Politics , to some extent, is perceptions of power. Power is not what you have but others perceive you have. And perceptions are often shaped through mediation of words, deeds , images and spectacles. What we see depends on how we are 'trained' to see or told to see and depending on from where do we 'see'.
Leader as the ideologue
It is the 'printed' word that determined the 'mediation' of 'ideas' and 'ideals' for the last few centuries. Without the printed words, and their multiple interpretation to construct analytical models/knowledge frameworks and multiple 'world views', no 'ism' in their 19th or 20th century versions would have been possible.Hence the interpreters of the 'word'( ideas/ideals) became more important to construct and communicate 'world views' about the world within , around, and beyond.
Hence most of the political leaders that emerged in the twentieth century were 'ideologues'- interpreters of certain ideas and ideals. And 'ideologues' were seen as those who have access and understanding of 'received knowledge' and their 'appropriate' interpretations ( hence all 'isms' got multiple interpretations) and the legitimacy of such 'leaders' came through their legitimacy as those who 'mediate' knowledge .They used 'knowledge' as a symbol of power.
They wrote many books- their politics was always an interpretative dynamics that shaped the perception of the 'masses'. Perceptions of the 'masses' about the leaders 'privileged' access to knowledge and history gave such leaders political legitimacy.
Nehru was such an example- the leader as an ideologue- who 'discovered' a new ideals for India and interpreted the history and society for the masses- and also showed them 'glimpses of the world history'. EMS too was the leader as an 'ideologue' mold. All leaders emerged till the late seventies - also sought to become 'ideologues'. There are so many examples all all over the world- across the 'ideological' spectrum. Including Hitler and Stalin tried to become leaders as 'ideologue'- model. The early 1990s witnessed a paradigm shift in the political process due to tectonic shifts in technology and communication. All of a sudden the leader as ideologue became extinct.
Hence most of the political leaders that emerged in the twentieth century were 'ideologues'- interpreters of certain ideas and ideals. And 'ideologues' were seen as those who have access and understanding of 'received knowledge' and their 'appropriate' interpretations ( hence all 'isms' got multiple interpretations) and the legitimacy of such 'leaders' came through their legitimacy as those who 'mediate' knowledge .They used 'knowledge' as a symbol of power.
They wrote many books- their politics was always an interpretative dynamics that shaped the perception of the 'masses'. Perceptions of the 'masses' about the leaders 'privileged' access to knowledge and history gave such leaders political legitimacy.
Nehru was such an example- the leader as an ideologue- who 'discovered' a new ideals for India and interpreted the history and society for the masses- and also showed them 'glimpses of the world history'. EMS too was the leader as an 'ideologue' mold. All leaders emerged till the late seventies - also sought to become 'ideologues'. There are so many examples all all over the world- across the 'ideological' spectrum. Including Hitler and Stalin tried to become leaders as 'ideologue'- model. The early 1990s witnessed a paradigm shift in the political process due to tectonic shifts in technology and communication. All of a sudden the leader as ideologue became extinct.
Leader as the telegenic performer
With the fall of the Berlin wall and the advent of the TV, the leader as the 'ideologue' simply faded away and eventually died and buried in the libraries in 'collected volumes' often sleeping eternally. The mode of technology influenced the modes of communication and the mode of communication influenced the mode of perceptions. The written and contemplative words in the books ,subject the multiple interpretations, gave way to the fast moving images on the TV screen. With the death of the ideologues, the new kind of leader emerged as a telegenic performer.
If we look at the kind of leaders who began to call shots in the post- 1990s, they are all TV performers. In the era of ideologues, EMS mattered more, and in the era of TV - performance, VS Achutandandan emerged as TV performer of par excellence. Even the former CM Nayanar became very 'dear' through his TV persona. The telegenic leaders with a capacity to perform in the TV studios or to play a performance in alignment with the new 'image' market of the TV, became prominent.. Mamata Banegi was a better performer on TV than Budhdebdas Gupta. Lallu enthralled everyone through his TV performance.
