The opposition political parties, and some parliamentarians currently in the Government, have been batting to the ‘battered’ gallery and making knee-jerk policy statements, aimed at securing votes as the clock ticks on an election season around the bend.

The return to popular politics, and that of promising relief as a barter for votes is a concerning trend. Let us be in no illusion that despite what the Sri Lankan masses think about the austerity measures which have been introduced by the Government, following the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) $ 2.9 billion bailout package, the conditions of the agreement that the state of Sri Lanka has entered into with the IMF cannot be ‘renegotiated’ by a new government down the road. Sri Lanka has committed to the agreement as a sovereign entity, and as such is duty bound to uphold the conditions.  

The claims made by Sri Lankan politicians, that once they are in power, they will renegotiate such agreements with multilateral agencies such as the IMF, is a clear exploitation of the suffering of the vulnerable communities are undergoing, and plays to the wider lack of understanding on such matters where Sri Lanka as a State deals with global actors. Such a ruse is possible, because while the current Government has been quick to take a victory lap about ‘stabilising’ the situation, it has done little to be transparent about their dealing with the IMF, and has failed to improve the public’s understanding of how the IMF process works.  It has also been a popular trend to brand the austerity measures ‘as ones necessitated due to the IMF agreement’, thereby painting a picture for the public that the suffering they have to face is due to the IMF–which is not accurate. Sri Lanka is swallowing a bitter pill and going through a rough patch due to poor governance and the persistent enactment of popular policies, in place of the right policies. The responsibility of such decisions land squarely on the shoulders of our policymakers, the bureaucracy, and voters who elected them.

The JVP-led National People’s Power (NPP) yesterday (14) alleged that even the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is in the dark about certain aspects of the Government's debt restructuring programme due to some complications that exist. Earlier the NPP began to warn potential investors about purchasing assets that are State-owned Enterprises (SOEs). Threatening that a future NPP-led government will ‘revisit’ and ‘scrutinise’ such sales. It is clear that the NPP, which is heavily staffed by state sector trade unionists, is singing the tunes that will sooth the ears of its audience, and stand on long-head nationalist ideals, which over the decades has constrained Sri Lanka’s growth. The narrative that the Government is trying to ‘sell off’ national assets to foreigners is not a new one, it is one the JVP has chanted since 1971, and one which has been viewed by many economists as one of the key reasons that it is difficult for investors to do business in Sri Lanka. In a recent press conference, JVP Executive Council member Sunil Handunnetti, warned potential investors who were looking to bid for the many Sri Lankan loss making SOE’s, that the NPP was watching them, and the current Government did not have a mandate to ‘sell national assets’. He also charged that all current efforts to ‘sell’ assets must be halted until a government with a clear mandate emerges.

Earlier this year, Opposition leader Sajith Premadasa also charged that a future government led by the Samagi Jana Balaweagaya (SJB) will renegotiate, the terms of the IMF’s EFF agreement, which has opened the door for Sri Lanka to discuss debt restricting with the Paris Club and others. Such irresponsible statements from key policymakers at this critical juncture, where Sri Lanka should be speaking in one voice, is unfortunate to say the least. The failure for Sri Lankan lawmakers to speak in a unified voice, despite the crisis the country has faced, speaks to the poor quality of governance, and the divisive nature of politics which has plagued the country for the last 70 years.

Yes, the Ranil Wickremesinghe–Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) lacks a clear mandate. However, Sri Lanka does not engage with other nations and multinational institutions as the party that leads Sri Lanka, it does so as the state of Sri Lanka. Once an agreement has been reached, new governments cannot cherry pick the ‘do’s’ and ‘don’t’ of the agreement. Sri Lanka is duty bound to uphold the agreement. As such, instead of highlighting the divided and weak nature of politics in Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankan political class must find consensus and speak in one voice, if we are to gain credibility and acceptance as a country which keeps to its word.