

Additionally, voter sentiment will be a key factor. While some may see the SLPP’s revival as a return to stability, others may remain wary of its governance track record. One of the biggest maladies for the SLPP has been rampant bribery and corruption during its rule. The main opposition SJB’s ability to counter this resurgence will also play a decisive role—if the SJB fails to regain momentum, it could further tilt the balance in favour of the SLPP. This election cycle is shaping up to be a crucial testing ground for Sri Lanka’s political forces, where narratives of resurgence and decline will be put to the ultimate electoral test.

The least said the best in respect of the United National Party (UNP), a historically national institution now reduced to an ineffective grouping. The party was unable to hold a May Day rally. How that will reflect on its chances on Tuesday would be interesting to watch.

Election Commission Chairman R.M.A.L. Ratnayake insists that Tuesday’s contests rank as the largest local government exercise in Sri Lankan history. Yet the long run-up has been steeped in controversy. Former President Ranil Wickremesinghe had previously dismissed the earlier 2023 polls—citing a lack of funds—as a pretext. His reluctance not only stalled the process but also led state institutions to echo his concerns: the police reported insufficient resources for security, and the Government Printer balked at printing ballot papers due to budget constraints.

Critics argue that these operational hurdles conceal a deeper political calculation. They contend that the postponement was less about fiscal challenges and more about a strategic manoeuvre aimed at protecting the then ruling SLPP’s interests and that of his own fledgling United National Party, following its earlier move to endorse Wickremesinghe’s ascension to presidency via parliamentary vote. Hence Tuesday’s ballots are expected to deliver not just a verdict on local performance but also a broader barometer of public confidence in the current administration.

In a Q & A with the Sunday Times, Election Commission Chairman Ratnayake said that Tuesday’s local elections were more difficult than both the presidential and parliamentary elections. “In the presidential elections, there was only one ballot paper for the entire country. That gave the names of all contestants. In parliamentary elections, the ballot paper related to only 22 districts. In the local council elections, we had to bring out ballot papers for 339 councils,” Ratnayake said. See box story for details.

A Gazette Extraordinary issued on February 17, 2025 announced that the term for 339 of 341 local government authorities would begin on June 2, 2025, including 28 municipal councils, 36 urban councils, and 275 Pradeshiya Sabhas. The Kalmunai Municipal Council was excluded due to legal proceedings, and the Elpitiya Pradeshiya Sabha was excluded due to its election on October 26, 2024.

On March 3, 2025, the Election Commission said nominations for 336 local councils would be accepted from March 17 to 20 2025. The Kalmunai Municipal Council and Pradeshiya sabhas of Dehiattakandiya, Elpitiya, Mannar, and Poonakari (Pooneryn) were excluded. The voting will be 40 percent on the first-past-the-post basis for the wards. The remaining 60 percent will be on proportional representation.

Tuesday’s ballots are expected to deliver not just a verdict on local performance but also a broader barometer of public confidence in the current administration, explore how past administrative delays have impacted voter turnout or reflect on how such crises of resource allocation might foreshadow broader fiscal and governance challenges. Additionally, comparing this localised popularity test to previous landmark elections in Sri Lanka could add historical nuance to the narrative.

Customarily, there are some peculiar features at a local poll. Irrespective of the party they represent, some candidates are voted for on the basis that they are “persons of the area.” Other than that, some political party representatives estimate a drop of anything between ten to thirty percent in voter turnout. Yet, the NPP/JVP is set to sweep most councils including those in the North. The tussle will thus be for second place and that remains a contest between the faltering SJB and the rising SLPP.

The election’s significance extends beyond local governance. With the opposition highlighting economic struggles and governance missteps, the results will likely shape the political landscape for years to come. Whether the NPP/JVP can translate its ideological momentum into sustained public trust remains the defining question of this electoral cycle.