Modi learned the trick of the drama- and words with punch more as a TV performer or performing for the TV. There are any number of telegenic leaders, with hardly any mass-base, or direct links with people, emerged through TV studios or through performance that fit to the TV images.
All over the world, telegenic TV performers mattered more than the good old 'ideologue'. Ideologues ceased to be leaders- and ideologues become professors far away from the people, more visible in libraries and less on TV.
Entire Marxist project was built on 'ideologue' as leader- and among the other crisis one of the crisis of the Marxists is that their ideologues have become made themselves as redundant and they found refugee in some university departments somewhere- and politics ended more as theoretical mind-game for many , in the hay days of the 'leader' as a performing actor.
If we look at the kind of leaders who began to call shots in the post- 1990s, they are all TV performers. In the era of ideologues, EMS mattered more, and in the era of TV - performance, VS Achutandandan emerged as TV performer of par excellence. Even the former CM Nayanar became very 'dear' through his TV persona. The telegenic leaders with a capacity to perform in the TV studios or to play a performance in alignment with the new 'image' market of the TV, became prominent.. Mamata Banegi was a better performer on TV than Budhdebdas Gupta. Lallu enthralled everyone through his TV performance.
Modi learned the trick of the drama- and words with punch more as a TV performer or performing for the TV. There are any number of telegenic leaders, with hardly any mass-base, or direct links with people, emerged through TV studios or through performance that fit to the TV images.
All over the world, telegenic TV performers mattered more than the good old 'ideologue'. Ideologues ceased to be leaders- and ideologues become professors far away from the people, more visible in libraries and less on TV.
Entire Marxist project was built on 'ideologue' as leader- and among the other crisis one of the crisis of the Marxists is that their ideologues have become made themselves as redundant and they found refugee in some university departments somewhere- and politics ended more as theoretical mind-game for many , in the hay days of the 'leader' as a performing actor.
It is in this era of leader as a telegenic performance actor, many new 'faces' emerged- and it did not matter that they hardly mobilized any people nor had any direct links with the people. Arun Jaitly, Chidambaram, Kapil Sibal, Sitaram Yetchury and many of those who emerged in the 1990s were more of telegenic performers.
But the telegenic performer is also going to be extinct species very soon as there social media begin to eclipse both the print media and the TV entertainment. Less and less young people read news papers or watch TV political dramas as they depend more on their androids or i-phones to interface with the society and the world. Virtual reality has begun to eclipse the reality. Experience and perceptions began to mediated online at a time everything is mediated through 'APPS'!
Leader as the networked demagogue
While the world of TV created 'image' centric politics of quick perceptions based on the performance act of the telegenic or entertaining leader, the dramatic shift in the mode of technology and communication brought a paradigm change in the mode of perceptions and interventions in politics. Now the 'game' of constructing and communicating images and perceptions escaped from the TV studios to the floating and fluid field of social network and media.
What makes this age strange is that there is so much of 'face' without books- in the 'facebook'. These faces also have access to voice and means to voice. In the era of 'ideological politics' as interpreted by the 'official ideologue' of a particular world view, only the social and knowledge elites had privileged access to the received knowledge or the evolving framework of knowledge. However, even when they had access, they did not have much of voice as the real 'Voice' came from the interpreter - and in the case of the TV the 'anchor- as hero/heroine arbitrated' the 'Performance Act' of the politicians. There too the ordinary people did not have 'voice'.
In the privileged times of books- as the depository of knowledge and then the TV anchor as the arbitrator of 'image' perception industry, it is always a very small elites of 'interpreters ' and actors of dominant politics that controlled the show. It is often the nexus of political elites and media elites who manufactured consent and marketed privileged versions of politics and policy. And they formed the establishment.
