The upcoming Presidential and General Elections are crucial in deciding the country’s economic trajectory. As such the new President and the new Government who will likely be appointed by the end of the year will have to take decisive steps to tiller the troubled nation in a path to recovery and good governance.

Despite the fact that no election has been declared thus far, in a context where election laws require the holding of these elections in the coming few months, main political parties have come forth challenging each other, and more importantly, giving a plethora of promises to garner as many votes as possible in these elections. The ruling party led by Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna does not have much to say, because their reputation being in tatters due to the economic crisis and the impacts of measures taken in response to the crisis have made it an enemy of the public, as per some political analysts. Thus at present, the main contenders for the Presidential elections will be the current President, the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) and the National People’s Power (NPP), or a common candidate that an alliance will support.

In this context, the SJB put forward a proposal, or a challenge, for the NPP, which is quite rare in Sri Lanka. Recently, the SJB invited the NPP for a debate on the country’s economy, which, needless to say, will entail a number of pressing concerns about both the present and future status of the economy. The NPP accepted the SJB’s challenge. However, instead of a debate between the two parties’ economic committees, which the SJB proposed, the NPP has pushed for a one-on-one debate, one with NPP Leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake engaging in a deliberation with Opposition and SJB Leader Sajith Premadasa is more opportune.

It should be noted that this debate, which is said to be a public one, is unarguably a good development in Sri Lankan politics. So far, pre-election debates took place mostly on television, on platforms provided by television channels for politicians to sling mud at each other. At the same time, many of these discussions lacked a proper objective that is in the public interest. However, this time, it is different as the proposed debate will focus on the most pressing topic in the country at present. The public too have become more politically aware, and a wide cross section of the voters, the youth, are determined to hold the would-be lawmakers and presidents to explain their policies and strategies before the election.

That is why such debates must be right. While both parties should be commended for the initiative of extending and accepting the said proposal, there is much to be decided about the participants, nature of the debate and the platform or platforms which would be used. Such debates should not be about flaunting individual egos or be used as a platform to launch personal attacks on the other. The focus must be on economic recovery, governance and fiscal reforms, and how each plan is possible and practical. The outcomes of the upcoming elections will considerably depend on that, moreover, if the said leaders do gain power, the public can hold them to enact the proposals and plans which they championed.

First and foremost, the two parties should explain to the people in simple language how exactly it is going to handle the economy, and the important question on compliance of the IMF agreements. Both parties have been very critical about how the present Government entered into the present agreement between Sri Lanka and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and claimed that they would have done it differently. This is their platform to explain how exactly they are going to do that if they were given power. Further, they need to explain how Sri Lanka will address key issues such as increasing state revenue while reducing state expenditure.

The two parties should also inform the public what measures they will take to uphold Sri Lanka’s international obligations and attract investments.  This should not be done in the form of promises, but through detailed plans, with timelines.   Further, such a debate should include what a prospective government will do to ensure the rule of law, improve faith in the state apparatus, and what effective measures will they take against corruption and waste. The need for evidence-based policy making, including for economic reforms, and transparency, should also be discussed. This is crucial, because, without practical and effective plans targeting the said aspects of the economy and governance, no amount of external aid will be able to save the country’s economy.

More importantly, the debate should be a platform where the two parties explain how economic stability will alleviate the burden of the economic crisis on the people, because that is something that is lacking under the present Government. There must also be clear messaging on strengthening democracy and human rights. For this debate to materialise, a lot of planning will be necessary. Choosing the right platforms and a reliable moderator who is capable of handling such a debate are crucial aspects of it. Perhaps, Sri Lankan politics has begun to change a bit, and that should be encouraged, public debates on policy matters and scrutiny of policies are an indication of a healthy democracy. We may have a long way to get there, but this may be a start.