A Government’s manifesto is not a campaign pamphlet to be discarded after victory. It is a public contract. In Sri Lanka today, that contract has, for the first time, been formally elevated into the national development framework. That is a significant shift. It moves politics from rhetoric to policy. But that shift will mean little if the monitoring of that manifesto is not continuous, transparent, and credible. This process, in fact, is the backbone of democratic accountability.
The ongoing initiative led by PAFFREL and the March 12 Movement marks a rare moment of institutional maturity. It has attempted something Sri Lanka has long avoided. It has sought to measure whether those in power are doing what they promised. It has tracked Cabinet decisions, budgets, executive actions, and parliamentary outcomes against a structured framework.
This alone is progress.
The Government itself has already taken the first step by formally adopting its manifesto as the National Policy Framework and directing all ministries to align their plans accordingly. That decision creates both an opportunity and a risk. The opportunity is coherence. The risk is complacency. Once a manifesto becomes policy, it must also become measurable, trackable, and open to scrutiny at every level of governance.
At present, that chain is incomplete.
The monitoring process has already exposed structural weaknesses. The transition from policy intent to measurable outcomes remains uneven. Reporting is partial. Institutions operate in silos. Most tellingly, only 15 out of 25 ministries responded to Right to Information requests during Phase II of monitoring. That is not a minor administrative lapse. A monitoring system that depends on selective compliance is not a system at all.
This is precisely why uninterrupted, smooth manifesto monitoring is in the Government’s own interest.
A Government that claims a mandate for system change cannot afford opacity. Monitoring is not an attack on governance. It is a safeguard for it. It allows the Government to identify gaps early, correct course, and maintain credibility. Without it, policy drift is inevitable. Promises become diluted, timelines blur, and accountability weakens.
The public interest is even clearer.
Citizens do not vote for abstract visions. They vote for specific commitments. In this case, over 1,300 manifesto promises have been translated into hundreds of programmes and budget allocations across ministries. That scale demands clarity. People have a right to know what has been implemented, what is delayed, and what has been quietly abandoned. Without consistent monitoring, that clarity disappears.
Democracy itself depends on this process.
Sri Lanka’s political culture has long been shaped by what the March 12 Movement seeks to dismantle. A system where promises are made freely and forgotten quickly. The entire purpose of manifesto monitoring is to break that cycle. It shifts power back to the voter. It turns elections into enforceable commitments rather than symbolic exercises.
But for that shift to hold, the monitoring process must be strengthened.
The demands put forward by PAFFREL and the March 12 Movement are not unreasonable. They are the bare minimum requirements of a functioning accountability system.
First, the Government must clearly explain policy gaps. Where there is divergence between promises and action, silence is not an option. It must justify decisions openly.
Second, internal monitoring must be strengthened. Circulars and systems exist, but enforcement is weak. Compliance must be mandatory, not optional.
Third, the implementation pathway must be evaluated in real time. It is not enough to announce programmes. There must be clarity on timelines, milestones, and outcomes.
Fourth, ministries must fully adopt the framework. The current fragmentation, where institutions operate independently of the central monitoring system, undermines the entire exercise.
Fifth, budget utilisation must be transparent. A system where over 80% of expenditure is recurrent raises legitimate questions about whether development promises are being realised.
Sixth, data availability must improve. Monitoring without data is guesswork. Public access to information must be the default, not the exception.
Seventh, Right to Information responses must be timely and complete. The current gaps are unacceptable in a system that claims transparency.
These are not technical fixes. They are political choices.
If the Government embraces them, it strengthens its own legitimacy. If it resists them, it risks returning to the very culture it promised to replace.
We stand at a rare juncture. For the first time, an election manifesto has been embedded into the machinery of the State. That experiment can either redefine governance or become another missed opportunity.
The difference will be determined by one thing alone.
Whether manifesto monitoring is allowed to function without interruption, without interference, and without compromise.