The 2024 presidential election was a pivotal step towards reinvigorating the democratic process in Sri Lanka through the ballot, the European Union Election Observation Mission Sri Lanka declared.

The text of its statement issued soon after the declaration of results”: The Election Commission of Sri Lanka (ECSL) conducted the process independently and with resolve, ensuring transparency at all key stages of the election. The contest itself was pluralistic, with fundamental freedoms broadly respected. The campaign was peaceful and energetic, yet the advantage of incumbency tilted the playing field and some manipulative digital campaigns aimed to confuse voters. Vote count and tabulation of results were rated positively by citizen and international observers and all lead candidates accepted the outcome of the polls.

The ECSL operated transparently and efficiently, enjoying broad stakeholder trust at national and district levels. The Commission held stakeholder meetings and closely collaborated with civil society to provide voter information and monitor the campaign. The Commission also took an active public stance against violations of campaign rules and the misuse of state resources, despite limited powers of and capacity for enforcement.

The ECSL made preparations for election day efficiently and on time, ensuring smooth and orderly voting, counting and tabulation of results. On election day, all polling stations observed by the EU EOM opened on time, election workers were knowledgeable and professional, while the presence of party agents and citizen observers enhanced the transparency and integrity of the process. Voting proceeded in a peaceful and festive atmosphere. Procedures were robustly followed during voting, as well as during the count of ballots. No major violations of election law were recorded, yet the political campaign on social media continued in full swing, also on election day.

Clarity and integrity of the process were ensured during the tabulation and the count of preferential votes. Tabulation took place in parallel to the vote count and proceeded without irregularities in all results’ centres observed. The ECSL released voting results by polling division as soon as they were verified, maintaining stakeholder confidence. The decision to proceed with the count of preference votes was communicated before all final results were published.

The legal framework is conducive to the conduct of a democratic election. Recent legal reforms addressed several previous EU EOM recommendations, advancing privacy rights, introducing regulations for campaign finance and ensuring that youth turning 18 in the months preceding an election are no longer disenfranchised. Yet, legislation with the potential for arbitrary and repressive application against political dissent, for example the Online Safety Act, is also in force, falling short of international standards.

Eligibility rules for presidential candidates protect the right of political participation, and the nomination process was conducted without legal incident. The ECSL registered a record total of 39 candidates, around half of whom did not campaign. Regrettably, there was no woman among the candidates. Overall, there has been little progress in advancing gender parity in public life due to many factors including limited political will to advance women within party structures.

The presidential election was competitive and offered voters genuine political alternatives. For the first time in recent political history, there was a three-way race for the presidential office. The leading candidates focused their campaigns on economic issues, attempting to attract voters from all social strata and crossing historical ethno-religious divisions.

The campaign was peaceful and energetic, allowing broadly for the freedom of assembly and expression. However, closer to the election, hostile, aggressive rhetoric, interpersonal mudslinging and manipulative digital campaigns gradually increased. All leading candidates held large-scale rallies, sought alliances with religious leaders and minority groups, mobilised grassroots support down to the village level, and deployed online campaign teams. A few politically motivated assaults occurred.

The advantage of incumbency distorted the playing field. Salary increments for public sector employees, social benefit schemes, an interest-free student loan plan and monetary support programmes for small businesses, all announced by the executive during the campaign and covered in a positive tone on state media, were aligned with the incumbent’s re-election bid. The line between governing and campaigning was further blurred by the participation of state and local officials in the incumbent’s rallies. This was aggravated by the absence of elected provincial and local councils.

To advance equity between candidates, limits on campaign finance were introduced for the first time. There were no caps on individual donations and no disclosure requirements until after the election. Transparency in candidate spending on traditional and social media was also poor. Reports on campaign funding and expenditure are to be submitted only after the declaration of results.

Broadcast media offered lively coverage of campaigning, yet it was rather uniform in style and content, focused on passing political messages and offering very limited non-partisan scrutiny and analysis, which would have helped voters to make an informed choice. TV stations reported on rallies and meetings, with candidates’ speeches filling up to two-thirds of their prime-time newscasts. Furthermore, leading candidates did not participate in the presidential media debate, depriving voters of the possibility to compare them directly. During the last two weeks of the campaign, alarmist and fear-mongering content about prospective violence became more visible.

Campaigning on social media was fierce, marked by increasingly hostile rhetoric closer to the election and manipulated content aiming to confuse voters. Leading candidates made accusatory statements against each other, while their digital teams inserted political messages in non-partisan entertainment and gossip groups on social media and created memes that ridiculed their rivals. False and misleading content spread online, and national fact-checkers swiftly debunked it, yet the reaction from social media platforms was not always consistent in limiting it. Campaign silence was not observed online.

Civil society was active and engaged with the ECSL, enhancing the transparency and inclusiveness of the election. Well-established citizen observer groups monitored election preparations, the campaign environment and election day proceedings. Civil society organisations (CSOs) were also agile in flagging disinformation, tracking violations of election rules and calling public attention to the misuse of state resources. A positive contribution was also made through their voter information efforts for persons with disabilities.

The ECSL received over 5,000 complaints prior to the election and 600 on election day, mostly of minor infringements of the law. Prior to the polls, the vast majority of violations were addressed directly by the ECSL, in collaboration with the police, taking action to halt the activities complained of. Equally, on election day, mitigation and prompt prevention were employed to maintain a peaceful atmosphere.”