Image by Bastian Riccardi via Pexels. Used under a Pexels License.

This article by Dr. Sanajana Hattotuwa originally appeared on Groundviews, an award-winning citizen journalism website in Sri Lanka. An edited and shortened version is published below as part of a content-sharing agreement with Global Voices.

In July 2024, I studied over 4,000 tweets linked to the three main presidential candidates — the incumbent President Ranil Wickremesinghe (RW) from the United National Party, the leader of the Opposition Sajith Premadasa (SP) and the leader of the National People’s Power (NPP) party, Anura Kumara Dissanayake (AKD), leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) party — in order to study how they presented themselves, and how a wider public saw them. I ended by noting, “What’s “real” and “authentic” in politics is often manufactured. [..] The RW, SP and AKD one consumes in the media are fictional constructs intended to serve partisan ends. An informed citizenry is keenly aware of this and how election campaigns are inherently manipulative.”

I wanted to revisit the political discourse around these three individuals after the nominations. The discourse on Facebook around politics has been, for well over a decade, and especially after 2022’s Aragalaya (the struggle or the Sri Lankan protests), by order of magnitude greater than what’s present on X (formerly Twitter).

A fundamental mistake made by many is to simplistically project exchanges, and discourse on Twitter as representative of public sentiment in Sri Lanka. While it certainly reflects a part of society, Facebook’s approximately eight and a half million users in the country post far more content and commentary at any given time and on any issue or politician.

Consequently, commentary on Facebook is a better capture of public sentiment in Sri Lanka, and the reception of, in this case, presentations made by three leading presidential candidates (one of whom is the incumbent president). The ill-advised, untimely, and, for researchers, devastating sunset of Facebook’s CrowdTangle tool means that computational propaganda and each candidate’s swarms of proxy accounts posting commentary and content in significant volumes is now near impossible to study. Terrible media guidelines issued by the Elections Commission only guarantee that digital propaganda, including generative AI-based content and commentary, will increase — strategically aimed at drowning out, decrying, and often (sadly) denigrating each candidate’s opposition.

Though nowhere near as powerful as CrowdTangle, I used Meta’s new Meta Content Library (MCL) tool to capture the three most popular posts on the official Facebook accounts of RW, SP, and AKD for a recent 30-day period. Given time and resource limitations, it was impossible to capture the entire discourse. For the purposes of this article, I studied a total of 1,500 comments against RW, the same number against SP, and 1,280 against AKD. Nearly all the comments, across all three accounts and the nine posts studied, were in Sinhala or transliterated Sinhala (i.e., Sinhala written with English letters).

I only studied the written commentary and not the content featured on any links in them (e.g., to articles or press releases). I also didn’t study embedded audio/visual media like memes, photos, audio and video.

Notes: [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]

Ranil Wickremesinghe (1,500 comments)

Positive perceptions: Ranil Wickremesinghe is widely seen as an experienced and capable leader who saved Sri Lanka from 2022’s economic catastrophe, and collapse. Many commenters praise him for taking charge of the country during its worst economic crisis in 2022 when others were unwilling to do so. RW is credited with stabilising the economy, ending fuel queues, and bringing some semblance of normalcy within a short period of about two years. Supporters view him as a visionary leader with a clear plan for Sri Lanka’s development. They appreciate his focus on technology, education reforms, and youth empowerment. His international connections and diplomacy skills are seen as crucial assets for attracting foreign investments and support. Many believe he is the only leader capable of steering Sri Lanka towards prosperity given his knowledge, experience, and global recognition. Some see him as a leader who puts the country first, above party politics. His efforts to engage with the public through initiatives like the Q&A sessions on Facebook are appreciated as signs of a leader who listens to people’s concerns.

Negative perceptions: Critics view Wickremesinghe as part of the old political establishment responsible for Sri Lanka’s problems. Some accuse him of protecting corrupt politicians and failing to act against those involved in financial scandals, particularly the Central Bank bond scam. There are allegations of him being too close to the Rajapaksa family, whom many blame for the country’s economic woes. A segment of commenters see him as an unelected president who came to power through parliamentary manoeuvring rather than popular mandate. His age (75) is sometimes cited as a concern, with some suggesting it’s time for him to retire and make way for younger leadership. Some also criticise his economic policies as being too neo-liberal or favouring the wealthy at the expense of the poor. There are concerns about privatisation of state assets and high taxes. A few commenters express scepticism about the actual extent of economic recovery under his leadership.

Nuanced/mixed perceptions: While opinions are largely polarised in the 1,500 comments studied, some offer a more nuanced view. These comments acknowledge RW’s role in stabilising the economy but express reservations about the long-term viability of him as Executive President. Others, while appreciating his efforts since 2022, call for more action on issues like corruption, cost of living, and job creation for youth. There’s a sense among some that despite disagreements with his politics or past actions, RW might be the most suitable leader for Sri Lanka’s current situation, especially given the lack of viable alternatives.

