An assessment of the government's performance reveals progress in anti-corruption efforts and infrastructure improvements, but growing concerns about unfulfilled campaign promises and governance inconsistencies.
Nearly two years into its administration, Sri Lanka's NPP/JVP-led government presents a complex picture of achievements and shortcomings, according to a detailed analysis. The government came to power on promises of systemic reform, accountability, and economic improvement following public frustration with previous administrations over corruption and mismanagement.
The government has recorded tangible successes in several areas. Observable progress has been made in combating corruption and organised crime, particularly drug trafficking networks. Public transport infrastructure has received renewed attention through fleet modernisation and railway station improvements. Additionally, the government has maintained the IMF-backed fiscal consolidation programme inherited from its predecessor, with Sri Lanka recording approximately 5% economic growth in 2025 while keeping inflation relatively subdued.
However, significant concerns have emerged regarding consistency with campaign promises. The government has continued controversial IMF policies it previously criticised, with limited relief for citizens on electricity tariffs and fuel costs. Controversies including the non-disclosure of presidential agreements with Indian leadership, questionable shipping container releases, and ministerial appointments allegedly based on political affiliation have raised questions about promised transparency standards. The government has also faced criticism over its failure to abolish the Executive Presidency—a long-standing pledge—and its handling of the Negombo Prison uprising, where the responsible minister declined to resign despite accepting responsibility.
Further concerns exist regarding institutional independence. Questions have been raised about judicial independence following proposals to extend judges' retirement ages rather than filling existing vacancies through constitutional processes. Critics argue this could undermine public confidence in the judiciary. Additionally, allegations of political appointments to People's Power Committees contradict promises to establish an independent public service, while ministers' involvement in routine operational matters has raised concerns about effective institutional capacity-building versus short-term micromanagement.
