Once, a curious king wanted to know just how jaggery was made. The supplier explained the process and claimed that it was done under the most hygienic conditions by his people who had mastered the technique for generations. The king wanted to see it for himself, so he went in disguise – and found that the reality was completely different! It turned out that jaggery was being made in a rickety old shack by sweaty, bare-bodied workmen who were surrounded by flies. An angry king revealed his true identity and demanded an explanation.
The supplier replied: “Kiyana kota ehemai, karana kota mehemai” (“That’s the hype, Your Majesty, but this is the reality!”). Such a gulf between hype and reality exists in many everyday situations, not least in the words and deeds of our politicians. Sri Lanka’s new government, elected in January 2015 on a pledge of enhanced governance or yahapalanaya, is no exception.
[pullquote]What went wrong? For one thing, our expectations were too high. Looking back now, we find many shortcomings and letdowns. In real life, however, democracy is a work in progress and good governance is an arduous journey[/pullquote]
President Maithripala Sirisena was elected on a lofty pledge of “compassionate governance and a stable country”. One year later, Sirisena and his unity government have fallen short on both counts. What went wrong? For one thing, our expectations were too high. Looking back now, we find many shortcomings and letdowns. In real life, however, democracy is a work in progress and good governance is an arduous journey. While yahapalanaya’s mixed scorecard has disappointed many, some progress has indeed been made, especially in crucial areas like institutional reforms, human rights and foreign relations. In my view, the yahapalanaya glass is half (okay, quarter) full; notwithstanding this, its detractors keep highlighting the remaining emptiness.
But lest we forget, there was no glass at all earlier, having been smashed up by the autocratic regime that was voted out…
Communicating Government
Has the new government been effective in communicating its imperfect progress? Not really — and therein lies a huge challenge. “Good governance must not only be done — but also be seen as done,” I said in a homemade ‘meme’ widely shared via Twitter and Facebook in mid-2015. By that time, disillusionment over the new government was setting in. One contributing factor: many citizens did not see, or appreciate, incremental progress being made.
Communicating government policies, laws and actions entails maintaining a delicate balance. Blow the trumpet too much and it becomes implausible propaganda (such ‘spin’ was common during the Rajapaksa regime). At the other extreme, excessive modesty or inability to maintain a sound public record of accomplishments can affect a government’s public approval. The rise of 24/7 broadcast news and social media networks place extra pressures on government leaders and their communicators. In this turbocharged setting, issues can evolve fast and a government can often be caught off guard or find itself struggling to keep up.
Take, for example, the many days’ silence that preceded President Sirisena’s televised address to the nation on 14 July 2015 – the day he (finally) tried to diffuse tension over Mahinda Rajapaksa being given SLFP nomination for the parliamentary election.
As I wrote at the time in a commentary titled ‘The Price of Silence in the Social Media Age’, “For sure, there is a time to keep silent and a time to speak – and the President must have had some good reasons to keep mum. But in this instance, he [Sirisena] paid a heavy price for it: he was questioned, ridiculed and maligned by many who had heartily cheered him only six months ago”.
I argued that Sri Lanka’s democratic recovery simply could not afford uncertainty created by such Zen-like presidential pauses. A generation ago, President JR could say nothing in public for months and still get away with it. Today’s citizens are far more impatient.
Leaders on Social Media
On the other hand, today’s leaders have many more communication technologies and channels. They must take advantage of it.
By end 2014, when President Sirisena rode the popular wave to high office, a quarter of Lankans were regularly using the internet. No longer an urban or elite medium, the technology actually cast a wider shadow on Lankan society beyond its direct users. Becoming head of state at such a time, Sirisena naturally comes under much greater scrutiny than any previous leader. He can turn this challenge into an opportunity to engage.
So far, however, his citizen engagement using the web and social media has been rather patchy.
Candidate Sirisena’s election manifesto of December 2014 pledged to “enforce a media development policy for managing developing communication technology and the expansion of social media for the good of society”. Shortly after being elected, he acknowledged the substantial support he received via social media during his campaign. Despite this, he has since done little to tap the digital opportunity.
As do most other Lankan politicians, he uses social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter (@MaithripalaS) to simply disseminate his speeches, messages and photos. His official website at www.president.gov.lk has no space for citizens to comment (except for the new ‘Tell the President’ complaints mechanism: it is too early to assess its efficacy).
[pullquote]Yahapalanaya ideals will be better served if our President and Prime Minister judiciously use mainstream media, as well as new media platforms, to have regular conversations with citizens on matters of public interest[/pullquote]
Oh yes, Sirisena’s verified social media accounts have steadily increased in the number of fans/followers during the year – boosted in part by the benefit of incumbency. By the first anniversary he had more Facebook followers than any other Lankan politician. But he and his media team never join the conversations that unfold there or on Twitter, even when the discussions are friendly or favourable.
This apparent aloofness and the fact that he has not done a single Twitter/Facebook Q&A session before or after the election affect his image as a consultative leader. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is even less engaged on social media. He tweets occasionally from an as–yet-unverified account that seems official (@RW_UNP) and posts some updates to Facebook. But his voice is missing in online conversations.
Communications scholar Dr Rohan Samarajiva has argued that our leaders have greater priorities than being on social media. Yes and No. It is more important for them to keep their election promises and ‘walk their talk’. However, in today’s information society, it is also necessary that leaders talk with us citizens as they walk.
Talking and Listening
That does not mean that we want leaders to comment on every news development on a regular basis. What matters is that they keep us informed of key government policies and programmes, seek our views and listen to us. In times of crisis, e.g. when disasters strike, we also expect leaders to counsel us collectively.
Yahapalanaya ideals will be better served if our President and Prime Minister judiciously use mainstream media, as well as new media platforms, to have regular conversations with citizens on matters of public interest. A growing number of modern democratic rulers prefer informal citizen engagement online sans protocol and pomposity.
One fear on our leaders’ part might be the lack of control in social media engagement. Anyone from anywhere can pose a question during a Twitter or Facebook Q&A session – and not everyone would be using real identities. Yet politicians like Mahinda Rajapaksa and Champika Ranawaka periodically take that chance. They deftly ignore tricky questions, but at least they engage selectively. That matters.
As elected leaders of an open and democratic society, Sirisena and Wickremesinghe will be watched, criticized and judged, sometimes unfairly. In my view, such ‘occupational hazards’ are well worth the rewards of engagement – especially at a time when genuine reconciliation and new Constitution drafting process are being pursued.