A growing debate suggests that political messaging, media strategy and narrative control may be shaping voter opinion more powerfully than economic performance or governance outcomes.
In the current political climate, Anura Kumara Dissanayake is widely viewed as a serious contender in the upcoming presidential election. Some analysts even argue that he could secure victory, especially if the opposition fails to unite behind a strategic and credible alternative.
This raises a central question. How can Anura win when critics argue that economic hardship persists, cost of living pressures remain high, and major promises such as eliminating corruption appear unfulfilled? How can a government survive accusations of irregularities in coal procurement while electricity tariffs rise?
Supporters of this critique argue that the answer lies not in performance, but in political communication strategy. They claim the Anura-led administration has mastered media operations, digital messaging and perception management. According to this view, the opposition struggles to match the government’s narrative discipline and coordinated propaganda efforts.
Two recent examples are frequently cited.
First is the cricket diplomacy controversy involving Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Critics say routine diplomatic engagement was reframed as a decisive intervention by Anura. They argue that standard international protocol calls were presented domestically as a strategic victory, creating a perception that Pakistan’s participation depended on presidential influence. Whether or not that perception reflects reality, it appears to have gained traction among segments of the public.
The second example involves the coal procurement controversy linked to the Norochcholai power plant. Allegations claim that inferior coal shipments increased generation costs and contributed to higher electricity tariffs. Critics point to technical committee reports and claim that only a minority of citizens are aware of these findings. They argue that strong media messaging has muted public understanding of the issue.
The debate extends to communication style. A recent television exchange about a fisheries application illustrates this point. When asked about an app that allegedly tracks fish locations, a government MP confidently cited the “Sayuru” app and claimed one hundred thousand users. Later reports suggested actual downloads were far lower. Critics argue that the confident delivery of large, psychologically persuasive numbers often neutralizes scrutiny in real time.
This broader argument suggests that narrative control, repetition and assertive messaging may be influencing public opinion more than detailed policy analysis. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this interpretation, it highlights a critical factor in modern politics: perception can rival performance.
Ultimately, elections are shaped not only by economic data and governance outcomes, but also by how effectively political actors frame their story. In that contest, communication strategy may prove decisive.
