Governments should go soft to be smart

Soft power is increasingly important and cost effective. It can augment the more conventional forces of ‘hard power’.

LONDON: If you flick through the 100 or so freeto-air TV channels on UK television, you’ll come across RT. Pause for a while and take a look at what’s on offer. You’ll discover there’s always a halfhour news programme on the hour, followed by a half-hour discussion or documentary programme. Most of the presenters in front of the cameras are attractive young ladies or well-groomed young men, speaking excellent English. The “expert” commentators are mostly Western academics and the discussion leaders are often ageing but respected Western celebrities such as Larry King from the US, or “sympathetic” politicians from the UK. So far, so normal. Listen carefully, however, over a period of a few hours and you’ll notice something rather interesting about the content. It’s ever-so-subtly critical of policies and activities of Western governments, especially the UK and US. When Russia is mentioned, however, there is never any criticism, only praise. But then RT used to be called Russia Today. Gone are the days of crude propaganda which nobody believed; this is the era of “soft power”.

Although the elements of soft power date back over the millennia, the term was coined by a Harvard academic, Joseph Nye, in the late 1980s and later published in his book Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. When a country uses soft power, it seeks to achieve objectives through attraction and persuasion. Instead of using the traditional carrot and stick as a tool of foreign policy, countries using soft power attempt to obtain influence by building networks, establishing international rules and drawing on resources that make a country naturally attractive to the world. Think of soft power in this way: “hard power is push, soft power is pull”. President Putin noted the absence of soft power in the Russian armoury when setting up the English language channel of Russia Today on 10 December 2005. The Arabic language channel followed in 2007 and the Spanish in 2009, when the name was changed to the less obvious “RT”. That the current budget is 19 billion roubles ($307 million) illustrates the importance Putin attaches to this form of soft power. On 7 December 2016, it was reported that Russian Parliament had voted for an additional $19 million in the RT budget to finance a new French language channel in time for the crucial French elections in April 2017. Just as Putin will have a self-proclaimed Russia-friendly President in the US, so he would be delighted to have the same in the form of Marine Le Pen or Francoise Fillon in France.

Soft power, however, is much more than just running a TV channel. Nye argued that soft power resources, namely its political values, culture and policies, give a country moral authority which co-opts others, rather than coerce them, to achieve the outcomes it wants. As the largest democracy in the world, India has an impressive advantage in soft power, giving it huge moral authority. In addition, the enormous diaspora of some 16-17 million Indians around the world adds a substantial number of “ambassadors” to spread Indian culture among the indigenous society. Pop down to Trafalgar Square in London to witness the huge outpouring of goodwill towards India during the annual Diwali festival. Go to the other side of the world and you’ll find that Diwali in Federation Square in Melbourne Australia is now attended by 60,000 people. India’s “yoga diplomacy” is also playing its part in soft power, with no less than 192 countries celebrating the Indian government sponsored UN International Day of Yoga, this year to be on 21 June. Add to this India’s ubiquitous cuisine (it is said that chicken tikka masala is now the UK national dish) and the popularity around the world of Bollywood films, it’s not difficult to understand how much Indian culture, an important element of soft power, has influence in so many countries. India also scores highly in digital diplomacy, seen as the new, progressive form of soft power. To quote a 2016 report on the Global Ranking of Soft Power, “India’s digital diplomacy puts many countries to shame. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is the most tech-savvy leader the country has ever had, with his social media accounts followed by millions of people outside India.” India’s rise in the global ranking is seen to be attributed to Modi’s charisma and appeal, with some describing him as a “bonafide social phenomenon”. Modi has cultivated a rare Facebook presence that combines a good-humoured approach with a serious policy agenda. As the Pakistani commentator Huma Yusuf recently wrote, “One can only marvel at the display of our neighbour’s soft power.”

