Nearly two years into his presidency, Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD) finds himself at a critical crossroads that defines many political careers: the transition from promising change to delivering results. Political analyst Faraz Shauketaly raises a pertinent question that resonates across Sri Lanka's political landscape - is the President governing effectively, or is he still trapped in campaign rhetoric?
The Promise vs. Reality Gap
When AKD campaigned for the presidency, his message was crystal clear and compelling. He pledged that those who "robbed the Treasury" would face justice - not endless investigations, not bureaucratic reviews, but actual accountability. This promise struck a chord with voters exhausted by corruption scandals and economic mismanagement that had plagued previous administrations.
However, the reality of governance has proven more complex than campaign trail declarations. The gap between electoral promises and administrative action has widened, leaving many supporters questioning whether their faith was misplaced. This disconnect raises fundamental questions about presidential leadership in times of national crisis.
Resistance or Hesitation?
Shauketaly's analysis touches on a crucial distinction that often determines presidential success or failure. Is the slow pace of reform due to institutional resistance from entrenched interests, or does it stem from presidential hesitation when faced with the complexities of actual governance?
Institutional resistance is a real phenomenon in Sri Lankan politics. Previous administrations have faced significant pushback from established power structures, bureaucratic inertia, and vested interests that benefit from the status quo. If this is the primary obstacle, AKD's challenge becomes one of political strategy and coalition-building.
However, if hesitation is the root cause, the implications are more concerning. Presidential hesitation often stems from the stark realization that campaign promises face practical limitations, legal constraints, and unintended consequences that weren't apparent during the electoral phase.
The Accountability Challenge
The cornerstone of AKD's electoral appeal was his commitment to accountability. Sri Lankan voters, burdened by years of economic hardship partly attributed to corruption and mismanagement, were hungry for justice. They wanted to see concrete action against those responsible for the nation's financial woes.
Yet, two years later, the promised accountability measures appear to be moving at a glacial pace. This delay has practical political consequences beyond mere disappointment. It affects public trust, undermines the President's credibility, and potentially weakens his political capital for future initiatives.
Governing vs. Campaigning Mindset
The distinction between campaigning and governing represents one of the most challenging transitions in political leadership. Campaigning rewards bold promises, simplified solutions, and emotional appeals. Governing requires nuanced decision-making, compromise, and often accepting partial victories rather than complete transformations.
If AKD remains in campaign mode, he risks becoming irrelevant to the actual business of running the country. Campaign mode prioritizes messaging over results, perception over substance, and future promises over present delivery. While this approach might maintain political support temporarily, it ultimately fails to address the real challenges facing Sri Lanka.
The Electoral Arithmetic Reality
Shauketaly's observation about "electoral arithmetic" highlights another dimension of this challenge. Presidents often become fixated on maintaining their political base and positioning for future elections rather than focusing on governance outcomes. This mindset can lead to decision-making processes that prioritize political calculations over policy effectiveness.
However, sustainable political success requires actual results. Voters may forgive initial delays if they see genuine progress and clear direction. They are less forgiving of leaders who appear to be perpetually preparing for the next election rather than governing in the present.
The Path Forward
For President AKD, the solution requires a fundamental shift from campaign rhetoric to governance reality. This means setting realistic timelines for accountability measures, communicating honestly about challenges and constraints, and demonstrating tangible progress on key promises.
Effective presidential leadership also requires building the institutional capacity to deliver on promises. This might involve reforming bureaucratic processes, strengthening legal frameworks, and creating new mechanisms for transparency and accountability.
The President must also recognize that governing requires different skills than campaigning. It demands patience with complex processes, willingness to compromise, and the ability to manage competing interests while maintaining focus on long-term objectives.
Conclusion
Faraz Shauketaly's question cuts to the heart of contemporary Sri Lankan politics. President AKD's legacy will ultimately be determined not by his campaign promises or electoral success, but by his ability to transition from promising change to delivering results. The nation's patience, while not infinite, remains available for leaders who demonstrate genuine commitment to governance over political theater.
The choice between governing and campaigning will define not only AKD's presidency but also the trajectory of Sri Lankan democracy in the years ahead.