More than a decade has passed since Sri Lanka last held Provincial Council (PC) Elections, highlighting fundamental issues around democratic representation, constitutional commitments to devolution, and the political incentives shaping electoral timing. 

While the Government attributes the postponement largely to technical and legal uncertainties surrounding the electoral system, Opposition figures and regional political leaders argue that the delay reflects a deeper political reluctance to revive provincial-level democratic governance. 

Provincial Councils were introduced in 1987 through the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, following the Indo-Sri Lankan Peace Accord. The amendment created nine PCs and devolved certain powers – particularly in areas such as education, health, agriculture, and local infrastructure – to elected provincial administrations. 

However, in recent years, the system’s institutional functioning has been severely disrupted. The last PC Election was held in 2014, and by 2019, the terms of all nine councils had expired. Since then, the councils have remained dissolved, with provincial governance largely carried out through governors appointed by the president. While day-to-day services continue to operate, the democratic mechanism intended to guide provincial policy-making remains dormant.

The absence of elected councils has effectively centralised provincial administration.

Govt. position

Government officials argue that the primary reason for the delay lies in unresolved disagreements over the electoral system for PC Elections. Ministry of Public Administration, Provincial Councils, and Local Government Secretary S. Aloka Bandara explained that the key issue was deciding on the electoral framework under which the polls should be conducted. 

“The main issue right now is under which system the PC Elections should be held. To that end, a Parliamentary Select Committee has been appointed to look into the matter to determine a solution,” he said. 

According to the Government, the situation arose after changes to the Provincial Councils Elections Act introduced a mixed electoral system, combining elements of proportional representation and ward-based representation. Implementing this system required a delimitation process to define electoral boundaries, but disagreements over the delimitation report and the absence of parliamentary consensus have stalled the process. 

Bandara noted that the Government’s ability to act was constrained until Parliament resolved the question. “From the Government’s side there’s not much we can do until the parliamentary committee provides a solution.” 

The Government also acknowledged delays in establishing the committee tasked with resolving the issue, but attributed part of the delay to unforeseen circumstances. “We acknowledge there was a small delay in appointing the committee. The cause was not something we could have foreseen; it was Cyclone Ditwah, which devastated the country,” the Secretary said.

While critics view the delay as deliberate, the ministry insisted that the parliamentary committee would not deliberate indefinitely and that elections were expected once a decision on the electoral system was reached.

Government officials also argued that the absence of PCs had not disrupted administrative functioning. According to Bandara, governance mechanisms at the district level continue to operate effectively even without elected provincial representatives. 

“The lack of PCs is not a hurdle when dealing with challenges like natural disasters because the district secretary system is there. Even during and post-Ditwah, that was how rescue and relief efforts were coordinated.” 

Bandara further emphasised that provincial administration continued through existing State structures. “While there aren’t any PCs functioning, the provincial governors carry out the necessary operations, and therefore governance of the provinces is carried out as normal,” he said.

From this perspective, the absence of elected provincial bodies is framed as an institutional inconvenience rather than a crisis of governance. The Secretary also highlighted that it was the Election Commission that was responsible for setting election dates and not the Government.

“I cannot say when, or give a date as to when the PC Elections will be held, because in addition to it being a political statement, the Election Commission is the entity that sets dates for elections in the country, not the Government.” 

Nevertheless, the Government maintains that once Parliament resolves the electoral system dispute, elections can proceed.

Deliberate political delay: Opposition

Opposition politicians and minority party representatives strongly dispute the Government’s explanation, arguing that the delay is fundamentally political rather than procedural. 

Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) General Secretary and Member of Parliament (MP) Nizam Kariyapper contended that the absence of PCs undermined democratic representation at the provincial level. “Essentially, we feel our own representatives are absent, so we are entirely reliant on a governor who acts as the president’s representative – whose actions may not reflect the real aspirations of the people on the ground.” 

Kariyapper acknowledged that Government services continued to function, but argued that this missed the core issue. “If you look at it from the outside, surely there is nothing wrong; everything is happening as it should, but it is happening unconstitutionally.” 

In his view, powers that constitutionally belong to the PCs have effectively been absorbed by the Central Government through the governors. “The 13th Amendment powers of the PCs have now been usurped by the governors and the Central Government.” 

For Kariyapper, the core problem is not administrative continuity but the absence of democratic accountability. “What’s essential is the people’s representation at the provincial level. The policies and decisions of those PCs do not tally with the actual aspirations of the people in that area,” he said. 

The political dispute has also played out within Parliament through legislative initiatives aimed at restarting the election process. Kariyapper pointed to a private member’s bill introduced by MP Shanakiyan Rasamanickam, which he seconded, as an attempt to break the deadlock. 

“When MP Rasamanickam wrote that proposal for the private member’s bill – which was seconded by me – we made a very simple request: go ahead and hold the elections under the old system.” 

