Governance Is Not a Switch: Why Lazy Narratives About “Failure” Mislead the Public
In recent weeks, a familiar pattern has re-emerged in sections of the Sri Lankan media. The Daily Mirror, under the editorial stewardship of Jamila Hussain ( Bhora -Shia Muslim women, not belong to Sri Lanka, questions were raised how her parents settled in Sri Lanka?) and the online platform Haridesha.lk have published a series of articles portraying the President and the NPP government as faltering in “execution.” The tone is accusatory, the conclusions sweeping—and the analysis, at best, superficial.
Criticism of any government is legitimate and necessary. But criticism untethered from institutional reality quickly mutates into propaganda.
Policy Shifts Are Not Instantaneous
Sri Lanka is not governed by executive whim. A government does not wake up one morning and simply “change policy.” Every reform must pass through a dense lattice of bureaucracy, existing legislation, regulatory frameworks, and—crucially—binding international commitments.
At present, Sri Lanka operates under a stringent IMF programme. This is not a footnote; it is the central constraint under which fiscal, administrative, and policy decisions must be taken. Any serious commentator knows that IMF conditionalities sharply limit discretionary spending, rapid restructuring of state institutions, and sudden welfare or subsidy expansion. To ignore this context while accusing the government of “failure in execution” is either intellectually dishonest or wilfully misleading.
Bureaucracy Is Not a Blank Slate
Another inconvenient truth absent from these critiques is that the NPP inherited a bureaucracy shaped—and in many cases distorted—by decades of politicisation, inertia, and corruption. Ministries, departments, and state-owned enterprises are not neutral instruments that immediately realign themselves with a new political philosophy.
Structural reform of bureaucracy requires time: legal amendments, disciplinary processes, renegotiation of procurement frameworks, and institutional capacity-building. Demanding instant results while opposing the very reforms required to achieve them is a contradiction that much of this commentary fails to confront.
The Problem With Fabricated “Execution Failures”
What is particularly troubling is the tendency of certain articles to rely on selectively framed anecdotes, unnamed “sources,” and speculative conclusions presented as fact. Delays are automatically labelled incompetence; caution is framed as weakness; adherence to law is recast as inaction.
This style of journalism does not inform the public—it conditions them. It primes readers to believe that any deviation from populist speed is evidence of collapse, while conveniently ignoring the catastrophic consequences of reckless governance that Sri Lanka experienced only recently.
IMF Discipline Is Not Optional
It is easy to demand bold action from the sidelines. It is far harder to govern a bankrupt country under international surveillance. The NPP government cannot violate IMF benchmarks without risking funding suspension, currency instability, and renewed economic crisis. Any honest assessment of “execution” must therefore ask a more serious question: execution of what, within which constraints, and at what cost?
These are questions that rarely appear in the articles now circulating.
Criticism vs Political Campaigning
There is a fine line between robust critique and sustained political targeting. When the same outlets repeatedly personalise criticism against the President and the NPP, while downplaying or normalising the systemic failures of previous administrations, the public is entitled to question motive.
Journalism should interrogate power, not caricature it. It should explain complexity, not erase it for convenience.
A Call for Responsible Commentary
Sri Lanka’s democratic recovery depends not only on better governance, but also on better public discourse. Holding the NPP government accountable is necessary—but so is holding commentators accountable for accuracy, balance, and intellectual honesty.
Policy reform in a post-crisis, IMF-bound state is a process, not a performance. Those who pretend otherwise may generate headlines, but they do little to help a country struggling to rebuild credibility, stability, and trust.