---

Confusion, mixed messages, wrong signals – are these becoming the key words of this new regime which is barely five weeks old?

When I say five weeks old, it does not mean it is still an infant; of course the government could be an infant of several weeks, but not its caregivers who are seasoned politicians who have governed this country in various capacities over the past few decades. This is the third time Ranil Wickremesinghe is holding the office of the Prime Minister, and Maithripala had been a senior cabinet minister for over 18 years. All the other senior cabinet ministers, too, are not novices to the game either. 

Nevertheless, we see some immaturity – not in governance, but in communication, which one could easily argue as a part of governance. 

Political communication could be an academic discipline that bridge political science and communication, but its practicality is critical in the present-day governance of Sri Lanka. Nevertheless, this particular subject does not inclusively deal with governance but during the electioneering process as well. Powerful messages by prominent political figures influencing the political landscape and its environment at previous presidential elections was a clear litmus test of this argument. What we heard from all opposition platforms were such extra-powerful messages and those communications were strong enough to topple the gigantic figure of Mahinda Rajapaksa. But were those extra-strong messages carefully calculated or designed? 

Amidst many case studies one strong political message was the controversial Port City project. This particular case study could be divided into the two parts; pre and post-election scenarios. 

Almost all leaders of the present government admitted during the electioneering that their future government would do away with the project. This message was echoed by all stakeholders of the Maithripala platform and extensively elaborated by JVP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake in his speeches. But did any of these mature leaders conduct assessments on the deliverability of their assurances before making them? Of course strong political messages are necessary to win elections, but could false election promises result in such parties falling on to the track the Rajapaksa regime occupied? 


One of the cardinal components in politics is winning the trust of the people. The discipline of political communication in its all manifestations, too highlight this underlining necessity. A political group that is largely considered comprising intellectuals, people with sense and maturity should not convey duplicating or contradicting messages within a short period of two months. 

The post-election scenario provides further evidence for losing the trust of the people and poor political communication. The version of the Cabinet spokesman is denied by the Prime Minister within 24 hours in Parliament and then also by the Foreign Minister. Those who listened to these powerful campaigning voices two months ago and voted them into power are now listening to an entirely different tone within a month. Of course we understand the power of China and the fate of small countries like ours when it comes to such issues. But the question is why the leaders of the government could not adopt one common communication strategy before getting the message across to the public? If the Cabinet has taken a decision to move ahead with the project why cannot it spend another few minutes in devising a common voice on how to communicate this to the masses without fooling them?



Maybe the lack of a communication strategy within the government created this mess but the conduct of Cabinet spokesperson Dr Rajitha Senaratna, whom I respect greatly, at the last press briefing was not up to professional expectations. The way he denied the claim of abandoning the project during the election campaign, I was confused for a while whether I was watching a press briefing of the previous government. But, he vehemently denied making such an election pledge during the election campaign – and then when journalists reminded him about the comments made by Ranil Wickremesinghe himself, what was the response? “Then ask him when you meet him.” Is this mature politics? Is it good governance? 

I just brought up this one case study to elaborate the importance of sensible political communication strategies to this new government, but there are plenty already. Another is the media claim by Defence Secretary Basnayaka which indirectly justified the controversial Defence Ministry account at the Bank of Ceylon. Officials and politicians cannot have contradictory views on a technical matter. I think the most senior official of the ministry did not have a sound knowledge on this technical issue which is of major concern. But that is one part of this issue. The outcome of the saga was a strict warning to him not to talk to the media which indirectly sent a message to other bureaucrats as well. As a result our media colleagues are now struggling to talk to senior officials for fact checking or otherwise; but they remain tight lipped. 

This piece is not to find fault or accuse this new-born baby of five weeks. But it still has plenty of time to correct itself with proper strategies.