With the explosion of the social media, anybody and everybody with a mobile phone and connectivity can afford to have a 'voice'. It is not only the elites, but the underclass, the political lumpen, the anti-elites, the angry and the bitter people all have a new access to fleeting words and floating images. They neither have time nor patience to read the book or bother to listen to the 'ideologue' . Their attention span has reduced to few minutes in the fast moving highway of fleeting images, impressions and perceptions. They are not interested in the 'old news' in the News Papers. They neither read books nor the news papers. With the new excitement of a new modes and spaces for expression, those who were away from establishment began to challenge the establishments in a subversive, contagious and populist manner. It is easy to build echo chambers to create a 'make- believe world' in the social network. Rhetoric eclipsed reality as the virtual reality constructed impressions like instant noodles: ready to serve anywhere and everywhere!
In the age of such fleeting words and fleeting images, perceptions get formed in a fast and furious space. Battalions of foot soldiers get on the social media network with their own modes of violence and weapons of mass destruction( anything and everything can be hacked) were deployed by leaders to manipulate perceptions and to give them the 'anti-establishment' advantage against the 'old politics.'
Both Obama and Trump are paradoxically are the protagonists and products of such anti-establishment and anti-elites politics of fleeting perceptions. While Obama emerged as a rallying point of all those who hated the Bush Mania establishment , at the the first phase of social network, Trump too made use of this fleeting images and words to create a fleeting image of an 'outsider' ( a businessman) who does 'straight-talk' ) who played to the gallery of those who perceived themselves as those who lost power to the establishment elites, who were seen as the proponents of 'old politics'.
All the demagogue, pretty aware about the fleeting characteristics of words and images also know that such a space of multitude of 'voices' help to sell 'fleeting dreams' and 'fleeting promises'- as what they want to is create quick impressions through manipulating the perceptions in the cacophony of the noises. Their arguments did not have to follow the logic of the old politics of interpreted ideals and values. Their logic was the 'punch' statement. They could get away with lie- as they were not making an interpretative argument based on the old 'ideologue' logic.
Here whole many people may feel they have a 'voice' - actually a demagogue will transform the possibilities of 'voices' in to multitude of 'crowd' noises in his/her favor. For everything, they will have APP. And all demagogues get in to the muddled water of the cacophony on the social network to catch fish , with fleeting tall promises and punching 'rhetoric'. They unleash their trained foot soldiers to shout with high volume in multiple echo chambers to sell delusions of development and promises of politics. It is with the millions of trained foot soldiers on that they manage to construct a 'face' without even a book in the 'face book'.
So in a paradoxical way, democratisation of social media and knowledge also provided an opportunity to manipulate perceptions and populist image of demagogues. The tens of thousands of trained foot soldiers became often violent lumpen gangs on the social media. And they attack anyone and everyone who question their 'favorite leader' whom they are trained to worship. They could create fake news, they could spread rum-ours of impending disaster. They practice 'cut and paste' politics of false impressions about 'majority' support. The demagogues launched themselves through 'rent' a crowd online and manipulated perceptions in the 'make-belive' world.
In the last five years, demagogues have become social networked hate mongers. They use 'insecurity' of the underclass and those who lost out in the economic and social inequality to create a politics of insecurity and politics of hate. And they use their own well orchestrated campaigns to give 'fleeting promises' and fleeting perceptions to create a majoritarian echo chambers. on the social network. Now that people , particularly the anti-establishment and anti-elitist under class can express their anger and 'insecurity' it is easy to harvest such anger and angst .with support of social network mafia and gangs, to construct a new politics of insecurity, fear and consequent hate.
The rise of the Rodrigo Duterte in Philippines , the rise of Trump USA and the fleeting promises of Modi in India also indicate the rise of a new class of populist authoritarian leaders who practice the politics of subverting fleeting perceptions on the social network. They are all leaders with a face - and not with a book, though they depend a lots of face-book to create their faces for communication and mass consumption.
The ideologue-leader is dead and gone. The telegenic performing artists became too familiar and predictably redundant in their role and relevance. However, the socially networked demagogues have arrived. And they have created millions of loyal foot soldiers to unleash violence on the social network.
Hence, the counter discourse and counter politics to the new populist demagogues will have to be shaped differently from the old mode of politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment