As the country heads towards its Local Government elections on May 6, 2025, political tensions are rising, and familiar patterns are beginning to emerge. Chief among them is the Opposition’s eagerness to attribute any instance of violence or unrest to the ruling National People’s Power (NPP) Government — a well-worn tactic in the country’s electoral playbook.
Such claims, whether substantiated or speculative, serve multiple purposes. They seek to undermine the ruling party’s credibility, generate public sympathy for the Opposition, and cast doubt on the fairness of the electoral process.
For the NPP, a party that has built its political brand on clean governance, populist appeal, and institutional reform, these accusations — even if unfounded — could be particularly damaging. The Opposition, it seems, is banking on just that as a way to boost its standing in Local Councils.
This tactic is neither new nor uniquely Sri Lankan. In many democracies, Opposition parties often seize on election-related incidents to frame the Government as desperate, authoritarian, or losing its grip. In Sri Lanka, this trend has been visible across administrations — be it the SLFP, SLPP, UNP, or now, the NPP. Allegations of intimidation, State resource misuse, or electoral malpractice have surfaced regularly, regardless of which party holds power.
And should the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) — led by Sajith Premadasa — come to power one day, they too will likely face similar accusations from their rivals.
The Opposition-aligned media also plays a role in reinforcing these narratives, amplifying claims to shape public opinion and present the Government as increasingly repressive or unethical. This form of political messaging, though predictable, can have a cumulative effect — especially in a digital age where news, rumours, and misinformation spread rapidly.
For the NPP, the stakes are especially high. As a relatively new entrant to national governance, any perceived deviation from its reformist image could damage its credibility. Its ability to maintain the moral high ground over older, more established parties like the SLPP or SJB will depend on how it responds to criticism — and whether it can keep its promise of transparent and principled governance.
The NPP’s recent electoral record suggests strong public backing. At the November 2024 Parliamentary Elections, the party secured a sweeping super majority, winning 159 out of 225 seats — including unprecedented victories in traditionally Opposition strongholds such as Jaffna and the Vanni. At the October 2024 Elpitiya Pradeshiya Sabha election, the NPP emerged as the largest party, winning 15 out of 30 seats with 47.64 percent of the vote, marking a significant improvement from past performances.
With this momentum, the NPP enters the Local Government elections well-positioned to perform strongly. Yet, the volatile nature of public opinion — shaped by regional grievances, economic conditions, and media narratives — means the party cannot afford complacency. Sustained policy delivery and public engagement will be critical to converting electoral gains into long-term trust.
This election will also be the second to be held under the Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMPR) system, introduced in 2018. Under this system, 60 percent of Local Councillors are elected through the first-past-the-post method, while the remaining 40 percent are chosen via Proportional Representation. Voting will take place across 341 Local Councils — comprising 29 Municipal Councils, 36 Urban Councils, and 276 Pradeshiya Sabhas. About 17,296,330 registered voters are expected to elect 8,356 Councillors from a pool of 57,219 candidates.
As the country prepares for this critical vote, the integrity of the electoral environment — and the restraint shown by both ruling and Opposition parties — will play a defining role in shaping not just the results, but public faith in democracy itself.
No major incident
There have been no incidents in the current campaign resembling the violence that marred past Local Government elections — most notably, the fatal shooting of Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra in 2011.
On October 8 of that year, Premachandra, a senior politician and Presidential Advisor, was gunned down along with three of his bodyguards in a daylight shootout near Walpola junction in Mulleriyawa. A fourth bodyguard sustained serious injuries.
The violence erupted as elections were under way for several local authorities, including the fiercely contested Kotikawatte–Mulleriyawa Pradeshiya Sabha. Premachandra had been canvassing in the area when the incident occurred, in what became one of the most notorious political killings linked to a Local Government election in Sri Lanka’s recent history.
According to a recently released report by the election monitoring group People’s Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL), covering the period from March 3 to April 24 in the lead-up to the Local Government election, there have been no confirmed or unconfirmed reports of murders, grievous assaults, abductions, threats, or firearm-related intimidation that can be classified as election-related.
