Decoding the politics of populistainment

Populistainment was incorporated at every level of Narendra Modi's presence in Ayodhya for the Ram temple Bhoomi Pujan

When Narendra Modi went to Ayodhya for the Bhoomi Pujan of the new Ram Mandir on August 5, he not only fulfilled a personal promise and realised one of the BJP’s manifesto goals of 2019, but also provided another prominent example of the latest political phenomenon – the spectacle of populistainment.

In the wake of the financial crisis of 2007-08, global politics underwent a slow but significant change. Widespread distrust for the so-called elites, who had ridden the wave of the crisis even as ordinary citizens largely floundered under it, can be said to have precipitated a new political era – the rise of present day populism. This era based itself on the emergence of politicians who sought to “connect” directly with the masses, revive an atavistic nationalism, and keep the news turnstiles spinning through their polarising actions and comments.

Over the next decade or so, populist regimes came to power across the globe, validating the success of a brand of politics that prioritises excitement over engagement, drama over debate, and spectacle over substance.

In this context, populistaiment as described by the Polish historians/journalists, Karolina Wigura and Jarosław Kuisz, – the integration of entertainment techniques within mainstream politics with the primary aim of attracting eyeballs – has come to acquire increased relevance, not just as an intriguing concept, but as an everyday phenomenon.

Entertainment, in its conventional sense of amusing the masses, has generally been an inseparable part of politics, and not even brutally dictatorial regimes of the likes of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin ever considered dispensing with it as part of their socio-cultural apparatus.

Towards the end of the twentieth century, politicians personally embraced the occasional entertaining indulgence, such as former American president Bill Clinton playing the saxophone or his one-time Polish counterpart Aleksander Kwaśniewski including disco songs in his campaigns, or the ex-prime minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, glamourising politics with his show-business gimmicks.

But back then, unlike now, entertainment was always a supplement to politics, and never its source. Today, populistainment has become central to the ethos of many incumbent regimes, as conventional political ideology and wisdom are sacrificed at the grandiloquent altar of the spectacle, which guarantees public attention by channelling both admiration and indignation.

Modi’s application of populistainment

A detailed look at Narendra Modi during the Bhoomi Pujan reveals how populistainment was incorporated at every level of his presence in Ayodhya. To begin with, there was his appearance – his attire, elaborate headgear, and his carefully overgrown hair and beard (to give him a more sage-esque look). Then there were his actions – the intricate and numerous rituals that kept the audience invested largely because of the powerful optics behind the elected head of the country participating in an explicitly religious ceremony. Then, of course, were his words – the most crucial of which drew clear and sensational parallels between the struggle for the establishment of the Ram Mandir and the struggle for the independence of India from British rule.

Each element of Modi’s behaviour in Ayodhya was calibrated to optimise the reaction of the millions watching along. Irrespective of whether people expressed awe and satisfaction at seeing the prime minister exulting in performative Hinduism or vented their outrage at the blatant surrender of India’s secular legacy as a republic, one thing was guaranteed – the headlines were all about Modi and Ayodhya. The Bhoomi Pujan had become an unmissable spectacle.

This on a day when Kashmir had completed one year since the sudden abrogation of Article 370 by the Modi government in 2019.

Owing to Modi’s populistainment, however, large sections of mainstream media conveniently forgot about the Valley and its myriad problems on August 5, instead pouring all their time and energy in covering every aspect of the foundation of the Ram Mandir. Such was the all-encompassing ambience generated by Modi’s Ayodhya spectacle that most outlets overlooked the fact that the Supreme Court had, in its decisive verdict of November 2019, mentioned the act of demolition of the Babri Masjid as unlawful. Therefore, the commemoration and celebration of a long-term aspiration of the BJP and the RSS came at the cost of forgetting the destruction of a structure that had stood for centuries and belonged to the Muslims.

But such is the pull and awe of populistainment that it makes the obvious, obsolete. The tremendous appeal of populistainment lies in its insidious ability to manage public dialogue, to shift the larger discussion to subjects that interest the frameworks of the populists.

To debate whether Modi had betrayed the spirit of the Constitution by presiding over the Bhoomi pujan in Ayodhya is not too different from questioning the need for President Donald Trump – another master populist – to pose with the Bible at the height of protests surrounding the Black Lives Matter movement in America. Technically, neither act can be labelled as wrong; but in spirit, both devalue and degrade the position of the actor concerned. Most importantly, though, both acts serve to sway the spotlight upon themselves, detracting from more urgent issues in the process – economy, jobs, communal violence, and pandemic mitigation in India, and racial justice in America.

Populistainment around the globe

The two leaders in charge of the world’s largest and oldest democracies are far from the only ones openly wielding the tool of populistainment. Over in Poland, newly re-elected president Andrzej Duda is an expert at inviting the public gaze upon himself, be it through his ridiculous rap that outlined his country’s medical challenges in the face of the pandemic or his provocative comments against the LGBTQ community, which follow the now predictable but rarely preventable trajectory of stoking public rage before issuing anodyne statements of apology. In the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson has done everything from driving buses to hiding in a refrigerator to unleashing push-ups in the middle of an interview, all to manufacture a scene and a narrative that function as smokescreens for his administrative deficiencies.

Perhaps all these populist men have learnt their fair share from the original populistainer, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who has, over the last two decades, never ceased to mesmerise his compatriots with his eclectic range of activities – everything from flying a bomber to operating a hunting rifle (bare-chested), from playing ice hockey to deep-sea diving to riding a Harley Davidson and a horse (again, bare-chested), and much more. Julia Ioffe, a senior American-Russian journalist, has decoded the importance behind Putin’s grand exhibitions: “They are a symbol of virility. Most Russian men do not live beyond 60 years of age”. Putin, 67, manages his public displays as opportunities to push domestic tensions to the background, allowing an entire country (obligingly or otherwise) to partake in his presentation of himself through all the vainglorious devices available in entertainment.

Recalibrating the political will

In order to combat populistainment, society needs to be far more aware of how populists attempt to sidetrack conversation, steering it away from seminal issues pertaining to every citizen towards set-pieces of political theatre.

The aim of the populists is to occupy the media space, circumvent truth and effective scrutiny, and above all, entrench the impression that they are figures of exceptional attraction, politicians with immense saleability and star power.

Bursting the dexterously calibrated bubbles of populistainment demands a recalibration of the political will, a collective focus upon the relatively mundane but far more necessary topics that affect our lives, alongside the creation of distinct boundaries between entertainment and politics in assessing the moves of the populists.

Such a recalibration is born out of the golden rule that populistainment would like to obliterate with its bespoke exercises in smoke and mirrors – the idea that public interest in politics lies in being empowered, not entertained.

(Priyam Marik is a freelance journalist writing on politics, culture, and sport)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author’s own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.