From denouncing corruption to facing its own credibility crisis, Sri Lanka’s NPP government is struggling to match its moral branding with real-world governance. Appointments, secrecy, and shifting stances reveal a widening credibility gap that threatens its ethical high ground.
When the National People’s Power (NPP) was in opposition, its rhetoric thundered with moral conviction. It positioned itself as the righteous voice of the people, relentlessly criticizing successive governments for corruption, nepotism, and failed governance. But now that it holds the reins of power, the NPP finds itself grappling with the same contradictions it once condemned. Theory is meeting practice and not always gracefully.
Even as the NPP commands a dominant position in parliament, its self-proclaimed moral superiority appears to be waning. Political survival, administrative compromise, and internal inconsistencies are eroding the very principles it once vowed to uphold. The challenges of governance have proven far more complex than the simplicity of opposition critiques.
The First Ethical Stumble
The first real test of the NPP’s moral compass came not through economics or foreign policy but through a symbolic title. Asoka Sapumal Ranwala, the newly elected Speaker of Parliament, had long used the honorific “Dr.” before his name. When opposition members demanded evidence of his academic credentials, Ranwala promised to produce proof. Seven months later, none has materialized. Though he eventually resigned, the delay cast a long shadow over the party’s moral branding.
This happened at a time when the NPP was vocally condemning other parties for “76 years of economic looting.” The irony was glaring. The moral high ground the NPP stood on suddenly looked shaky.
And yet, the accusations the NPP made against other political leaders were not without merit. The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) has documented numerous cases of graft from both past and present administrations. But moral authority, once compromised, is hard to reclaim.
The Monopoly on Truth?
The NPP had prided itself on being the sole torchbearer of truthfulness and righteousness. But incidents like the Ranwala controversy undermined that narrative. It was a personal issue, yes, but one that became a metaphor for the broader challenges of walking the talk.
The next blow came from two high-profile appointments. Former DIG Ravi Seneviratne was appointed Secretary to the Ministry of Public Security, and Shani Abeysekara was reinstated as CID Director. These were not arbitrary picks they were deeply rooted in NPP’s own Retired Police Collective and had previously collaborated closely with the party. Despite their qualifications, the optics of political favoritism were unmistakable.
Supporters justified the appointments as necessary steps to deliver justice and resolve politically motivated crimes. But critics many from within the NPP’s original support base argued these moves contradicted its promise to depoliticize the public service. If the NPP had chastised other parties for similar moves in the past, could it now defend its own choices on technical grounds?
The same logic applied to the appointment of Dr. Harshana Suriapperuma as Secretary to the Finance Ministry. Merit or not, the appointments fueled a perception that the NPP’s moral compass bent when convenient.
The Modi Visit and the RTI Blowback
The April visit of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi added another chapter to the NPP’s growing ethical conundrum. Seven Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) were signed, one of them on defense cooperation. But the contents were kept under wraps.
Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath initially said they could be accessed via a Right to Information (RTI) request. Later, Cabinet Spokesman Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa clarified they could only be revealed with India’s consent. The contradiction exposed the party to accusations of secrecy and hypocrisy.
This was especially damaging for a party that has long championed transparency and the people’s right to know. The RTI law is a constitutional right in Sri Lanka, and the NPP had often wielded it as a sword against its opponents. That very sword now seemed to cut both ways.
The issue grew murkier with the handling of the RTI Commission itself. The body has remained headless for over three months. A journalist’s request under the RTI Act to reveal the staff details of the President’s Media Division was declined ironically citing the same act that enshrines access to information.
Hypocrisy or Political Realism?
This unfolding saga of inconsistencies has left many asking: Is the NPP simply doing what all parties must do to survive in power? Or is it succumbing to the very system it once promised to reform?
The NPP’s attempts to preserve political dominance, especially after the local government elections—could be viewed as necessary political maneuvering. Some even argue that their efforts at economic stabilization warrant a degree of flexibility in alliances and appointments.
But the real damage lies in silence. When moral challenges emerge, the NPP’s failure to respond openly erodes its image more than the controversies themselves. It is not the presence of imperfections that weakens a party—but its unwillingness to address them transparently.
Final Thought
For a party that rode to power on the wave of ethical governance, the National People’s Power now finds itself in a credibility crisis. Its critics argue that the gap between promise and practice is growing too wide to ignore. The NPP still has a chance to redeem its moral stature, but only if it begins to confront its own inconsistencies with the same fervor it once reserved for its rivals.
