Daily Times

The long-term adverse effects of a polarized nation extend beyond immediate social unrest to the erosion of the fabric of democracy itself. Polarization undermines the possibility of constructive dialogue, marginalizes moderate voices, and makes bipartisan or cross-party cooperation increasingly difficult. This attrition of democratic norms can lead to an entrenchment of authoritarian tendencies, as leaders can exploit divisions to consolidate power. These often come at the expense of democratic freedoms and the rule of law.

The narratives pushed by Trump, Modi, and Khan have been linked to acts of violence, hate crimes, and societal unrest. For example, Trump’s take on immigration and racial issues has been criticized for encouraging white supremacist groups producing a climate of hostility. This environment allowed for events such as the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021 (Mounk, 2021).

Modi’s tenure has seen an alarming rise in religious tensions and violence, particularly against Muslim minorities. This is made worse by a Hindu nationalist agenda which many critics argue undermines India’s secular foundations (Shibli, 2019). In Pakistan, one of the cases for which Khan is on trial is inciting violence for the May 9th protests which occurred after his arrest in 2023. Khan denies the allegation. However, 51 of his supporters were just recently sentenced to five years in jail by an anti-terrorism court (Ansar, 2024).

Populist movements are mostly accompanied by propaganda and disruptive tactics.

These incidences of violence, hate speeches, allegations of conspiracy theories, use of religion and societal polarization don’t just affect the respective countries of populist leaders; they leave a resounding impact on the perception of other countries in a globalized world. Populism’s emphasis on national sovereignty often comes at the cost of international relations. For example, Trump’s “America First” policies stem away from American global designs when he openly questioned the collective military defence.

He criticized other NATO members like Germany for relying on Washington for protection and not paying enough for their own defence (Gray & Siebold, 2024). Modi’s Hindu nationalism did away with the ‘Secular India’ projection to the rest of the world (Jafferlot, 2019).

In Pakistan, Imran Khan rallied up his followers by blaming the United States for his ouster which was made known through an alleged leaked secret diplomatic document referred to as the cipher. The American State Department’s Donald Lu categorically said, “…this conspiracy theory is a lie [and] it is complete falsehood (TheNews, 2024).” These sentiments may arouse nationalistic pride in certain publics but can leave strains on diplomatic ties.

Populist movements are mostly accompanied by propaganda and disruptive tactics. Therefore, as the interconnected and fast-paced world becomes increasingly complex, it becomes important to study leaders such as Donald Trump, Narendra Modi, and Imran Khan who have been successful, at least for a certain time, in leveraging narratives using principles of marketing, branding, psychology, and propaganda techniques.

Mixed with communication strategies to gain and maintain power, it often comes at a price of polarity and extremism in society. Is there something that should be done? Is this the natural evolution of politics? If the foundation of democracy is built on the concept of majority rule, the tactics of populist leaders can ensure their rule. But, at what cost?

The cost of populism has been societal divisions. With new dynamics of communication technology and its effects on the social strata, populism’s effects go beyond borders and into people’s homes. If used, popularity can be a mechanism for good; however, when the world sees these movements ending up in violence, questions are raised about the leadership.

When divisions in society rise, when misinformation becomes the news and defamation becomes the law, the dark underbelly of every society gets a chance to surface. This can be curtailed by legislative and regulatory frameworks through robust policy interventions for defamation or hate incitement.

This is no easy task when considering the pillar of freedom of speech in democratic states. Until then, leaders like Donald Trump, Narendra Modi, and Imran Khan who understand the rules of modern branding and media proliferation, will exploit the power of popularity. It’s a flaw of modernism and postmodernism, that people mistake celebrity, for substance. However, the stakes aren’t just individuals; the stake can be the state.

(Concluded)

The writer is an Assistant Professor and Media Practitioner.