“The old systems are collapsing, but new systems are not emerging at the speed of those collapses.” “We have a huge vacuum because the new information ecosystem has no borders, but our legal systems still operate within geographic boundaries.” “In this changing environment, how are we going to sustain the fourth estate, which is of paramount importance in preserving a healthy information ecosystem?” Ranga Kalansooriya, PhD, the Asia Regional Advisor of International Media Support (IMS) for the past 17 years, has compiled his book ‘The Youthquake’, drawing on experiences from five countries – Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Myanmar and Indonesia. He examines how networked citizens fight for accountability, transparency and good governance without waiting for legacy media. The book is scheduled to be launched on Monday September 07 at the BMICH. Ranga has gained international media development experience in both Asia and Africa. He is also a member of the Oxford Media Policy Summer Institute and holds Sri Lanka’s first Ph.D. in Journalism. A former Director General of the Department of Government Information, Sri Lanka, and also of the Sri Lanka Press Institute, Ranga served in a diplomatic posting in Malaysia and also functioned as the spokesman for the Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka. In an interview with Daily Mirror, he shares his insights on the future of democracy in the new information era and the need to secure the rightful place for legacy media to contain harmful content. Q What prompted you to do this study and compile the book? There is a concept called the fifth estate. The fifth column of the new democracy – the system where internet-connected citizens are challenging the establishments. They are becoming the watchdog. This particular concept and theory was introduced by an academic called William Dutton, who is an expert on internet governance at the University of Oxford. He was a lecturer for us at Oxford in 2023 at the Media Policy Summer Institute. When I was listening to him, it triggered something in me that was really related to Aragalaya and also the Indian farmers’ protest one year back. Then, after 2023, I was invited to Oxford Summer Institute again as a host person and a member of the organising team. Then, I continued to meet William Dutton and listen to him. I thought of validating his argument in Asia. Every year in Asia, we notice it. In 2024, we saw it in Bangladesh and, in 2025, in Nepal. In between, we had Indonesia and many other ongoing struggles. So, I thought of validating this argument of the fifth estate through these youth protest movements. That is how it started. Q The protests took place in different countries but the contexts were different. What is your analysis about it? I take your point, but if you go into deep analysis, the trigger was different. In Sri Lanka, there was an economic collapse. In Bangladesh, it was education reforms. In Nepal, there was a ban on social media. In Indonesia, it was Indonesian President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) bringing new laws to bring his son into politics or as a mayor. If you go into deep analysis of the contextual situations, all are the same. It comes down to accountability, corruption and wrong democratic systems or bad governance. Things were developing. Even in Sri Lanka, if you take the period between 2015 and 2017, things were developing. In Bangladesh, things were developing for at least another 15 years of the Sheikh Hasina regime. In Nepal, the Nepal baby hashtag came years before. The mobilisation of youth or people on digital platforms or narrative building was happening for a long time, based on corruption, nepotism and bad governance. People were asking for accountability and transparency. The triggers were different, but the root causes were all the same. Q Can traditional democratic institutions cope with the speed and amplification of political dissent on social media between elections? There are two sides of the coin. One side is that checks and balances are now being done by citizens in a way that legacy media could not do. That was because legacy media was captured, politicised or commercialised. So, according to most of the protesters or these youths, legacy media was part of the problem. In Bangladesh, they attacked the legacy media. In Nepal, they attacked the legacy media. They burned down legacy media offices. In Sri Lanka also, the protesters encroached on legacy media newsrooms. They made their own demands. As we have seen, the good side of the coin is that citizens are taking checks and balances into their own hands and doing it now. If you look at the recent Ambalangoda police station incident, see how the citizens and social media users did the checks and balances against the law and order system in the country. They were very strong in their opinion. The other side of the coin is, as you said, that the narrative can be manipulated. The system is not regulated, and it is full of hate speech, disinformation, fake news or whatever you call it. The concern here is whether we give these checks and balances to a system which is not regulated, but full of campaigning and paid content. It is an unregulated mechanism. On top of that, AI is coming. The