Editorial
What we are witnessing in the country is not a modernisation of politics. It is the cheapening of it. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, faced with a deepening national crisis, has chosen to lean on algorithms and a small circle of YouTube figures who now act, in effect, as an informal propaganda arm of the state. This is not clever media strategy. It is a sign of intellectual and political weakness. When a government begins to confuse online approval with real authority, it has already lost its grip on reality.
At a time when the country is under severe economic and diplomatic strain, the President reportedly spent more than two and a half hours in discussion with selected YouTubers about the political situation. This is not outreach. It is indulgence. A leader who directly oversees an extensive network of state institutions should not be seeking validation from individuals whose primary skill is generating clicks. The contrast is stark. While urgent policy questions remain unresolved, time is being invested in conversations that produce nothing of value for governance.
This behaviour reflects a deeper problem. The administration appears to believe that favourable online content can improve the quality of government. It cannot. Governance is measured by outcomes, not by narrative management. Investors, foreign governments and citizens are not persuaded by edited videos or partisan commentary. They look for stability, clarity and competence. On those fronts, the current record is thin.
The handling of recent international matters has exposed this gap. Statements made at the highest level have been inconsistent and, at times, careless. Publicly discussing alleged military requests in operational detail is not transparency. It is a failure to understand how diplomacy works. Serious states do not disclose sensitive exchanges in this way. They use careful language and protect channels of communication, especially in situations involving multiple powers and fragile relationships.
The result is predictable: confusion at home, scepticism abroad and a loss of credibility. Diplomacy depends on trust. Once that is weakened, even routine engagement becomes harder. In this case, the consequences extend to human lives. Situations involving foreign nationals require discretion, coordination and speed. Instead, there has been noise, contradiction and delay. That is not just poor judgement; it is costly.
There is also a broader strategic concern. Alignments in international politics always carry risks, especially for smaller states. Choices made for short-term political survival can produce long-term damage. As Henry Kissinger once warned, “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.” That line is not a slogan; it is a caution. Alignment without capacity is exposure. If a government does not understand the cost of its decisions, it will pay it later.
Against this backdrop, the focus on YouTube personalities becomes even more troubling. There is nothing wrong with engaging new media. The problem lies in who is being engaged and why. Many of these figures have built their audiences through highly charged content that prioritises accusation over evidence. They present individuals as guilty before any legal process is complete. They turn complex issues into simple outrage. This is not journalism. It is agitation packaged as content.
When such voices are given access and implied approval from the highest office, the message is clear. Standards do not matter. Due process does not matter. What matters is loyalty and usefulness. This creates a parallel system where public opinion is shaped not by facts or institutions but by those who can generate the most noise. It weakens courts, investigators and professional media. It replaces scrutiny with pressure.
There is also the question of information flow. It is increasingly evident that some of these content creators are receiving selective details from within the system, including from those linked to investigations. This is a serious breach. Information that should be handled with care is being used to target individuals in the public domain. Reputations are damaged long before any findings are made. In some cases, the process itself becomes irrelevant because the verdict has already been delivered online.
This is not a minor issue. It strikes at the core of governance. A state that allows or encourages such behaviour is effectively outsourcing part of its authority to unaccountable actors. It creates a culture where individuals are judged not by law but by their usefulness or opposition to the ruling power.
If President Dissanayake had used these meetings to set boundaries, to insist on ethical standards, or to discourage the misuse of information, the situation would be different. That would suggest an attempt to manage a difficult media environment. But there is no sign of that. Instead, the tone and content that followed these interactions suggest the opposite. The same patterns continue—more hostility, more distortion, more irrelevance to the actual problems facing the country.
Meanwhile, the real work of government appears neglected. There are untapped opportunities for foreign direct investment. There are markets that remain unexplored. There are structural reforms that require urgency. These are the areas where leadership matters. These are the areas that determine whether a country moves forward or falls behind. Yet they receive far less attention than managing perception.
This is the central failure. It is not the existence of YouTubers or even their excesses. It is the decision by those in power to elevate them into the political process in this manner. It reflects insecurity, not strength. It shows a leadership more concerned with controlling the narrative than confronting reality.
If this is the strategic direction, then the outlook is bleak. A government that relies on propaganda cannot govern effectively. It becomes reactive, distracted and detached from the conditions it must address. Leadership is not about visibility. It is about judgement.
Right now, in Sri Lanka, that judgement is in serious doubt.
