-By LeN Investigative Correspondent
(Lanka-e-News -20.July.2025, 8.15 PM) It was launched with a fanfare typical of academic NGOs, bearing the credibility of a policy think-tank and the language of objectivity. Yet, weeks after Verité Research unveiled the so-called ‘Anura Meter’, aimed at tracking President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s campaign promises, the initiative has come under blistering scrutiny — not just for its methodology, but for what critics describe as a hypocritical and politically loaded crusade masked as civic oversight.
Promoted as a tool to “monitor and measure accountability,” the Anura Meter lists 1,325 campaign pledges allegedly made by the President during the 2024 election cycle. But behind the numbers lies a growing controversy that points to a deeper question: is this really about transparency, or a thinly veiled political intervention masquerading as research?
The fallout has been swift. Allies of the NPP-led government have accused Verité Research of selectively ignoring monumental reforms undertaken in the past nine months, of leveraging foreign donor support to shape public narratives, and of manipulating data to weaken a rare political moment in Sri Lanka’s history — a government actively fighting entrenched corruption and pushing through uncomfortable, systemic change.
When Anura Kumara Dissanayake swept to power in 2024, it wasn’t merely an election win. It was, as many have since described, a political cleansing. Years of Rajapaksa-era kleptocracy, IMF kowtowing, and elite capture had brought the country to the edge of bankruptcy. Public debt was unsustainable, foreign reserves evaporated, and corruption had become institutionalised.
Since taking office, Dissanayake has embarked on one of the most ambitious reform packages in Sri Lankan history: overhauling state institutions, introducing forensic audits of public contracts, and disbanding political patronage networks across government-linked corporations. The Attorney General's Department has seen its biggest anti-corruption docket since independence. Tax reform, digital procurement, and merit-based appointments have taken precedence over populist handouts.
“It’s not always visible to the public, but the depth of what is happening inside the state is unprecedented,” said a senior civil servant from the Finance Ministry. “For the first time in decades, procurement isn’t going to cronies. That matters more than flashy pledges.”
Against this backdrop, Verité Research’s launch of the Anura Meter drew suspicion. The initiative presents a quantitative tracker of 1,325 promises — tallied, categorised, and rated — ostensibly to foster accountability. But critics argue the campaign is riddled with methodological flaws, unrealistic timelines, and hidden agendas.
Notably, Verité’s framework seems to give equal weight to pedestrian political comments and major policy commitments — treating offhand rally slogans with the same seriousness as official manifesto items.
“The number 1,325 is absurd on its face,” says Professor Kumudika Ilangakoon, a political scientist at the University of Colombo. “They’re counting every statement made at a village rally as a formal promise. This reduces the credibility of the whole exercise.”
Worse still, critics point to the absence of contextual analysis: the Meter makes little allowance for macroeconomic constraints, post-crisis fiscal recovery, geopolitical headwinds, or the bureaucratic sabotage that a new administration inevitably inherits.
The sharpest criticism, however, has been levelled at Verité Research’s own transparency — and at its founder and Executive Director, Dr. Nishan de Mel.
While lauded internationally for his economic commentary and presence in policy circles, Dr. de Mel has come under fire from NPP allies who allege a lack of political neutrality, a foreign-funded ideological bent, and personal conflicts of interest.
According to documentation from the National Secretariat for NGOs, Verité Research has historically received funding from Western development agencies including the U.S.-based National Endowment for Democracy (NED), European think-tanks, and even open society networks — raising concerns among nationalist voices who argue that the institution may serve foreign ideological interests under the guise of civic research.
“We have every right to question why an organisation funded by external political donors is inserting itself into the domestic political evaluation of a democratically elected government,” said attorney-at-law Nihal Jayakody, an NPP-affiliated legal analyst. “Where is their accountability?”