complexity is getting even deeper with more issues. The third factor is that all these platforms are not registered or within the geographical perimeters of the nation state. So, who is responsible? Who is accountable? So, these are the issues. These are the dynamics. As you very correctly said, the old systems are collapsing, but new systems are not emerging at the speed of those collapses. Q In that context, what will be the future of democracy? That’s a very good question because now the norms of democracy are being challenged. The very institutions of the democratic system are being challenged. Challenged by citizens who are demanding more transparency and accountability. As you said, the systems are not adapting to those new dynamics. We have a huge vacuum here because the new information ecosystem has no borders. But our systems are taking decisions according to geographic or legal perimeters – legal borders. Those two are not in parallel. Those are not compatible with each other. We are in a paradox. If you ask me what would be the future of democracy, I think we need new thinking, a new narrative. We need a lot of research, a lot of thinking, a lot of inputs for new policymaking in governance, given this new information ecosystem landscape. I don’t have answers to that, but the answers are as complex as they are in the question. Q Have the youth protests in Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka achieved what they initially demanded? Yes. Have we changed the same system, the old system? Yeah. Have we replaced it with new accountability, transparent, good governance systems? In all these three countries, my answer would be no. New faces in Nepal and Sri Lanka with old systems. In Bangladesh, old faces are with old systems. So, after four years in Sri Lanka, after three years in Bangladesh and after one year in Nepal, I would say I’m yet to see the real change that youth wanted. That is why I call it Youthquake. So, it could be a negative impression. For me, yes, it’s a negative impression because we are still waiting to see the real change that we wanted in the systems. In this digital era of widespread misinformation and disinformation, do you think greater media literacy and resilience among young people and society at large have become essential? We call it harmful content – whether it’s hate speech, disinformation or whatever you call it. That’s why one of my arguments in my book is to say that the harmful content issue needs multiple solutions. One solution is, of course, media literacy. You have to educate the user, the recipient, the audience, and also platforms and government. The most important factor, as my argument here, is good journalism. The fourth estate has to be strengthened further. The problem is that the Fourth Estate is now facing multiple challenges. It is facing economic challenges because digital platforms are encroaching on local advertising markets. Business is affected by that. Then the type of journalism is affected because citizens are developing content. You call it citizen journalism or whatever. Those are monetised. So, the content is changing. The business is changing. The audience is changing. Technology is changing. So, in this changing environment, how are we going to strengthen and sustain the fourth estate, the legacy media, which is of paramount importance in preserving a good, healthy information ecosystem? Q Can you cite some examples from different countries in the world? The main challenge is how to economically sustain the fourth estate. The problem is the economy. Journalists are not getting paid. Investigative journalism is not getting funded. Therefore, media houses cannot run. The technology cannot be updated because of commercial issues. Given that context, in some Asian countries, more than 50% of local advertising revenue is being captured by digital platforms based outside the country. All the money goes out of the country. Right. Some countries have taken certain steps now. For example, in Indonesia, they are working with the Indonesian government. Work is in progress with the Press Council to find a mechanism to at least create a separate media fund. The Editors Guild of South Africa has gone to the Fair Competition Commission asking for its share from the local digital platforms. Europe and Canada have taken steps. These are individual case studies that we can strike. But I don’t think these individual efforts will bring the necessary results unless we come together as the Global South to create a common bargaining platform. Common bargaining. Q Could a handful of technology companies trigger or influence social unrest to serve their own political or geopolitical interests? That’s another conspiracy theory. But if you really analyse the Nepali, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan issues, and also issues in Myanmar and Indonesia, the ground realities create the necessary fertile ground for unrest. When the unrest is expressed using digital platforms, then the algorithms start getting activated. We know these social media platforms make money out of conflicts because of algorithmic intervention. So, they make money out of that. We have seen it in the Rohingya issue. Some social media platforms had to apologise. The UN had