Although soft power is increasingly important and cost effective, it can only augment the more conventional forces of “hard power”. Weapon systems can be purchased in a short timescale, but soft power takes years to develop and become effective. However, the combination of soft power with hard power gives you “smart power”, a term introduced by Nye in 2003 to counter the misperception that soft power alone can produce effective foreign policy. So, no surprises that the term “smart power” is used more and more in government policy. Take a look at the 2015 UK “Strategic Defence and Security Review”, a document outlining the UK’s defence strategy to 2025, and you’ll find constant reference to the combination of hard and soft power strategies, in other words a “smart” approach. This sophisticated method of thinking about power is clearly the way ahead. Former government employee John Dobson worked in UK Prime Minister John Major’s Office between 1995 and 1998 and is presently a consultant in the private sector. The much awaited announcement of the elections to five state Assemblies has set in motion the process of political re-alignments, particularly in Uttar Pradesh where there are indications of a possible tie-up between Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav, Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi and Rashtriya Lok Dal leader Jayant Chaudhury. It is evident that Akhilesh is looking towards the future, while perhaps ignoring the recent past when his party and its potential allies were overwhelmingly rejected during the 2014 Lok Sabha polls, giving Narendra Modi a virtual walkover in the country’s most populous state.

Much has changed since the people of UP last voted and it would be miraculous if the BJP is able to repeat its stellar performance and thus wrest power on its own steam, come March. Akhilesh realises that after breaking away from the shackles of strong family bonds that governed the Samajwadi Party, he may need like-minded people to support him in his quest to emerge as a formidable leader. His calculation is that once the Congress comes on board, the Muslim vote that has always stood by his father and with his party would continue to remain with him as well. His apprehension here is that if the minorities are not thoroughly wooed, they could shift allegiance to the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and its supremo Mayawati, who is occupying pole position at the commencement of the election process.

Each of the UP contestants has their own worries. Akhilesh’s main concern, in addition to dealing with his own kith and kin, is that he should be able to exploit to his advantage the fluidity of the political situation. The principal impediment is that having administered the state for five years, he would find it extremely difficult to play an alternative to the Samajwadi Party style of governance. Although his supporters are desperately trying to provide him a coating of a politician who believes in good governance and development, but his track record belies this projection. It is during his tenure that the Muzaffarnagar riots, the Bulandshahr gang rape, the Akhlaq lynching and the Mathura mayhem took place and there is no reason why the electorate would absolve him of his failure to control the worsening law and order situation. If jungle raj exists in any state, it is most pronounced in Uttar Pradesh.

Therefore, Akhilesh cannot pose as a victim of the machinations of his uncle and others, and has to accept full responsibility on what went right or wrong under his stewardship. He simply cannot think that people would believe that he was the only good guy in his flock and consequently deserves another chance. He cannot simultaneously be the ruler and be the opposition. His problems in his party are regarding who should call the shots, though he had been made the Chief Minister after securing a huge mandate in the 2012 elections. It would not be easy for him to change the political discourse and think that people too are holding a similar perception. Mayawati definitely is not grabbing the headlines in the same manner as others, but she is the biggest contender for the throne in Lucknow, notwithstanding the theatrics of the Samajwadi Party.

Secondly, presuming an alliance with the Congress works out in the next few days, Akhilesh should be prepared to accept the negativity that would come with it. The Congress is in total disarray in the state and to expect it to boost the Chief Minister’s chances is totally incredulous. The grand old party is a liability in the present circumstances and its Chief Ministerial nominee Sheila Dikshit will heave a sigh of relief if the tie-up materialises. It would save her from leading the Congress campaign once again after the party was trounced in the 2013 Assembly elections in the national capital, with the Chief Minister herself losing the seat by 26,500 votes to Arvind Kejriwal.

On another note it is being stated in Congress circles that Rahul would have no hesitation in sacrificing Dikshit, who in any case got the assignment primarily because of his sister, Priyanka. Incidentally, the Congress, while making allegations of corruption against the Prime Minister following certain disclosures in the Sahara and Birla diaries, also divulged Dikshit’s name as one of the possible recipients of the donations. This, of course, is not a mere coincidence.

The Rashtriya Lok Dal would also be coming to inaccurate conclusions if it believes that an alliance would help its fortunes. Reports emanating from Western Uttar Pradesh, particularly the Jat strongholds indicate that the RLD was expected to reap a rich harvest of seats there. The Jats, who last time had supported the BJP, are disgruntled with the saffron brigade and are likely to throw their lot with Ajit Singh and Jayant Chaudhury. If the RLD is able to win a respectable number of seats, it can consider entering into a post poll alliance, instead of burning its fingers with a pre poll tie-up with either the Congress or with Akhilesh.

The BJP has its own share of problems and some of its leaders from the states are not sure whether the Amit Shah campaign formula would ultimately work out. The party is not projecting anyone as the Chief Minister and is thus banking on the Modi magic once again to pull it off. The UP polls, indeed, are unfolding most interestingly. Between us.