Another week, another shrill headline about the decline and fall of India. This time surprisingly from the Guardian oddly enough. The irony of it. I don’t think there is a democracy left which is not fascist according to such outlets. But China, N Korea get a free pass. And everyone is like Adolf in these countries. There are several reasons why columnists, particularly in outlets like The Guardian, may use alarming language like "fascism" when discussing political developments in countries like India or the United States. These reasons often involve a mix of ideological bias, political strategy, emotional appeal, and sometimes even the perception of foreign influence.
1. Ideological Bias
Many columnists align themselves with specific political ideologies. In the case of The Guardian, there is a distinct left-liberal bias, which may lead to criticism of right-wing governments like those led by Narendra Modi in India or Donald Trump in the U.S. The label "fascism" is often used to paint these governments as authoritarian, repressive, and undemocratic, even if such a description might seem exaggerated or misplaced. Writers who oppose such political ideologies may be quick to jump to these terms to rally their readers and reinforce their own worldview.
2. Political Strategy and Electoral Disappointments
Columnists critical of governments that lean to the right may have been disillusioned by elections that went against their preferred outcomes. For example, Modi’s BJP has won significant electoral mandates in India, despite vocal opposition from certain intellectuals, writers, and political circles. In this case, labeling the government as “fascist” serves as a way to delegitimize an electoral outcome they don’t agree with. They might argue that such governments undermine democratic norms, even when elections are free and fair. The fear-mongering helps build a narrative of illegitimacy for political regimes they dislike.
3. Emotional Appeal and Fear Tactics
Writers may use strong language like "fascism" to evoke an emotional response from readers. It’s a term loaded with historical connotations of dictatorships, repression, and totalitarian control, which evokes fear and urgency. This rhetoric serves to heighten a sense of crisis, motivating people to stay engaged, protest, or vote against the governments being described. Fear-based narratives can be incredibly effective in keeping audiences hooked and garnering attention.
4. Simplified Narratives for Complex Realities
India and the U.S. are complex democracies with vast and diverse populations, making governance an inherently difficult task. Sometimes columnists may oversimplify the nuanced realities of governing such nations. For instance, any government’s steps to maintain law and order can be painted as draconian, even if the context is much more complex. In India, for example, the BJP’s policies around nationalism or its stance on secularism are controversial, but calling them "fascist" ignores the more intricate societal and historical context behind them.
5. Foreign Influence and Global Perception Management
There are suspicions in some circles that certain outlets and columnists are influenced by foreign interests that aim to shape the narrative around countries like India and the U.S. For instance, India’s increasing assertiveness on the global stage, particularly under Modi, might not sit well with certain global powers or international interests. As a result, critical articles might be influenced by broader geopolitical considerations, even if indirectly. Additionally, Western media has often had a fraught relationship with post-colonial nations that do not align with Western liberal values. This ideological clash often leads to more negative portrayals of non-Western governments that emphasize nationalism or self-reliance.
6. Hatred of the Country’s Current Leadership
Sometimes the language of "fascism" reflects personal animosity toward a country’s current leader rather than an objective analysis of the political system. Modi and Trump, for instance, are deeply polarizing figures, and some writers despise them for their policies, personality, or perceived indifference to liberal values. When columnists personally dislike a leader, it can skew their writing toward hyperbolic or exaggerated critiques, resulting in language that might seem shrill or panicked, as you described.
Having just returned from India, I did see a lot of Swastikas to be fair.
