With over 60 global elections taking place throughout 2024, the impact of social media on electoral processes has become a focal point of concern around the world. Among these elections, Sri Lanka’s Presidential Election is particularly critical, showcasing both local and global challenges associated with the digital age.
For Sri Lankans, social media has transformed the electoral landscape in ways unimaginable just a decade ago.
Consider the story of Dharani Wijetilake, a young voter in Colombo, who recalls her first encounter with political campaigning on Facebook during the 2019 Presidential Election. “I remember scrolling through my feed and seeing so many posts about the candidates,” she said. “It wasn’t just ads; it was videos, memes, and discussions among my friends. It felt like the election was happening right there on my phone.”
According to local election monitoring groups, social media platforms have revolutionised political campaigns, offering unprecedented access to voters and enabling real-time communication. This digital transformation has turned platforms like Facebook, X, and Instagram into powerful tools that can sway voter turnout and influence public opinion more profoundly than traditional media ever could.
Tharindu Bandara, another voter in Kandy, highlighted this shift. “During the last election, we saw how candidates used social media to connect with young voters, who are often disengaged from traditional media,” he explained. “They were live-streaming events, responding to comments, and even addressing concerns raised by voters in real-time. This level of interaction was unprecedented.”
Profound impact on democracy
The 2019 Presidential Election, in particular, marked a significant leap in the use of social media.
Campaign activities continued unabated on social platforms even during the 48-hour cooling-off period before election day, with targeted ads and posts flooding users’ feeds. For many young voters like Dharani, this constant online presence made the election feel more immediate and personal. “It was hard to ignore,” she admitted. “Every time I opened an app, there was something about the election.”
This overwhelming presence on social media during elections has not been without its challenges. The destructive power of these platforms became starkly apparent during the anti-Muslim riots in Digana in 2018 and the aftermath of the Easter Sunday terror attacks in 2019, when incendiary content spread rapidly, inciting violence and fear. The Government was forced to impose a social media blackout to stem the tide of hate speech and misinformation.
Reflecting on this, Dileepa Kaushalya, a resident of Kandy, shared: “It was terrifying to see how quickly false information could escalate into real-world violence. Social media can be a double-edged sword.”
As Sri Lanka prepares for its 2024 Presidential Election, the stories of voters like Dharani, Tharindu, and Dileepa highlight the profound impact of social media on modern democracy. While these platforms offer unprecedented opportunities for engagement and participation, they also pose significant risks that require careful management and vigilant oversight. In the digital age, the challenge lies in harnessing the power of social media to enhance democratic processes while mitigating its potential for harm.
In such a backdrop, Institute for Democratic Reforms and Electoral Studies (IRES) Executive Director Manjula Gajanayake stressed that these platforms also posed significant challenges, particularly concerning the spread of misinformation and the potential manipulation of public opinion. “Not only Sri Lanka but most countries are facing the same kind of issue because it is very difficult to tackle social media presence,” he said. “The newest challenge is Artificial Intelligence (AI). In these elections, social media platforms are very challenging.”
As he explained, this sentiment is globally prevalent, with countries like the US drafting legislation to address AI’s role in elections. Yet, as Gajanayake pointed out, many nations, including Sri Lanka, are lagging in proactive measures. “Once there is a novel challenge, these countries take steps to tackle these issues. The US Congress is putting forward legislation to tackle AI issues in elections.”
Social media-based election campaigns in Sri Lanka began during the 2010 Presidential Election, with the two main candidates, Mahinda Rajapaksa and Sarath Fonseka, utilising platforms like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Flickr. Despite this early adoption, analysts believe that social media did not significantly impact the campaigns of either candidate at the time.
Regulatory measures
The misuse of social media during the 2019 Presidential Election led local and international election observers to recommend regulatory measures.
In response, the Election Commission (EC) introduced media guidelines prior to the 2020 Parliamentary Elections, under the powers granted by Article 104B(5)(a) of the Constitution. While these guidelines primarily focused on print and electronic media, Paragraph 33 extended the responsibility to social media site administrators and cable television channel owners to adhere to the same standards during elections.
As an additional measure, the EC collaborated with Facebook, the People’s Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL), and Hashtag Generation during the 2020 Parliamentary Elections. This partnership led to the identification of over 5,000 Facebook posts that violated election rules. Despite notifying Facebook of these violations, the removal of harmful content took several hours.
However, as alleged by local election monitors, despite such action taken during the last elections, Sri Lanka’s approach to monitoring social media during elections remains fraught with difficulties.
Highlighting the limitations of the current legal framework, particularly the Online Safety Act (OSA), Gajanayake expressed concern that a Government-appointed committee for the OSA could hinder the efforts of local monitoring missions.
According to him, a significant hurdle is the EC’s lack of resources and expertise. Financial constraints prevent the hiring of tech experts who could help manage the vast amount of content generated online.
“My fear is that if the Government appoints a committee for the OSA, it will become challenging for the local monitoring missions to do their job. I don’t know how to tackle it since we don’t know what the commission is going to do because, as election observers, we must name people,” Gajanayake said. “In such a situation, I don’t think the EC can hire them. I haven’t seen such proactive and progressive actions up to now.”
Proactive measures essential
Meanwhile, former Chairman of the EC Mahinda Deshapriya recalled the efforts made during his tenure to engage with social media companies. “When I was at the EC, until 2020, we entered into discussions and agreements with them. With regard to social media, we had discussions with Facebook and Twitter; we complained to Facebook and they removed content. It was very time-consuming.”
Deshapriya highlighted the limitations of the EC’s power, which extends only to State-owned media companies such as the SLBC, Rupavahini, and ITN, with private media and social media platforms not being as easy to regulate. “Even with the monitoring of traditional media, the EC doesn’t have the power. The commission can control only the three State-owned media institutions. For other media institutions, the EC can have discussions and agreements with them, likewise with social media.”
He further emphasised the need for a broader societal role in monitoring and self-regulation. “Monitoring and observations must absolutely come from the people; this must involve the citizens’ observations,” Deshapriya asserted.
He also highlighted the importance of self-regulation among political actors and the need for comprehensive laws addressing campaign finance and media ethics. “Political parties and candidates must have self-discipline, a code of conduct, and ethics. Things like campaign finance require laws.”
Both Gajanayake and Deshapriya agree that proactive measures and public participation are essential. Gajanayake called for better preparation and proactive action from the EC: “Doing one’s homework is important. Two or three meetings were conducted by the EC, but I don’t think they have taken this seriously. What I observe is that they are waiting until an election monitoring mechanism or a civil society organisation comes and helps them.”
Deshapriya, on the other hand, reflected on missed opportunities for reform and the importance of public education. “In 1959, the EC made a proposal to Parliament and discussions commenced over the compulsory photo identity for elections, but Parliament only passed that in 2004 – after 45 years and with many loopholes.”
Meanwhile, when contacted by The Sunday Morning, EC Chairman R.M.A.L. Rathnayake stated that discussions were currently underway with election monitoring groups and several other civil society organisations to develop a framework for monitoring and addressing social media issues.