By Dr. Sarath Obeysekera

History repeatedly demonstrates that nations achieve rapid transformation when the institutions of the State work towards a common national purpose rather than pulling in different directions.

Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, South Korea during its industrialisation, and China under Deng Xiaoping all illustrate how determined executive leadership, supported by functioning state institutions, accelerated economic development, attracted investment, built infrastructure, and lifted millions out of poverty. While their political systems differed, they shared one characteristic: the machinery of government acted with a common national objective.

Sri Lanka today faces a different reality.

Successive governments have often announced ambitious reforms only to see them delayed or weakened by bureaucratic resistance, prolonged litigation, political rivalry, or institutional disagreement. Investors value certainty. When governments cannot implement policies efficiently within the law, investment, employment, and economic growth inevitably suffer.

This raises an important constitutional question.

In every democracy, the Executive is elected with a mandate to govern. It is therefore reasonable to expect public institutions—including the civil service, regulatory agencies, and the judiciary—to respect that democratic mandate while faithfully carrying out their constitutional responsibilities.

This does not mean that judges should become politically loyal to a government or abandon their independence. 

Judicial independence is a cornerstone of the rule of law. Rather, it means that all branches of government should share loyalty to the Constitution, the sovereignty of the nation, and the long-term public interest. Courts should be free to review whether executive action complies with the law, but should not become substitutes for elected policymakers or unnecessarily frustrate lawful reforms that serve the national interest.

Many democratic countries seek to maintain this balance. In the United States, for example, judges of the Supreme Court are nominated by the President and confirmed through a constitutional process. The expectation is not personal loyalty to an individual President, but commitment to the constitutional order while exercising independent judicial judgment.

For a developing country such as Sri Lanka, prolonged institutional conflict carries a heavy price. Delayed infrastructure, uncertain regulations, postponed reforms, and inconsistent policy signals discourage both local entrepreneurs and foreign investors.

The lesson from successful nations is that development requires more than elections. It requires institutions that are professional, efficient, and capable of working within the constitutional framework towards shared national goals.and supports the executive 

Sri Lanka therefore needs:

● A strong Executive with a clear development vision.

● An independent Judiciary but supportive  to the elected executive that upholds the Constitution impartially and provides legal certainty.

● A professional public service committed to implementing lawful government policy efficiently.

● Mutual respect among the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary, each operating within its constitutional role.

● A national commitment to economic progress above partisan confrontation.

The objective should never be blind allegiance to individuals. It should be institutional commitment to constitutional governance, national development, and the welfare of the people.

If Sri Lanka can achieve that balance, we can replace paralysis with progress, conflict with cooperation, and uncertainty with confidence. That, in my opinion, is the path towards becoming a prosperous nation.

Regards

Dr Sarath Obeysekera