Punished for Delivering Development:
Why the SLMC’s Suspension of Zohara Buhary Exposes a Crisis of Leadership and Local Democracy
The Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC), once a party that claimed to speak for Muslim political empowerment and grassroots representation, has once again demonstrated how far it has drifted from the lived realities of the communities it purports to represent. The suspension of Colombo Municipal Councillor Zohara Buhary for voting in favour of the Colombo Municipal Council (CMC) budget is not merely an internal disciplinary matter. It is a revealing episode that exposes the widening gulf between party headquarters politics and the urgent development needs of urban Muslim communities—particularly those in historically neglected areas such as Slave Island.
At the heart of this controversy lies a simple but inconvenient truth: the CMC budget approved by the council includes funding for ten identified development projects directly benefiting Slave Island, the very ward Zohara Buhary was elected to serve. Her vote, therefore, was not an act of rebellion for personal gain, but a decision aligned with the basic democratic duty of a municipal councillor—to act in the best interests of her constituents.
That such a decision has been met with immediate suspension, threats of expulsion, and demands for an affidavit of contrition speaks volumes about the current state of internal democracy within the SLMC.
From Representation to Command Politics
According to the suspension letter issued by SLMC Secretary General M. Nizam Kariapper, Councillor Buhary’s “offence” was voting for the CMC budget despite explicit instructions from party leader Rauff Hakeem to oppose it. The language of the letter is strikingly severe, describing her action as a “grave and serious violation of party discipline” and warning of further punitive measures should she fail to submit an affidavit justifying her conduct.
This framing raises an uncomfortable question: when did voting according to the material interests of one’s ward become an act of indiscipline?
Municipal councils are not rubber stamps for party leaderships. They are statutory bodies tasked with urban governance—roads, drainage, housing, sanitation, markets, public health, and community infrastructure. Councillors are elected not to perform ideological obedience, but to negotiate, deliberate, and secure resources for their wards. In this context, Buhary’s vote reflects a pragmatic assessment of outcomes rather than blind allegiance to party commands issued far from the realities of Colombo’s inner city.
Slave Island: A Community Long Promised, Rarely Delivered
Slave Island is not an abstract electoral unit. It is one of Colombo’s most historically complex and socio-economically vulnerable neighbourhoods, home to a multi-ethnic, predominantly working-class population, including a significant Muslim community. Decades of urban neglect, displacement pressures from high-end development, and inadequate municipal services have left residents sceptical of political promises.
The current CMC budget reportedly allocates funding for ten projects in the Slave Island ward, addressing long-standing infrastructure and community needs. For a councillor representing this area, opposing the budget on party orders would have meant voting against tangible benefits for her constituents—projects that may not reappear in future budget cycles.
In this light, the SLMC leadership’s expectation that Buhary should sacrifice ward-level development for party posturing appears not only unreasonable but politically tone-deaf.
The Centralisation of Power Within the SLMC
The decision to suspend Buhary also reflects a deeper structural problem within the SLMC: the extreme centralisation of authority around its leadership. Over the years, the party has increasingly functioned less as a deliberative political organisation and more as a command structure, where dissent—even when grounded in constituency interest—is treated as insubordination.
The role of the Secretary General in this episode is particularly noteworthy. Rather than facilitating internal dialogue or mediation, the party machinery moved swiftly to punishment. The demand that an elected councillor submit an affidavit explaining why she should not be expelled resembles a quasi-judicial process designed to humiliate and coerce compliance rather than resolve political disagreement.
Such practices may enforce discipline, but they erode legitimacy.
Discipline vs Democracy
Political parties often justify strict discipline as necessary for coherence and bargaining power. That argument has some merit at parliamentary level, particularly in confidence votes or national policy frameworks. However, applying the same logic mechanically to local government budgets is deeply problematic.
Municipal governance is, by design, transactional and pragmatic. Councillors frequently negotiate across party lines to secure funding for roads, schools, mosques, markets, and housing schemes. To criminalise such negotiation is to misunderstand the very purpose of local government.
If every municipal vote must be pre-approved by party leadership, councillors are reduced to messengers rather than representatives. Voters, in turn, are left effectively unrepresented.
The Message Sent to Muslim Women in Politics
Zohara Buhary’s suspension also carries a troubling symbolic dimension. As a Muslim woman in local politics—a space already dominated by male leadership—her treatment sends a discouraging message to others who may wish to enter public life.
Rather than being supported for prioritising community development, she has been publicly disciplined and threatened with political erasure. This reinforces a perception that independent judgement, especially by women, is tolerated only so long as it aligns with the preferences of party elites.
For a party that frequently invokes minority rights and political inclusion, this contradiction is stark.
Strategic Myopia
Politically, the SLMC’s decision appears short-sighted. Urban Muslim voters, particularly in Colombo, are increasingly concerned with bread-and-butter issues: housing security, sanitation, cost of living, and municipal services. They are less interested in symbolic opposition and more in measurable outcomes.
By punishing a councillor for supporting a budget that delivers concrete benefits, the SLMC risks alienating precisely the constituency it claims to represent. Worse, it reinforces the perception that party leadership is more invested in maintaining control than in improving daily life for Muslim communities.
A Precedent with Dangerous Implications
If the suspension of Zohara Buhary becomes an accepted norm, it sets a dangerous precedent. Any councillor who prioritises ward-level development over party directives could face similar sanctions. This will inevitably lead to risk-averse, disengaged local representatives who avoid initiative for fear of reprisal.
Such an outcome weakens local government, undermines accountability, and ultimately harms citizens.
An Opportunity Still Exists
The SLMC leadership still has an opportunity to recalibrate. Reinstating Buhary’s membership, engaging in genuine internal discussion, and acknowledging the legitimacy of ward-based decision-making would demonstrate political maturity.
More importantly, it would signal that the party understands the difference between strategic opposition and self-defeating obstruction.
Who Does the SLMC Serve?
The suspension of Zohara Buhary is not merely about one vote or one councillor. It is about a fundamental question facing the SLMC today: does the party exist to serve communities, or to enforce obedience?
In choosing discipline over development, command over conscience, and authority over accountability, the SLMC leadership risks confirming the worst fears of its critics—that it has become detached from the people it was formed to empower.
For the residents of Slave Island, the issue is simpler. They voted for a councillor to deliver results. Zohara Buhary did exactly that. The real violation, many will argue, is not her vote—but the punishment imposed for it.