Today, embattled Speaker of Parliament Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena will face an unprecedented challenge in Sri Lankan parliamentary history. The opposition, following the Government’s railroading of the controversial Online Safety Bill–OSB–decided to table a no confidence motion (NCM) against the speaker for his alleged role in it, in a first of its kind in Sri Lanka. 

Sri Lanka’s version of democracy and parliamentary structure has seen multiple prime ministers, nearly a dozen government ministers, and almost every government which came into power, faced no confidence motions against them. Abeywardena’s conduct in Parliament has drawn strong criticism over his period on the seat, with the opposition claiming that he is partial to his former party, the Rajapaksha led Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP). While the speaker has denied the allegations levelled against him, and stressed that he has adhered to the letter of the law, and parliamentary customs, the writing is on the wall. The spirit of the Parliament’s seat of impartial arbiter and holder of decorum, has been questioned in the strongest terms possible within the scope of the law.      

The Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) initiated the NCM which looks like it has broad opposition support. Recently, former SLPP heavyweight G.L. Peiris stated that all parties in the opposition have already expressed their full support for this NCM. “This too is a rare occurrence. Various opinions exist within the Opposition, but when it comes to this matter, every group in the Opposition has been able to reach a consensus,” MP Peiris said, pointing to a rare phenomenon of widespread support for anything the Legislature does. However, it remains to be seen how the opposition will vote, given that the SLPP still commands a majority within Parliament, and the NCM may end up being a symbolic protest.    

However, tomorrow’s NCM is but the tip of an iceberg, and a symptom of a broader issue; the lack of confidence in our system of governance. Over the last several years, confidence in the governance system of Sri Lanka, and also in Sri Lanka as a functional state, in the eyes of the masses, have eroded. The voice of no confidence in the State and our governance system manifested around the island in the form of public protests and civil disobedience in 2021 and 2022, and morphed into the broader ‘aragalaya’ protest movement. During that dark period, a common slogan which emerged, which has now become a mainstay on the lips of many, is ‘the entire 225 must be kicked out’. Such slogans don’t emerge out of thin air, it is an echo of the suffering born by the masses, at the hands of poor governance and lack of statesmanship, which Sri Lanka has been cursed for decades.

The Opposition’s gripe about the speaker stems from allegations of impartiality during the process where the much criticised OSB, was debated in Parliament.  A recent survey conducted by the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) points to public trust in Parliament and political parties being at an all-time low. Ironically, the survey also points to the Judiciary and the Army (armed forces), while law enforcement agencies are viewed less favourably.

Therein lies the dilemma Sri Lanka faces, a nation where faith in the legislation and system of governance continues to decline, while faith in other institutions like the Judiciary and the Military continues to grow.  Given the historical track record of democratic governments being toppled, and replaced by new governance models where the military and judiciary work in symbiosis in the Asian region, the current state of affairs in Sri Lanka should be a concern for external and internal observers. Let us also not forget that many Sri Lankans, especially the ageing community, view an ‘authoritarian’–‘tough’ governance as more favourable to more democratic, transparent and accountable forms of State.  

All political parties in Sri Lanka must identify the risk this erosion of trust in governance brings, and the dangers of the growing affinity for ‘change by any means’ that many echo today. Sri Lanka may have economically ‘stabilised’ to a degree, but it remains on a socio-political powder keg, which can only be disarmed in a significant change in political culture, that will help to regain the lost confidence in the state of Sri Lanka, and its future.