Adding fuel to the fire are whispers within Colombo’s civil society network suggesting that Verité Research has long harboured political leanings towards the neoliberal centre-right, despite its academic posturing. In the years prior to the NPP government, Verité was repeatedly silent on the overt cronyism and policy mismanagement that defined the Yahapalana and Gotabaya regimes — a silence now seen by some as calculated.
This is not the first time Verité Research has found itself in the crosshairs.
In 2020, the group published what it termed an “independent economic review” forecasting Sri Lanka’s fiscal trajectory under Gotabaya Rajapaksa. The report significantly downplayed the looming foreign reserve crisis — a forecast that proved disastrously wrong when the country defaulted on its foreign debt in 2022.
More recently, Verité has also drawn ire for its vague metrics and preference for "perception-based indices" rather than empirical validation. For example, its Public Opinion Tracker — which claims to measure public trust — has been repeatedly questioned for small sample sizes, ambiguous methodologies, and politically convenient conclusions.
“If a research group wants to act like a public arbiter, it must be held to the same standards it applies to others,” said Professor Tissa Devendra, retired senior statistician. “Instead, we have a case of ‘trust us because we say we’re independent.’ That’s not science. That’s arrogance.”
Why did Verité launch the Anura Meter now, less than a year into the NPP’s administration?
Critics argue the timing is deliberate — designed to frame the government as underperforming just as it gains global credibility. Over the past two months alone, President Dissanayake has secured critical investment pledges from Japan and South Korea, and made diplomatic inroads with BRICS partners while reasserting Sri Lanka’s regional neutrality.
Meanwhile, his anti-corruption reforms have already resulted in investigations against several high-profile politicians and business elites — many of whom had enjoyed near-immunity under past regimes.
“Are these the very elites that Verité is indirectly protecting by casting doubt on Anura’s progress?” asks a left-wing commentator in Janatha Viplavaya, the NPP’s grassroots publication. “When you disrupt the oligarchy, its intellectual partners strike back in subtle ways.”
This controversy has thrust the question of research accountability into the mainstream. If organisations like Verité Research claim to uphold democratic values, they must themselves be subject to scrutiny — financial, ideological, and methodological.
There are increasing calls for the Auditor General to examine whether Verité’s NGO status and donor relationships are in compliance with Sri Lankan law. Meanwhile, some parliamentarians have floated the idea of a parliamentary oversight committee on foreign-funded civil society actors, though others worry this could create a chilling effect on legitimate civic activism.
Importantly, the NPP government itself has not publicly condemned Verité Research — a sign, some say, of its confidence and restraint.
“This administration won’t engage in vendettas,” said a senior official at the President’s Media Division. “But we do hope the public sees through attempts to trivialise real structural reform for the sake of donor-friendly PR campaigns.”
If Verité Research is to preserve its status as a credible voice in Sri Lanka’s policy landscape, several questions now hang over its leadership:
What methodology was used to define the 1,325 promises?
What criteria determine whether a promise is considered fulfilled, ongoing, or broken?
How does the Meter account for economic constraints and force majeure events?
Who funds the Anura Meter — directly or indirectly?
Why was there little to no such initiative launched during previous regimes?
Does Verité’s leadership disclose personal or political affiliations in its governance structure?
Dr. de Mel has not yet responded to these specific concerns, though Verité has issued a generic defence of its “evidence-based, non-partisan” ethos.
For the time being, the Anura Meter continues to tick — but its own calibration may be more suspect than the promises it attempts to monitor.
In a fragile democracy clawing its way back from kleptocratic collapse, the demand for transparency is valid. But transparency cannot be selective. When oversight tools are created with vague mandates, skewed criteria, and opaque funding, they risk becoming instruments of distortion rather than truth.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has taken bold steps to steer Sri Lanka onto a new path. Whether Verité Research’s Anura Meter is a fair audit or a politically charged distraction may ultimately be judged not by donors or NGOs — but by the very citizens whose futures are at stake.
-By LeN Investigative Correspondent
---------------------------
by (2025-07-20 14:47:21)
Read 10890 Times
Leave a Reply
0 discussion on this news