The proposal sought to temporarily revert to the previous system of proportional representation, allowing elections to proceed without waiting for electoral reforms. However, according to Kariyapper, the Government did not engage meaningfully with the proposal. “The President came to Parliament and said they would hold the PC Elections, but he never intended anything.”

He also alleged that the parliamentary committee examining the issue was being used as a delaying mechanism. “They brought this famous – or the most notorious – method of delaying it by appointing a committee to look into it.” 

Kariyapper noted that although the committee was announced in late 2025, its members were only appointed in February this year. “They first announced it in November 2025, but the members were appointed on 20 February.” This, he argued, reflected a pattern of procedural delays. 

Beyond procedural disputes, Kariyapper believes the delay reflects a deeper ideological opposition to the PC system within sections of the political establishment. “It is very clear that this Government does not believe in the system; it simply does not accept the PC system.” 

He argued that although the system was constitutionally entrenched, some political actors viewed it as an unwelcome legacy of the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord. 

“Although the President said it was part of the Constitution a number of times and that they would do it, that is very apathetic,” the MP said, attributing the delay in prioritising elections to this reluctance.

Minority concerns and regional representation

The delay in PC Elections has been particularly contentious in the Northern and Eastern Provinces, where the councils are often viewed as important mechanisms for minority representation and regional autonomy. 

Former Chief Minister of the Northern Province and Tamil People’s National Alliance Leader C.V. Wigneswaran argued that the situation at present undermined the principle of devolved governance. 

“The PCs have been given certain rights over their respective provincial areas under the 13th Amendment, but now the governor has taken over,” he said, emphasising that the governor ultimately answered to the Central Government. 

“The governor receives directives from the Central Government, and this undermines the people’s right to govern themselves,” he added. 

Wigneswaran argued that the consequences of this arrangement were particularly significant in regions with distinct ethnic and political identities. “In the southern provinces, there is no issue. But in the northern and eastern areas, it is different because the people there are not getting proper representation.” 

For him, the absence of elected councils raises broader concerns about centralisation and discrimination. “There is also the issue of discrimination, because with the governor ruling the provinces, it is essentially the Central Government that is making the decisions.” 

Another issue raised by critics concerns the allocation of public resources. PCs traditionally have authority over certain fiscal decisions, including taxes and regional development spending. Therefore, Wigneswaran claimed that the absence of elected councils meant that these decisions were now effectively controlled by the Government.

“Because there aren’t any representatives of the people due to the lack of PCs, the people in these areas have no say in how they are governed, what development is needed, etc.” 

He also warned that central control over funding could lead to unequal distribution among provinces. “We have seen in the past where the Northern and Eastern Provinces would get far less funding than the other provinces because of discrimination.”

Wigneswaran argued that the Government may fear losing provincial elections in several parts of the country, claiming: “The Government knows this and thus it is delaying the elections.” 

He cited last year’s Local Government Elections, where Opposition parties gained control of several councils, as evidence of declining support for the ruling party. At the same time, he suggested that the Government may prefer holding elections in regions where it expects stronger support. 

“I believe the Government would be agreeable to hold Provincial Council Elections in the north and east but not in the other parts of the country,” he said. However, selectively holding elections in only certain provinces could provoke strong political backlash. 

An uncertain outcome

The prolonged absence of PCs points to broader constitutional questions about the status of devolution in Sri Lanka. 

The 13th Amendment remains formally part of the Constitution, and the Provincial Council system continues to exist in law. However, the absence of elections has effectively suspended the democratic dimension of provincial governance. This has created a paradox; the legal framework of devolution remains intact, but its political institutions are largely inactive. 

For critics, this situation undermines the spirit of the constitutional settlement reached in 1987. For the Government, however, the issue is framed as a temporary administrative problem linked to electoral reforms. 

The future of PC Elections now largely depends on the work of the Parliamentary Select Committee tasked with resolving the electoral system dispute. According to Government officials, once a consensus is reached, the Election Commission can proceed with preparations for elections. 

However, Opposition politicians remain sceptical that this will happen quickly. Some have suggested that further legislative initiatives or public pressure may be necessary to force the issue onto the political agenda. 

Kariyapper suggested that if parliamentary avenues failed, political mobilisation may become necessary. “Once we have exhausted our rights within the parliamentary system, we have to go to the people to tell this Government to hold these elections.” 

The debate over PC Elections ultimately raises broader questions about democratic governance in Sri Lanka. For supporters of the provincial system, the delay represents a weakening of constitutional devolution and a drift towards administrative centralisation. For the Government, however, the issue is a technical matter that requires careful legislative resolution. 

As the parliamentary committee continues its deliberations, the future of provincial democracy in Sri Lanka remains uncertain.