Sajith Premedasa (1,500 comments)

Positive perceptions: Many commenters express strong support for SP, viewing him as the next president of Sri Lanka. There is a prevalent sentiment that his victory is assured, with numerous comments referring to him as the “definite president.” Premadasa is perceived by his supporters as a leader who understands the struggles of the common people, particularly the poor. Comments refer to him as “the friend of the poor” and someone who will work for the betterment of the underprivileged. There’s a sense of hope and expectation associated with Premadasa. Many commenters believe that he will bring positive change to the country, with some expressing that he is the leader who can save Sri Lanka from its post-2022 problems.

Negative perceptions: Despite the positive comments, there is also a significant undercurrent of scepticism, pushback, and criticism of SP. Some view SP as part of the established political elite that has failed Sri Lanka, repeatedly. They express doubt about his ability to bring genuine change, seeing him as a continuation of problematic, corrupt, and morally bankrupt political dynasties. Relatedly, there are also concerns about the company he keeps politically, and the partners of the SJB. There are accusations of vote-buying and populist tactics. Some comments suggest that the large crowds at his rallies are due to free transportation and food provided, rather than genuine support.

Nuanced/mixed perceptions: Some comments reflect a wait-and-see attitude, neither enthusiastically supporting nor outright rejecting Premadasa. These accounts seem to be reserving judgment, possibly waiting for more concrete policy proposals (i.e., his manifesto) or actions.

Anura Kumara Dissanayake (1,280 comments)

Positive perceptions: AKD is widely seen as an honest, principled leader who offers hope for positive change in Sri Lanka. Many commenters express strong support and enthusiasm for AKD and the National People’s Power (NPP) party, viewing them as a clean alternative to corrupt established parties. There’s a prevailing sentiment that AKD represents a new kind of politics focused on meritocracy, good governance, and economic development. Many express confidence in AKD’s ability to tackle corruption, improve public services, and create a more just society. His promises to change the “rotten system” resonate strongly with those frustrated with traditional politics. Relatedly, there’s significant hope that an AKD presidency would mark a new era for Sri Lanka, breaking from decades of mismanagement by political dynasties. Supporters see him as representing the interests of ordinary people rather than (political) elites.

Negative perceptions: Critics view AKD’s economic policies as unrealistic or potentially harmful. Some worry that his left-wing background could lead to policies that deter foreign investment or exacerbate economic problems. There are accusations that AKD is hypocritical, with some commenters claiming he benefits from the same political system he criticises. Some see AKD as inexperienced in governance, pointing out that he has never held executive office. They question whether he has the practical skills to run the country effectively.

Nuanced/mixed perceptions: Some commenters, while generally positive towards AKD, express scepticism about whether he can deliver on all his promises. They worry about the challenges of implementing reforms in the face of entrenched interests, and the capture of Sri Lanka’s political class and culture by traditional elites. There are questions about AKD’s ability to work with international partners and manage complex economic issues, given his left-leaning background.

Why does perceptions mapping matter?

In my previous article, I noted, “Voting is about personality and less about policy. Propaganda fuels this. Campaigns are not unlike reality TV shows, where we all root for someone based on how they are presented, with no idea whatsoever as to who they really are. To forget this is to allow self-serving presentations to determine how we see critical issues and what each candidate says about us, our past, present and future.” The hyper-partisan commentary SP, AKD, and RW respectively generate in response to their propaganda are echo chambers, which in turn reflect the affective polarisation of Sri Lanka’s voting base. With elections in Sri Lanka, over many decades, presented as zero-sum outcomes, each candidate seeks to present a rival’s win as devastating for the country. Social media echo chambers accentuate this fear-mongering and risk demonising opposing candidates.

With around 200,000 first-time voters and one million new voters, social media will play an unprecedented role in campaign propaganda, especially after the shift in the political commentary to social media vectors during the Aragalaya (when newspapers ran out of newsprint, and there was no electricity to watch terrestrial TV). The enduring impact of that shift to digital vectors for political information persists, and is also why there’s already a lot of spending on social media placement, YouTube interstitials, and online ads.

Mapping how each candidate is perceived by their core fan base on social media, as well as how rivals are projected, helps determine how a broader constituency would appreciate victory or loss in September’s presidential election. Candidates may choose to whip up antipathy which risks rapid, significant, and enduring amplification by partisans. The fear is always that emotions online spill over offline, and in ways that can’t be accurately determined as advance projections, especially given the tattered social cohesion in Sri Lanka.

This partial capture of partisan Facebook commentary, building on the earlier study of discourse on X Platform (formerly Twitter), presented a snapshot of how contemporary political discourse is constructed across just the official Facebook accounts of RW, SP, and AKD. One can extrapolate from this how truly dynamic and voluminous this discourse is when mapped across the thousands of pages and accounts on Facebook alone pegged to candidates, in addition to the commentary generated by mainstream, civic media, civil society, and election watchdog accounts.