By Ayodhya Kiriella
The postponed Provincial Council Elections can be treated as a serious challenge to Sri Lanka’s democratic credentials. The failure to hold Provincial Council Polls for eight years is not only an administrative problem but, has become a clear instance of undermining sovereignty.
On 19 November 2025, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, during discussions with the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Kachchi (ITAK), pledged to hold the much-delayed elections without further postponement. On 6 January 2026, Chief Government Whip and Minister of Health and Mass Media, Nalinda Jayatissa, proposed in Parliament the appointment of a Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) to determine the electoral system under which these elections should be held and to make recommendations.
While political parties trade insults and accuse each other of lacking the political will to conduct the polls, there is little focus on the actual reasons behind the postponements. Instead, narratives infused with misinformation are constructed for political gain, seeking to divert public attention, while disregarding the issue of accountability.
Former Election Commissioner Mahinda Deshapriya spoke to Ceylon Today on the myths and facts surrounding PC Poll delays, drawing from his vast experience of Sri Lanka’s electoral system. In this interview, he identified four specific strands of misinformation surrounding the delayed Provincial Council Elections.
Following are excerpts:
Some argue that the Provincial Councils are being well administered by the Governors appointed by the Centre and that there is little value addition in having elected members to the PCs, which have for decades been criticised as a “white elephant.” While this is not in line with the spirit of democracy or the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, some people argue that not holding elections helps save public funds. Others argue that, considering the country’s economic status, PC Polls should not be treated as a priority. How do you respond to these public sentiments that go against the PC system itself?
A: First and foremost, running PCs without elected representatives and only through direct rule by appointed Governors is completely contrary to the fundamental principles of representative democracy.
The main danger here is the absence of accountability to the public. An elected representative must periodically return to the people and can be held accountable for his or her actions, while in office. A Governor is not subject to such accountability. They are answerable to the political authority that appointed them and not to the people of the province they administer.
It is important to note that only about 3% of a PC’s total expenditure goes towards elected representatives. The remaining 97% is allocated for administrative functions and services. The actual burden is not elected representatives but, inefficient bureaucracy.
This bureaucratic form of governance opens the floodgates to inefficiency and wastage of public funds. A prime example is the ultra-modern building constructed for the Western Provincial Council (WPC). Officials there were provided with the latest laptops and iPhones. Some of them have left or retired without returning these devices. Despite the availability of advanced technology, it takes about two months to send a document from one floor to another because officials refuse to use email and insist on hard copies. This is both abusive and inefficient, and the presence of elected representatives can change this.
There is a popular school of thought that the Provincial Councils were forced on Sri Lanka by India and that this has undermined the country’s unitary status and sovereignty itself. In your view, how does the Provincial Council system fit into Sri Lanka’s history of power-sharing?
A: This “shoved down Sri Lanka’s throat” theory is still popular, even after decades. It is among the biggest misconceptions about the PC system. It is a fact that the PCs were introduced as a result of the Indo–Lanka Peace Accord. However, the concept of power-sharing is not alien to Sri Lanka.
Our history shows that there are identifiable periods when the entire country was unified under a single ruler, but such periods were rare. More common was the practice of regional and semi-autonomous governance structures. Historical records show that Sri Lanka was under a continuous and stable unified administration for the longest period during British rule from 1815 to 1948. Pre-colonial governance structures bear evidence that power-sharing was never a foreign concept to the island nation.
Even after independence, power-sharing emerged as the result of a long-evolving domestic political process. Let us consider some key historical milestones:
First, the Bandaranaike–Chelvanayakam Pact (1957): an important early step in power-sharing through regional councils, agreed upon between Prime Minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike and ITAK leader S.J.V. Chelvanayakam.
Second, the Dudley Senanayake–Chelvanayakam Pact (1965): building on earlier efforts, the Senanayake administration attempted to establish District Councils.
Third, District Development Councils under J.R. Jayewardene (1981): introduced a limited degree of power-sharing at the district level.
Fourth, the Chandrika Kumaratunga administration’s “Union of Regions” proposal (1995): a set of constitutional proposals advocating extensive devolution, akin to the federal model.
Fifth, the Mahinda Rajapaksa-Ban Ki-moon consensus (2009): following end of the war, President Mahinda Rajapaksa agreed to fully implement the 13th Amendment and to go beyond its provisions in sharing power.
There had been roundtable discussions since President Jayewardene’s time, and the All-Party Representative Committee (APRC) during President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s tenure, under Dr. Tissa Vitharana, was another example of recent efforts to make power-sharing a reality. All these demonstrate that PCs are not an isolated incident but, rather the logical outcome of repeated efforts by Sri Lankan leaders to address the ethnic issue through political solutions founded on power-sharing.
The issue of PC Poll delays is viewed by sections of society as a political decision with a hidden agenda. What are the actual complexities surrounding the delay?
