The Myth of the Kingmakers: Media, Mandates, and the NPP Moment
By a Staff Correspondent
In the afterglow of electoral victory, a familiar chorus has begun to swell—this time not from party offices or grassroots organisers, but from a small, vocal segment of the media ecosystem. Their claim is bold, self-assured, and, on closer inspection, deeply questionable: that their coverage, activism, or commentary was an opportunistic—indeed nonsensical—not played any force behind the rise of Sri Lanka’s National People’s Power (NPP).
It is a seductive narrative. It is also, in all probability, a fiction.
The Arithmetic of Influence
Elections, particularly those that disrupt entrenched political orders, are rarely the product of a single variable. They are cumulative events—driven by economic distress, institutional fatigue, voter mobilisation, and a broader shift in public consciousness.
To suggest that a handful of media actors—some operating from abroad, others with limited domestic reach—were decisive in shaping such an outcome is to misunderstand both scale and causality. At best, their contribution may have been marginal; at worst, negligible.
Political mandates are not manufactured in YouTube studios or Twitter threads. They are earned, often painfully, through years of organisational work, ideological positioning, and voter engagement.
The NPP’s ascent must be understood in that context.
The Real Drivers of Change
The coalition led by Anura Kumara Dissanayake did not emerge overnight. Its roots lie in the long political evolution of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna, a movement that has, over decades, recalibrated its ideological posture—from insurrectionary beginnings to parliamentary pragmatism.
More recently, the NPP has capitalised on widespread public disillusionment with traditional parties, particularly in the wake of economic crisis, governance failures, and corruption scandals. Its messaging—centred on accountability, anti-corruption, and systemic reform—resonated with a population weary of patronage politics.
That resonance cannot be reverse-engineered into a media success story.
The Emergence of “Transactional Journalism”
What is more revealing than the claim itself is what follows it.
Having positioned themselves as instrumental to the NPP’s victory, certain media figures now appear to be advancing a second proposition: that their “support” entitles them to recognition, access, or even material benefit under the new administration.
This is not journalism as a public service. It is journalism as transaction.
In this model, coverage is not guided by editorial independence but by implied reciprocity. Support is extended not on the basis of principle, but with the expectation of return. When that return does not materialise, the tone shifts—from endorsement to grievance.
The pattern is neither new nor uniquely Sri Lankan. But it is particularly jarring in a political moment defined, at least rhetorically, by a rejection of precisely this kind of quid pro quo.
The NPP’s Break with Tradition
For decades, Sri Lankan politics has operated on an informal but widely understood contract: support the winning side, and the spoils will follow. Appointments, contracts, access—these were the currencies of loyalty.
The NPP has signalled an intention to break from that model.
Its leadership has repeatedly emphasised that political support, whether from individuals, organisations, or media entities, does not translate into entitlement. Governance, in this framework, is not a reward system but a public obligation.
This stance, while principled, carries political risk. It disrupts expectations. It denies access to those accustomed to proximity. And it invites criticism from precisely the quarters now claiming authorship of the NPP’s success.
The Credibility Gap
The credibility of these self-styled “kingmakers” is itself under scrutiny.
Critics point to a pattern of behaviour that sits uneasily with journalistic norms: sensationalist reporting, personal attacks, selective disclosures, and, in some cases, allegations of coercive tactics—where reputational harm is implied or inflicted in pursuit of financial or political gain.
Such practices, if substantiated, fall closer to extortionary communication than to investigative journalism.
Moreover, the gap between claim and capacity is increasingly visible. Audiences, particularly in the digital age, are not passive. They evaluate sources, cross-check narratives, and, over time, develop a sense of credibility. Those who overstate their influence risk eroding the very audience they seek to command.
Public Perception Is Shifting
There is evidence that the Sri Lankan public is becoming more discerning in its media consumption. The proliferation of platforms has fragmented attention, but it has also diversified perspectives. No single outlet—or cluster of personalities—can plausibly claim to dominate the national conversation.
In this environment, assertions of outsized influence are likely to be met with scepticism.
The electorate that delivered the NPP its mandate did so against a backdrop of economic hardship and institutional distrust. Their decision was not a reflexive response to media cues; it was a considered judgement on the state of the nation.
The Risk of Backlash
For the media actors in question, the current strategy carries reputational risk.
By framing their relationship with the NPP in transactional terms—“we supported you, now deliver for us”—they expose themselves to a charge of opportunism. More importantly, they risk alienating a government that has little incentive to validate such claims.
The likely outcome is not accommodation, but distance.
A Test of Principles
For the NPP government, this moment represents an early test.
If it maintains its stated position—that support does not buy favour—it reinforces its reformist credentials. If it yields, even selectively, it risks sliding into the very patterns it has pledged to dismantle.
Consistency will be key.
Journalism at a Crossroads
Beyond the immediate political dynamics lies a broader question about the state of journalism in Sri Lanka.
The profession, like many globally, is under strain—from economic pressures, digital disruption, and declining trust. In such an environment, the temptation to adopt more aggressive, attention-driven tactics is real.
But credibility, once lost, is difficult to recover.
Journalism’s value lies not in its proximity to power, but in its independence from it. Its legitimacy derives from accuracy, fairness, and public interest—not from claims of political authorship.
Mandates Cannot Be Claimed
Elections confer mandates. They do not distribute credit.
The NPP’s victory belongs, in the final analysis, to the electorate. It reflects a collective decision to pursue a different political path—one that, if it is to mean anything, must resist the gravitational pull of old habits.
Among those habits is the idea that influence can be monetised after the fact.
For those now asserting that they “made” the government, the message from both the administration and the public appears to be the same: prove your worth through your work—not through your claims.
In a system seeking renewal, there may be many participants. But there are no kingmakers.