to blame them because these social media platforms, through the algorithm, were supporting or promoting violence. It happened in our Digana attack. Some social media companies had to come to Sri Lanka, do the research, and then make some amendments to their own systems – how to regulate the content during a conflict, because otherwise algorithms will promote conflicts. Your argument could be correct, because algorithms create profit. Then algorithms are getting improved during conflict. Conflict makes money. That’s the argument. On the other hand, some external international forces can use this as a tool. That’s a conspiracy theory, but conspiracy theories can be applied in a practical way. So, you have a point. This is the danger I’m seeing. This is the danger I’m seeing in giving your fourth estate to another country’s platforms. Q Do you think technology companies are less likely to intervene in the political affairs of large markets such as India, while smaller countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal may be more vulnerable to such influence? I fully agree with the market size approach. It all happens, but I don’t think even the Cockroach Party could be controlled through interference along with the tech platforms. It’s not easy. Cockroach Janata Party is the largest mobilisation ever of youths within 24 hours on one social media platform – 22.8 million youth on an Instagram page within 24 hours. That is a huge mobilisation. I don’t think even tech companies would interfere in that. But you are correct, Big Tech will listen to big countries because of their big market. India itself is more than 20% of the market of the Big Tech companies. Small countries like Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Nepal and Timor-Leste – who will listen to us? That is why I make this argument. We need a Global South common bargaining platform. Q How realistic is it now actually to unite the countries in the Global South to achieve that? We can see that in a small way. India is taking the lead. Now, India is very big in the AI discussion. They had this AI summit early this year. South Africa is becoming very strong. Brazil and Indonesia are also there. But they are doing it in their own bubble. We should break this bubble. I need China in this Global South bargaining platform. China has a huge AI regulating system which could be applicable to any other country when it comes to AI policy and regulation. So, we need all these good case studies and practices to come on a common platform. And then we are strengthening the small states. In this globalised, borderless world, we cannot confine ourselves to the old colonial, geographical and geopolitical narrative. These are gone. This is the digital era, especially when it comes to negotiating with huge Big Tech companies. We need big players. Elephants in the Global South should come together and protect small animals like us. That is for, you know, to regulate all these platforms in a better way without compromising transparency and accountability. There are different dynamics. These companies are drawing huge profits. They are economic, commercially driven companies. But they have a political responsibility as well. So, they need to be very careful about how you handle politics here. The main issue here is what you call the word Frankenstein. This particular social media dynamic has become a Frankenstein where even the creator cannot take control of it now. It has gone out of control, even with AI. The creators themselves cannot control it anymore because, I think, the issue has become too big even for the tech platforms. So, we need – I think that is what we are seeing in the European appeal centre, the newly established appeal centre in Dublin, Ireland, under the European Union’s Digital Services Act. I think this is perhaps the best mechanism ever established as a regional effort by the European Union. But even that mechanism has its own challenges. For example, the tech company took the matter to court. It was supposed to be an out-of-court settlement, but the company went to court. So, I think there is a huge mess here now. We need common platforms and common bargaining platforms. Big Tech companies also need to be united, but they are not united at the moment. They are trying something in Singapore, where a new grouping is emerging as a possible solution. We need this kind of mobilisation of the Asian technology community – what they call the ATC, I think. So, we need greater coordination and collaboration among all the different stakeholders. Governments cannot do it alone. Civil society cannot do it alone. Big Tech cannot do it alone either. We need a new system.
Sri Lanka Dengue Cases 2026: Live Tracker and Latest Updates
Ryanair responds to Kumar Sangakkara’s allegation
TIN certificate mandatory for eight transactions from November 1
How Much Have Prices Changed? Explore Sri Lanka in 2016 vs 2026
Updated:129mm of rain in a few hours: what it really means for Colombo
India amends visa rules for Pakistan, Sri Lanka
Bay of Bengal depression set to become severe cyclonic storm by tomorrow
Crowds flock to IRD as TIN requirement takes effect
CEYPETCO increases Petrol and Diesel prices
Kumar Sangakkara opens up on Ryanair ’race storm’
Loading comments…