However, PAFFREL has recorded several incidents under its category of “acts of violence.” These include nine cases involving the misuse of state property, one instance of attempted influence over State officials, two incidents related to the appointments, transfers, or promotions of public servants with apparent political intent, and three cases where Government aid was allegedly used for political gain. There have been no reported cases of State vehicles being used for election campaign purposes.
Absence of violence
The absence of any reported misuse of State vehicles in the lead up to the poll marks a significant departure from Sri Lanka’s past electoral culture, where abuse of public resources was routine. In contrast to previous elections—often marred by State vehicles ferrying supporters and materials for ruling party campaigns—this shift suggests a growing commitment to clean governance, strengthened oversight by the Election Commission, and a political will, particularly by the NPP.
The upcoming Local Government election has, so far, seen zero reported cases of State officials or security personnel being co-opted for campaign activities — a striking departure from the country’s often fraught election history. Traditionally, ruling parties have drawn criticism for deploying public servants and security forces to influence voters or provide logistical support, blurring the lines between State and party. This clean record signals a maturing electoral environment, strengthened institutional oversight, and a growing public intolerance for State resource abuse — a quiet but significant milestone in the country’s democratic development.
Election Commission Chairman R.M.A.L. Rathnayake, told the Sunday Observer on Friday that there have been no major violations of election law or serious incidents of violence reported so far in connection with the upcoming Local Government election, apart from hundreds of complaints and allegations.
“There haven’t been any serious violations of election law associated with criminality—such as murders or grave offences of any kind,” Rathnayake said.
According to PAFFREL, between March 3 and April 24, they received 329 complaints related to 361 electoral and general law violations. Of these, 247 have been confirmed as credible incidents. Among them were 32 cases involving the unlawful maintenance of party offices. There were 163 complaints concerning illegal election propaganda, and 15 instances of violence or abuse involving State power, resources, or employees. This marks a significant decline compared to past elections and suggests a notable improvement in the country’s electoral environment.
Election law abuse
Let’s take a quick stroll down memory lane.
During the pre-election period of the 2010 Parliamentary Elections, Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL) documented over 200 complaints related to the misuse of public resources. These included the deployment of Government vehicles and buses for campaign purposes, unauthorised appointments and transfers of public officials, and the use of State media for partisan coverage. Not only that—there were also instances where State-owned helicopters were used to distribute campaign materials, and public buses were repurposed to transport supporters to rallies, often without proper authorisation or reimbursement.
The Local Government Elections of 2011 were marred by significant violence and blatant misuse of State resources. Over 400 election law violations were reported, including multiple murders and assaults. The Campaign for Free and Fair Elections (CaFFE) highlighted the extensive use of State machinery — including military and police — to support ruling party candidates. There were also widespread reports of vote-buying, intimidation, and the diversion of public funds for campaign activities.
The TISL observed similar trends during the 2019 Presidential Election, noting widespread misuse of public property. Numerous complaints were lodged regarding Government officials participating in campaign activities, unauthorised use of State vehicles, and blatantly biased coverage by State media outlets. These actions severely undermined the fairness of the electoral process and highlighted systemic shortcomings in the enforcement of election law.
In contrast to these historical precedents, the current election cycle has seen a marked reduction in such violations. The Election Commission has so far reported 15 minor infractions, with no major incidents of violence, misuse of State resources, or politically motivated actions by public officials. This sharp decline in election law abuse during the current Local Government elections is a positive development for Sri Lanka’s democratic process.
Shift in 2025
If the current campaign for the May 6, 2025 Local Government elections is proceeding without a single recorded instance of State vehicle misuse, it reflects a paradigm shift in how political actors respect the boundaries between public duty and partisan interests. This can be seen as an evolution in several ways:
It signals improved enforcement by the Election Commission, which in recent years has become more assertive in issuing guidelines and conducting real-time monitoring.
In a country where State machinery was long seen as an extension of the ruling party’s campaign infrastructure, a clean record on the use of State vehicles would not be just a technical compliance win—it would be a cultural milestone in the journey towards cleaner, fairer, and transparent elections.
