The purpose of these agitations is to create a deadlock, gain sympathy, play a victim card, blame the government, set a narrative and finally take the law into one’s own hands to ‘deliver justice’. The ongoing farmers’ agitation can be viewed from that perspective.
The phrase “the manufacture of consent” that was originally coined by the American journalist Walter Lippmann in 1922 refers to the management of public opinion, as it is essential for a democracy to flourish. In 1988, Noam Chomsky along with Edward S. Herman proposed a “propaganda model” in “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media” and analysed how the political economy of mass media operates and sells the idea of having a political agency—the state and its institutions. The primary function of this political agency is to mobilize support in the form of “consent” for the special interests that dominate both the government and the corporate sector. They have identified effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry forward the system-supportive agenda to create a pro-system narrative and mould public opinion to suit certain select political and economic interests in the society. What they didn’t disclose, probably because it was not the objective of their study, was that the same apparatus and narrative can be reversed to create a false sense of dissatisfaction and distrust among the masses in their political system, institutions, processes and leadership. Ideas and technologies have travelled a long way since then and instruments of mass media and ground narrative can be set to destabilize democratic societies or popular governments. It can be done either by blocking the flow of pro-government information or by controlling the most effective and popular sources of information to set an anti-government narrative. All this can be done while staying in opposition with the implicit help of the same instruments of the mass media and culture industry.
Class or class identities dominated the political discourse for a long time. It received a major setback with the fall of the USSR and the engrossing impact of the forces of globalization. Economic benefits percolated to different sections of society and class identities and class conflict seem to lose ground to welfare schemes, socio-economic securities and quality of life concerns. Although this transition and its impact largely remain limited to well-off democracies, its offshoot effect fused class identities as the only or the main source of conflict within or across states. Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony revived the hopes of challenging the democratic “capitalist” societies and class conflict was replaced by the possibility of numerous, conflicting socio-cultural identities. In this entire process, there were rarely any attempts to ensure harmony and narrow exclusive identities were invented, promoted and debated in academia. A fractured, divided and assertive society becomes the last hope of defeating democracies from within. Of course, it has also changed the way political systems or governments are viewed, function, come into power or can be replaced.
Societies and communities can never be homogenous irrespective of whatever degree of historical bond, loyalty or consciousness. Every modern state is facing the challenge of social stratification and fragmentation due to large-scale migration, cross-cultural connections, internal churning, academic explorations etc. Social and cultural identities now play a much larger role in shaping societies and political systems. Identities or identity politics is not something new, but constant and intended investigations provided newer areas and ways of its application. How to deal with conflicting identities in an era of social media, particularly in open societies, is one of the most challenging tasks as concepts such as consociationalism or multiculturalism proved to be insufficient in dealing with social fragmentation and reassuring political unity and stability in the West. These socio-cultural identities are open for new explanations, interpretation and exploitation by entrusted people, groups etc. Modern democracies are facing a new kind of political threat and it is there within their societies, but it is beyond the control of the state.
Some of the trends in the recent past are indicative of timely “manufactured discontent” to achieve certain political objectives. In the United States, for example, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) campaign surprisingly disappears after the defeat of Donald Trump in elections. Campaigns, protests and agitations were organized just before a crucial meeting, international event, important discussion or voting on some policy or before elections to serve a political purpose. They may or may not be influenced or genuinely concerned about a particular issue or larger interests of the people that provide the basis of mobilization and legitimacy.
Discontent is fuelled to destabilize political regimes or systems. Anything can be used as a weapon against the political system to create a false sense of denial, exclusion, injustice and discrimination. In this process constitutional institutions can be discredited, processes can be questioned, freedoms and laws can be twisted, misinformation campaigns can be run, and violence can be used as a legitimized tool to create chaos and anarchy. Multiple or sensitive identities can be used to confuse the state and to ensure indecisiveness or prevent “legitimate” counter-action by the state agencies.
Bharat is currently passing through that phase where the inability to defeat a strong political opponent is resultant in multiple failed or partially successful politically motivated “movements” or agitations. In reality, the purpose of these agitations is not to find solutions or to address any genuine grievance; rather it is to create a deadlock, gain sympathy, play a victim card, blame the government, set a narrative and finally take the law into one’s own hands to “deliver justice”. The ongoing “farmers” agitation can be viewed from that perspective. The demands placed before the government sans rationality, the approach of the protesters is confrontationist and the purpose of the agitation is political. Sometimes, one identity or an illegitimate demand is superimposed on everyone in violation of law and fundamental rights of the people. Many such events were planned on crucial occasions without bothering about the sensitivity of the matter or its probable fallouts. We have examples of past also where a movement was suspended once a political goal is achieved. Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption movement died once his “trusted” lieutenant Arvind Kejriwal formed a political party and now joined hands with all those whom he opposed in the nascent phase of his political career by taking a high moral ground. Now, many of his ministers are in jail and nobody talks about the Jan Lokpal Act.
It is a widely shared thought that people or parties in power are the most potent source of information with abilities to control, channelize and block the flow of information, but that may not be the case keeping in view of the cross-border socio-cultural ties, class identities or interests and uncontrollable flow of information. For example, the religious identity of a particular group that spans countries and continents can never be tamed by the influence or force of the state, at least of a democratic one. This can also be true about class, gender, ethnic or racial identities. A mix of socio-cultural and class identities may make this even more complicated. Most of the newer forms of resistance are intricate as it has no single source of origin or common network of management. The state must gear up to first to understand the complex nature of this “manufactured discontent”, its organizational structure and its basis of legitimacy before reacting to it by adopting a reactionary approach. Every state action should be backed by genuine efforts of reconciliation, visible restrain and counter popular narrative.
The author teaches Political Science at the Lady Shri Ram College, University of Delhi.