A: It is an extremely complex matter. The terms of the PCs elected in 2012 lapsed in 2017, and the then Government delayed the polls through a subtle strategy.
The strategic use of legislation was the first tactic. A minor Bill relating to women’s representation in Parliament was being debated at the committee stage, but the administration used this opportunity to introduce amendments under that Bill and stealthily change the PC electoral system. The proportional representation (PR) system with preferences was replaced by a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system combining both constituency and list components.
Next, with the introduction of the new system, the delimitation of electoral boundaries became mandatory before holding elections, creating a legal basis to postpone PC Polls.
The most critical move was the insertion of a new provision requiring parliamentary approval for the delimitation report — a deliberately constructed legislative trap. Previously, no delimitation report required parliamentary approval. As expected, amid opposition from various quarters, the report was defeated in Parliament.
Once the report was defeated, a legal crisis emerged, making it impossible to hold elections. As Chairman of the Election Commission, I wrote repeatedly to the Speaker of Parliament requesting that the report be debated. The issue dragged on and became a “Gordian Knot”, one that only Parliament, which created it, had the authority to cut.
What are your views on the various stances of political parties on power devolution over time?
A: Some political parties have been consistent only in changing their stance on devolution, depending on whether they are in Opposition or in Government. Throughout the history of power-sharing, there is evidence of blatant hypocrisy among political parties. In pursuit of narrow political gain, they have often shamelessly abandoned their own political pledges. Here are some examples:
The United National Party (UNP), during its Opposition days, strongly opposed Bandaranaike’s proposals.
The Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and the United Front both opposed Dudley Senanayake’s proposals.
The SLFP opposed J.R. Jayewardene’s Development Councils.
In 1988, the SLFP, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), and the Mahajana Eksath Peramuna (MEP) strongly opposed the Indo – Lanka Accord and the resultant Provincial Council system. This opposition went far beyond political debate and escalated into nationwide violence. Due to entrenched anti-Indian sentiment, even UNP grassroots activists opposed the accord. I recall travelling from Ambalangoda to work and witnessing burning tyres along the roads. I also know of arson attacks on bus depots and other public property.
This shows that the power-sharing debate in Sri Lanka was often driven not by principled positions but, by short-term political gain.
At present, what role can the Election Commission play in pushing PC Polls?
A: This is another unfounded belief among the public. Holding an election is not an administrative decision of the Commission; elections are held in accordance with existing legislation. Under the 19th Amendment, the President has a responsibility to create the necessary conditions to conduct polls. There is also a Supreme Court ruling that this dilemma should be resolved by Parliament. Only the Legislature has the authority to untie the Gordian Knot it created.
What practical options exist to resolve the legal and political deadlock and hold elections?
A: Three options have been proposed. The first is to review the rejected delimitation report.
The delimitation report defeated in Parliament in August 2018 could be reviewed by a committee chaired by the Prime Minister. However, the report is based on 2018 data, which may make its efficacy questionable. There is also legal uncertainty surrounding the resubmission of a previously rejected proposal with minor changes.
The second option is to initiate an entirely new delimitation process. To hold elections under the MMP system, a new Delimitation Commission would need to be appointed, and the process would have to start from scratch. This would be time-consuming, and the final report would require a two-thirds parliamentary majority — an extremely difficult threshold in the current political climate.
The third option is to temporarily revert to the previous system, which appears to be the most practical solution. Parliament could pass a new law allowing PC Polls to be held under the old proportional representation (PR) system solely until consensus is reached on a new system. A 2019 Private Member’s Bill proposed by MP M.A. Sumanthiran has already received Supreme Court approval. Since this requires only a simple majority, elections could be held quickly if there is political will.
In your view, beyond holding elections, what other reforms are necessary to strengthen electoral democracy?
A: We must understand this truism: voting is only one aspect of democracy. Genuine democracy requires much more.
Sri Lanka practises representative democracy — people elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. We should move beyond this by introducing participatory and deliberative democratic mechanisms that allow citizens to directly contribute to law-making and policy formulation.
There is no real democracy within Sri Lankan political parties. Party members have little influence over leadership selection or policy-making. Without internal party democracy, it is unrealistic to expect democracy to flourish at the national level.
While holding elections is an essential first step, building a truly democratic society requires broad public dialogue on these structural reforms.
The roots of Sri Lanka’s PC crisis and PC Poll delays lie in complex politics. It is not as simple as it appears. Legal manoeuvring, historical hypocrisy, and structural weaknesses have all contributed to the current morass. Denying citizens their right to elect representatives — the primary mechanism for holding power accountable — has delivered a deadly blow through prolonged delays. It defeats the essence of representative democracy. Beyond misconceptions and simplistic narratives lie complex political realities that continue to hold back power-sharing.
This Interview was produced under the CIR– FACTUM Media Fellowship Program and was originally published in Ceylon Today on 08 February 2026.
