Think Tank or Political Actor? Questions Mount Over Advocata Institute’s Quiet Alignment with Opposition
By Political Affairs Correspondent | Colombo
A fresh political controversy is unfolding in Sri Lanka’s policy ecosystem, as investigative reports allege a growing alignment between the Colombo-based think tank Advocata Institute and the opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), raising critical questions about transparency, intellectual independence, and the politicisation of economic discourse.
At the centre of the debate is a recent high-profile meeting involving Elena Panaritis—a former Greek parliamentarian and World Bank economist—who visited Colombo and held discussions with opposition leader Sajith Premadasa. The meeting, described by participants as a dialogue on economic reform and governance, has since drawn scrutiny—not so much for its content, but for its participants.
Among those present was Riyad Rifai, director of Advocata, whose attendance has triggered speculation about the think tank’s political positioning at a time when Sri Lanka’s economic recovery remains delicately poised.
A Meeting That Raised More Questions Than Answers
According to sources familiar with the discussions, the meeting focused on themes such as fiscal discipline, state-sector efficiency, social welfare targeting, and the broader architecture of a “people-centred economy.” These are, by any measure, legitimate policy concerns—particularly in a country still emerging from the economic shock of 2022.
Yet critics argue that the optics of the gathering tell a different story.
Why, they ask, would a policy research institute that claims independence participate in what appears to be a politically aligned consultation with an opposition leader? And why was such engagement not publicly disclosed in advance?
The presence of Panaritis—an internationally recognised economist—only sharpened the contrast. Her participation lent the meeting a veneer of technical credibility, but also exposed what some observers describe as an imbalance between rigorous economic expertise and domestic policy commentary.
The Credibility Question
The controversy has also revived longstanding questions surrounding the academic and professional credentials of key political actors.
Sajith Premadasa, who has often cited his educational background at the London School of Economics, has periodically faced calls from critics to provide greater transparency regarding his academic record. While such debates are not uncommon in Sri Lankan politics, their re-emergence in the context of a high-level economic discussion has added a layer of political sensitivity.
However, the more substantive concern lies elsewhere: the role of think tanks in shaping—or appearing to shape—political narratives.
Think Tanks and Political Neutrality
Globally, policy institutes occupy a delicate space. They are expected to influence debate, critique government policy, and propose alternatives—while maintaining intellectual independence and methodological integrity.
In Sri Lanka, where institutional trust remains fragile, this balance is even more critical.
The involvement of Advocata Institute in a meeting with the SJB leadership has led some analysts to question whether the organisation is drifting from policy advocacy into political alignment.
If that is the case, they argue, transparency is essential.
“Think tanks are not elected bodies,” said one Colombo-based economist. “Their legitimacy comes from credibility—research depth, methodological rigour, and neutrality. If those are compromised, their influence becomes questionable.”
The IMF Factor: A Missing Anchor?
Another point of criticism relates to the substance of policy discussions emerging from such engagements.
Sri Lanka’s economic recovery remains anchored to its programme with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which imposes strict conditions on fiscal management, debt restructuring, and structural reform.
Yet critics argue that commentary from certain policy circles—including individuals associated with Advocata—has often lacked sufficient engagement with the technical complexities of the IMF framework.
Public interventions on issues such as pricing policy, government procurement, and debt restructuring have, at times, been described as oversimplified or rhetorically driven rather than analytically grounded.
Communication or Confusion?
The debate has also extended into the realm of public communication.
Figures such as Dhananath Fernando, associated with Advocata’s public outreach, have been active on social media, commenting on economic reforms and government policy. While such engagement is vital in a democratic society, critics argue that the effectiveness of these interventions depends on clarity, precision, and accessibility.
“In economic policy, language matters,” noted a UK-based Sri Lankan academic. “If communication lacks clarity or appears inconsistent, the message risks being lost—particularly when addressing complex issues like IMF conditionalities or fiscal consolidation.”
This is not merely a linguistic critique; it is a question of whether public discourse is being elevated—or diluted.
Funding and Transparency
Perhaps the most serious allegations concern funding.
Questions have been raised regarding whether Advocata Institute receives financial support from international actors, including diplomatic missions such as the U.S. Embassy or the Indian High Commission. While foreign funding of think tanks is not inherently problematic, it does necessitate full disclosure to avoid perceptions of external influence.
To date, no conclusive evidence has been publicly presented to substantiate claims of undue influence. However, the absence of detailed disclosure has fuelled speculation.
Transparency, in this context, is not optional—it is foundational.
Expertise Under Scrutiny
Another recurring theme in the criticism is the question of expertise.
Detractors argue that some individuals associated with policy advocacy lack formal economic training or substantial research credentials. Calls have been made for think tanks to publish detailed profiles of their researchers, including academic qualifications, areas of specialisation, and publication records.
Such demands, while stringent, reflect a broader concern: that economic policy debate in Sri Lanka is increasingly shaped by voices whose authority is not always clear.
For a country navigating a complex recovery process, this is a significant risk.
Government Response: Investigate or Engage?
The controversy has prompted calls from some quarters for the Sri Lankan government to formally examine the activities of think tanks operating in the policy space, particularly those perceived to be politically aligned.
However, others caution against overreach.
“A democratic society must allow policy critique,” said a former central bank official. “The answer is not suppression, but stronger standards—transparency, peer review, and open debate.”
Indeed, the line between legitimate scrutiny and political interference is thin—and must be navigated carefully.
The Bigger Picture: Sri Lanka’s Policy Ecosystem
Beyond the immediate controversy, the episode highlights deeper structural issues within Sri Lanka’s policy ecosystem.
There is a shortage of institutionalised, high-quality economic research. Universities, think tanks, and government bodies often operate in silos, limiting the cross-pollination of ideas. Meanwhile, diaspora expertise remains underutilised.
In this context, the emergence of policy institutes like Advocata Institute is, in principle, a positive development.
But with influence comes responsibility.
A Call for Clarity
As Sri Lanka continues its difficult journey towards economic stability and growth, the integrity of its policy discourse will be as important as the policies themselves.
The recent meeting involving Elena Panaritis, Sajith Premadasa, and representatives of Advocata Institute has opened a necessary—if uncomfortable—conversation.
Are think tanks in Sri Lanka maintaining their independence?
Are policy debates grounded in rigorous analysis?
And are the right voices being heard at the right time?
These are not partisan questions. They are structural ones.
For Sri Lanka, the stakes could not be higher.