EC chief explains challenges on the path to May 6 polls Here are edited excerpts from Election Commission Chairman R.M.A.L. Ratnayake’s Q&A with the Sunday Times: BACKGROUND TO EVENTS THAT LED TO LOCAL ELECTIONS:  The last local council elections were held in 2018. Thereafter, it was due in 2023.  For several reasons it was put off. When Ranil Wickremesinghe was President, it was said that there were no funds for the conduct of these elections. The Election Commission was therefore compelled to put off elections indefinitely. Two different dates were set thereafter, but they had to be put off again.  Some moved to the Supreme Court. The SC ruled that these elections should be held without delay. It came about when the Commission was made up of the present members. Yet, it was found that legal changes were necessary. Election Commission Chairman R.M.A.L. Ratnayake NEW LAWS:  Despite the SC ruling, there was the need to make amendments to existing laws that governed local council elections. The present government has introduced amendments to these laws. This paved the way for us to arrange for the conduct of elections. We called for nominations. There were two noteworthy features. The new laws made compulsory provision for youth, men as well as women members. There was also the need for declaration of assets, the result of new laws introduced to curb bribery and corruption. An unusual feature was the rejection of a considerably large number of nominations. Again, those affected went to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. The cases before the SC were all rejected. That included six fundamental rights petitions. The Court of Appeal first examined over a hundred cases. They ruled that the nomination papers of 76 be accepted i.e. they be made candidates. It was the Commission’s view that the decision conflicted with the new laws. Yet, we had to accept the ruling. Moreover, the SC had ruled that we should hold local council elections early. Hence, we fixed May 6 for local polls. As a result, the ballot papers in around forty local councils had to be made invalid. We had to print them afresh. We were also compelled to recall postal ballots that were issued. They were in state institutions throughout Sri Lanka. We had to launch a difficult operation to recall them. LEGAL ISSUES: We were also compelled to overcome some legal issues. The ruling of the Court of Appeal, for example, related to 15 cases. The judgement, however, did not enumerate details. Our officials had to visit the Court of Appeal. With the help of the Registrar, they made accurate notes in their own handwriting, checked and re-checked them. This took days. One of the difficulties here was to identify to which local government institution the ruling applied. This development forced us to consider holding the local council elections on a staggered basis or putting them off for a longer date. However, due to a major effort on the part of our officials, we were able to clear matters early. This helped us conduct the polls on May 6. We were able to complete printing of ballot papers and other documentation. THE REASONS FOR LEGAL ISSUES: The Additional District Registrar is the only authority in terms of the new laws to certify the age of youth candidates. Even Justice of the Peace (JP) is not empowered. The certification is made on the copy of the registration book maintained at the Divisional Secretariats. It is from these books that the certificates are issued. Among the nomination papers received were those signed by JPs or with no attestation at all. They were naturally rejected. It is pertinent to mention that the Supreme Court, which rejected the six fundamental rights petitions, declared that the birth certificates could be attested only by the Assistant District Registrar. Another is the provision under the second schedule of the Constitution where an oath affirming the unitary status of Sri Lanka is required. In the case of an elected MP, such an oath is before the Speaker of Parliament. However, when they sign an affirmation, a requirement in their nomination papers, there is no one before whom they should place their signature. This is why we have made it mandatory for them to sign before a JP. I had to write to the Attorney General seeking his views on conflicting positions. Whilst the SC has ruled that an attestation is required, the Court of Appeal has been silent on the matter in its ruling asking us to accept the nomination papers. We cannot ignore court rulings. The reason for the largest number of rejections was due to the directives the Commission gave to the District Secretariats to strictly abide by the law. MAIN FEATURES OF THE NEW LOCAL COUNCIL LAWS: Votes will be counted in all wards. Most wards have only one polling station. In some there are two. Modera has 21 polling stations. Votes in each ward is counted in the polling station itself. There will be one main centre where there are more than one polling station. In such cases, we will bring them and count them separately. Earlier, all ballot boxes were brought to designated counting centres. First result to be announced is the one in each ward. Then the counts are brought to the main district office where results are collated. There, the result of each local authority is determined. The Chairman of the EC must approve it. It is only thereafter that the outcome of each council election is made known COPMPLAINTS: Most complaints relate to smaller incidents. We have received more than 2,000 such complaints mostly relating to posters and cutouts. Over half of such complaints have been resolved by the Police within hours. There has also been complaints of a serious nature. One example is how a complaint was made to us that President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, in his election campaign speeches, had pledged to provide funds only to councils won by the NPP/JVP. We wrote to his secretary drawing attention to this aspect and pointed out that such remarks amounted to a violation of election laws. DID THE PRESIDENTIAL SECRETARIAT RESPOND? No there was no response from them. However, my officials reported that President Dissanayake has since then refrained from making such remarks. In other words, our letter has been taken note of. Another major complaint came during the tooth relic exposition of Lord Buddha in Kandy. It was about Clean Sri Lanka flags being placed near the large queues, roundabouts and other areas where many people were present. We informed the Assistant Director of Local Government in Kandy. We were informed that it was not related to the elections and was a national effort. However, we pointed out that it was the initiative of the ruling party contesting the local elections. Hence, we urged that they be removed.