Despite President Anura Kumara’s confident assertion at the JVP’s 60th anniversary that “Even if the Local Government election results were reflected in parliamentary elections, the NPP would get 122 seats. The mandate has not been abolished,” historical electoral patterns suggest otherwise.
The NPP secured 43.26% in the LG elections. Looking at comparable precedents:
- In 2015, the UPFA under Sirisena and Rajapaksa won 42.38% of votes, translating to only 95 parliamentary seats
- The UNP with 45.66% in the same election secured 106 seats
- Chandrika’s People’s Front won 48.94% in 1994, resulting in 105 seats
- Even with the same percentage (48.94%) in 2000, Chandrika obtained only 107 seats
By these standards, Anura’s 43.26% would likely yield between 95-100 seats—significantly short of the 122 he claims and insufficient for a clear governing mandate by his own definition.
Notably, the JVP’s relationship with its leadership appears strained. Despite traditionally observing Mahavira Month every November to honor assassinated leader Wijeweera and the Political Bureau, the commemoration was conspicuously absent during Anura’s first year as president. Similarly, Anura was absent from the April Heroes Celebration commemorating the 1971 rebellion, which proceeded under Tilvin Silva’s leadership instead. Significantly when JVP was banned Somawansa Amarasinghe celebrated November Mahaviru day in foreign land while being in exile and later once the ban was listed had it in Sri Lanka.
On the Election Day minutes before he was declared president he was with some business men. Meanwhile, Anura has established a pattern of weekly dinner consultations with prominent businessmen—the same advisors who previously counseled Gotabaya, Mahinda, and Ranil. Unlike Gotabaya, who lacked official party leadership, Anura has led the JVP for over a decade, making his apparent distancing from party leadership puzzling.
The question remains: Why would a long-established party leader like Anura prioritize counsel from business interests over the seasoned leadership within his own political organization?
Anura’s political transformation reveals a striking duality—adopting Mahinda’s populist approach for LG election ncreasingly apparent in his administration’s behavior.
Unlike Ranil, who operates with a close circle of confidants while maintaining distance from party structures, Anura lacks such an intimate advisory group. Yet he seems to have embraced Ranil’s diplomatic playbook—believing that photo opportunities with international leaders and favorable IMF relationships will translate to domestic political capital.
The parallels between their international engagement strategies are unmistakable. Both issue nearly identical press releases about meetings with IMF and World Bank representatives, announcing loan agreements and financial commitments. Where Ranil’s UNP base might be impressed by such international recognition, these moves create a growing disconnect with Anura’s core supporters.
JVP members and voters expected their leader to prioritize trade union guarantees over IMF Director Kristalina Georgieva’s assurances. This disconnect became painfully evident when Anura publicly rebuked a JVP trade union leader who criticized the lack of private sector salary increases in the budget—adopting a hardline stance against labor demands that even Mahinda would hesitate to take.
Perhaps most symbolically revealing is the JVP’s abandonment of its anti-elitist sartorial politics. After criticizing Ranil’s “tie-coat culture” while supporting Mahinda in 2005, newly elected JVP MPs have now embraced colorful formal attire—a visual reminder of how far they’ve strayed from their revolutionary roots and Bandaranaike’s 1956 rejection of colonial dress codes.
The decision to hold LG-elections, however, demonstrates political acumen. It gives Anura crucial time to mature politically, unlike Gotabaya who postponed elections and eventually faced the “Gota Go Home” movement when people were denied electoral expression of their dissatisfaction.
———–
The rise and fall of a government in local elections held 6 months after the national elections
Ranil
2001 general election 45.62%
2002 LG-election 59.79%
Mrs. Chandrika
2004 general election 46.60%
2004 provincial council election 57.68%
Mahinda
2005 presidential election 50.29%
2006 LG-election 52.2%
Anura
2024 general election 61.56%
2025 LG-election 43.26
