By Jude Dinesh Koduthor –

Jude Dinesh Koduthor

When Sri Lanka’s civil war ended in 2009, the North slowly rebuilt its infrastructure, but an equally significant transformation arose in the civic landscape: the digital network. Platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, YouTube, and TikTok have become the new village square, replacing tea shops and temples as sites for political discussion, activism, and dissent. For many Northern and Eastern residents, these tools have meant freedom from Colombo-centric, state-controlled narratives. Youth groups, civil society, and diaspora activists use digital media to mobilise support, document struggles, and connect with international audiences. Smartphones and Facebook Live have given communities new autonomy, enabling them to tell their own stories, challenge power, and amplify neglected local voices (Kaluarachchi et al., 2020).

Social media’s impact is not solely positive. While it has democratized participation and fostered grassroots activism, new vulnerabilities have emerged. Surveillance and algorithm-driven manipulation now shadow every conversation. Political legitimacy has shifted from meaningful ideas, sound policy, and moral principles to mere popularity, measured in likes and shares. Politicians, activists, and even ordinary citizens often feel compelled to perform for the phone camera rather than pursue compromise or dialogue. This “performance turn” has reshaped expectations and behaviours throughout Sri Lankan civic life (Abeywardana, 2025).

Political Performance, Outrage, and Mistrust

The performative aspect of digital politics dominates Sri Lanka’s current landscape. Politicians share every move, from ritual temple visits to flashy UN visits. Parliamentary speeches once intended for the official record are now viral content, eagerly consumed, but mostly stripped of context. Visibility has become the currency of legitimacy, while actual leadership and policy substance have been pushed aside. In the North, this is particularly stark: some politicians dramatise defiance or portray minor acts of protest as courageous heroism, exploiting digital platforms to burnish their credentials and gain popularity, with little connection to genuine action. Others attend international forums and circulate self-promoting videos, often overstating their real advocacy on behalf of affected communities. This culture of performance has bred a new media ecosystem, one that trades outrage for influence and spectacle for sincerity.

The negative consequences multiply as algorithms reward outrage over nuance. Social media posts that spark anger, scandal, or identity-based division travel quickly and can overwhelm more measured or evidence-based conversations. Empirical research shows that inflammatory content generates up to twice the engagement of factual reporting (Factum, 2025), reinforcing this cycle. Misinformation spikes during elections and crises, with coordinated networks targeting minorities, marginalised communities, women politicians, and activists with hate speech or fabricated rumours (Frontline Democracy, 2024). Instead of building community, the platforms often amplify division and mutual suspicion, particularly when local media lacks the resources to verify or contextualise claims.

Perhaps most troubling is how some politicians actively exploit these vulnerabilities to confuse and mislead. By constantly updating supporters with real-time streams, live debates, and dramatic accusations, they can flood the zone with information, both genuine and false, making it increasingly difficult for citizens to discern fact from fabrication. Public figures sometimes attack institutions, ridicule the slow pace of legal reform, or insult rivals with profanity, all for online engagement. These spectacles, while increasing profile and reach, undermine trust in governance, the rule of law, and democratic institutions, slowly normalising cynicism as civic culture.

This breakdown of trust feeds directly into how citizens now consume and interpret political messaging.

Negativity, Influence, and the Struggle for Authenticity

The rise of “influencer politics” further complicates public trust. Increasing numbers of young voters get their political updates not from traditional journalists, but from short-form video creators, meme pages, and online personalities (EU EOM, 2024). While a small group use these channels for civic education and critical debate, many stoke outrage for profit, fueling controversy and exacerbating public cynicism. As a result, many citizens experience “news fatigue,” avoiding political coverage due to confusion and perceived toxicity.

This performance-driven environment has blurred the line between public service and personal branding. Legal changes have heightened anxieties around social media misuse. Sri Lanka’s Online Safety Act (2024) gives broad and ambiguous powers to state commissions, increasing surveillance and thereby chilling dissent. Activists report self-censorship when posting about the military, land acquisition, or corruption. Digital empowerment now comes with sharper risks; while people have gained the means to speak, many fear that true freedom of expression remains out of reach(Frontline Democracy, 2024).

It is essential to emphasise that social media’s limitations are not inherent to the technology, but rather shaped by political actors who use and, at times, abuse its reach. Some politicians seize on the platform’s weaknesses to sow confusion, spread misleading claims, and shift the debate toward empty performance. Such exploitation not only divides the public but emboldens those willing to ignore ethical norms in pursuit of attention.

Geneva and UN Visits: Visibility, Authenticity, and Public Impression

In recent years, visits by Northern politicians and activists to Geneva or UN forums have become highly visible events on Sri Lankan social media. Leaders frequently document these trips through Facebook posts, live videos, and YouTube updates, proclaiming their participation in international advocacy or representing local grievances. For some communities, these broadcasts provide hope, evidence that their issues, from human rights to land justice, are reaching global platforms and attracting international attention (EU EOM, 2024).

However, this visibility has a double edge. While a minority genuinely work to raise critical issues and challenge injustice, some politicians use Geneva or UN visits as spectacles, creating videos, posting selfies, livestreaming, social media stories and delivering dramatic statements for digital applause. In these presentations, the line between substantive diplomacy and self-promotion blurs. Social media can turn such travel into performative theatre, where the act of “being present” becomes more important than building alliances or securing action.

This pattern fuels confusion and public mistrust. Northern and Eastern audiences often struggle to discern which visits involve real advocacy and which are simply for appearances. Some politicians amplify cynicism by criticising UN procedures or suggesting that international bodies do little for local victims, yet offer little evidence or follow-up. The flood of optimistic posts and attention-seeking reels can ultimately undermine the credibility of authentic activists, leaving citizens skeptical and frustrated.

To rebuild trust and foster genuine dialogue, leaders must document their actual agenda, outcomes, and next steps when attending international meetings. Publishing multilingual, verifiable summaries of outcomes, rather than self-promotional updates, could strengthen transparency and accountability between politicians and the communities they claim to serve (Frontline Democracy, 2024).

Conclusion

Northern Sri Lanka’s journey from silence to speech is profound, but genuine democracy cannot rest on connection alone. Social media has been a double-edged sword, amplifying activism, community, and voice, while also breeding spectacle, mistrust, manipulation, and confusion. The root problem is not technology, but how it is used by politicians and institutions willing to trade truth for attention. The task ahead is to make visibility accountable, not performative. Only by restoring transparency, strengthening accountability, and supporting ethical leadership can these digital spaces fulfil their promise as arenas for honest dialogue, justice, and societal trust.

References

1. Abeywardana, D. (2025). The battle against disinformation and push for digital literacy. CSOHate.

2. EU Election Observation Mission (EOM). (2024). Sri Lanka 2024 Final Report.

3. Factum. (2025). Strengthening resilience against disinformation.

4. Frontline Democracy. (2024). Media amid political churn in Sri Lanka.

5. Kaluarachchi, C., Nagahawatta, R., & Warren, M. (2020). Sri Lankan politics and social media participation: Case study presidential election 2019. Societal Challenges in the Smart Society, 191-202.

*Jude Dinesh Koduthor, Senior Lecturer, Media Studies, Faculty of Arts, University of Jaffna