Ravi Karunanayake’s Economic Sermon: When Credentials Are Optional and Memory Is Convenient
Former Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake has once again emerged from political retirement to issue grave warnings about Sri Lanka’s economy—this time cautioning that the country’s recovery in 2026 remains on a “fiscal knife-edge,” despite IMF support and debt restructuring relief of nearly USD 17 billion. The tone is serious, the language technocratic, and the references carefully curated from Finance Ministry bulletins.
But before the public is asked to take these warnings as gospel, a more basic question demands an answer: why should Sri Lanka accept economic sermons from a man who is not an economist, never was one, and whose own tenure as Finance Minister ended in forced resignation?
Ravi Karunanayake did not rise through the ranks of economic policy, macroeconomic research, or fiscal planning. He is an accountant by training, not an economist by profession. His entry into high economic office was not the product of demonstrated economic insight, but political patronage—most notably his proximity to the late Lalith Athulathmudali, a political heavyweight whose shadow carried many protégés into positions far beyond their technical depth.
That historical reality matters, because Karunanayake now presents himself as a voice of fiscal prudence, warning against errors, populism, and policy missteps—as though he were a detached technocrat observing events from the sidelines rather than a former decision-maker whose own record is inseparable from the path that led Sri Lanka into crisis.
A Convenient Amnesia About Yahapalanaya
Karunanayake’s commentary leans heavily on IMF benchmarks, debt sustainability ratios, GDP percentages, and fiscal targets. He correctly notes that Sri Lanka is already servicing restructured debt, that grace periods are temporary, and that aggressive taxation without growth risks suffocating SMEs. None of this is controversial. Most second-year economics students would agree.
What is conspicuously absent, however, is any acknowledgement of his own role during the Yahapalanaya administration, or why he was compelled to resign from the Finance Ministry during that period.
Sri Lanka is entitled to ask: if Ravi Karunanayake’s economic judgment is so sound, why was he forced out of office at a time when stability and credibility were most needed? Why should the public now trust warnings from someone whose stewardship did not withstand either political or institutional scrutiny?
One cannot selectively claim authority while selectively forgetting accountability.
IMF Language Without IMF Discipline
Karunanayake’s remarks are heavy with IMF-approved vocabulary—“fiscal discipline,” “revenue targets,” “debt sustainability,” “foreign inflows.” Yet the IMF programme he now praises exists precisely because successive governments—including the one he served—failed to impose discipline when it mattered.
It is therefore ironic to hear him warn that “this is not the time for fiscal populism or policy reversals.” Sri Lanka has already paid the price for years of poor fiscal judgment, weak revenue planning, and politically motivated decision-making—much of it institutionalised long before the current administration.
To be clear, pointing out that Sri Lanka’s recovery is fragile is not insight; it is self-evident. The real question is whether those issuing the warnings possess the moral or professional standing to lecture others on discipline.
Debt Numbers Are Not a Substitute for Credibility
Karunanayake is keen to emphasise that debt restructuring has reduced immediate repayment pressures by USD 17 billion between 2023 and 2027, but that this relief is “significant but temporary.” Again, correct—but hardly revelatory.
What the public hears instead is a familiar Colombo political pattern: former ministers speaking with the authority of office they no longer hold, armed with official data they once mismanaged, cautioning against dangers they helped create.
Economic commentary divorced from institutional credibility is not leadership; it is noise.
Tax Warnings From a Former Tax Enforcer
Perhaps the most striking element of Karunanayake’s statement is his warning that aggressive tax expansion without growth could diminish compliance and stifle SMEs. This may be true, but it raises another uncomfortable question: where was this sensitivity to SMEs and compliance during his own tenure?
Sri Lanka’s tax base did not collapse overnight. It eroded over years of inconsistent policy, political bargaining, and short-term fixes—again, under governments of which Karunanayake was a part.
Warnings issued after the damage is done may sound wise, but they are ultimately cost-free.
Better to Keep Quiet Than Rewrite History
There is nothing wrong with former ministers contributing to public debate—provided they do so with humility, honesty, and a clear acknowledgment of their own limitations.
Ravi Karunanayake’s problem is not that he speaks; it is that he speaks as though his past never happened, as though his lack of economic credentials is irrelevant, and as though his resignation from office is a footnote rather than a defining fact.
Sri Lanka’s economic recovery does indeed remain fragile. But credibility is just as fragile—and far harder to rebuild.
If former Finance Ministers without economic training, without a clean record, and without public trust insist on positioning themselves as guardians of fiscal wisdom, the country would be better served by a simpler rule:
If you do not have the credentials, and if your record does not support the lecture, it may be wiser to keep quiet.