The first Sri Lankan election where media freedom emerged as a central slogan was the 1994 general election. While media freedom had been a topic of discussion during the 1965 election—particularly opposing the Bandaranaike government’s efforts to nationalize Lake House—it was not until 1994 that it became a rallying cry to challenge a government. This shift occurred in response to the suppression of media during the Premadasa regime, leading to the establishment of the Free Media Movement. This movement revitalized the weakened opposition party, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP), which faced internal challenges.
The opposition leader at the time, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, faced criticism for her prior actions against press freedom during her 1970–1977 administration. To address this, both Sirimavo and Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga attended a Free Media Movement meeting, apologized for past media suppressions, and pledged to protect media freedom under a future government. By this time, the country was witnessing a growing “Chandrika wave,” which significantly influenced her 1994 election victory.
However, after coming to power, Chandrika did not tolerate media criticism. Her initial target was the Free Media Movement itself, with reports of journalists being attacked by her security forces. This led to opposition leader Ranil Wickremesinghe drawing a sharp analogy, comparing Chandrika’s actions to Mughal emperor Shah Jahan cutting off the fingers of Taj Mahal architects to prevent the creation of another masterpiece. Ranil claimed Chandrika suppressed the media out of fear that it might bring another leader to power, just as it had elevated her.
Fast forward to 2022, Wickremesinghe became president under unique circumstances driven by the Aragalaya (people’s struggle). If not for the protests forcing Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee, there would have been no need for the Rajapaksa family to appoint Ranil as president. Ironically, Wickremesinghe’s first act in office was to suppress the same movement that had indirectly facilitated his presidency, fearing it might remove him as well.
Currently, Anura Kumara Dissanayake has risen to power with significant support from social media. His “Anura wave” was largely a product of social media platforms, which played a pivotal role in mobilizing public sentiment. However, his government has faced criticism from the same medium, particularly for actions like arresting social media activists who accused his administration of commemorating LTTE leader Prabhakaran in the North. This crackdown prompted questions about why Anura’s government was so troubled by such posts, highlighting the tension between governance and media criticism.
This pattern mirrors the political cycles since 1994, where leaders have initially embraced media platforms to rise to power but later sought to suppress them once in office. Chandrika’s SLFP saw media as a tool to combat nationalism, but she ultimately used war and militarization to retain support when she realized changing public sentiment was challenging. Similarly, Anura and his government believe they have overcome nationalism, yet they remain wary of social media criticism, fearing it could rekindle nationalist sentiments and alienate their support base.
Social media’s role in Sri Lankan politics became prominent in 2015, aiding Maithripala Sirisena’s victory by portraying him as a “Robin Hood” figure against corruption. However, the same platforms later ridiculed him as ineffective. They similarly built and then dismantled Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s image, turning him from a “hero” to a “fugitive.”
This cycle underscores the fleeting nature of social media-driven political narratives, which can elevate leaders as quickly as they dismantle them.
