In contemporary global electoral politics, narratives are proving to be more powerful than facts. The presentation of narratives can change public opinion, sentiment, and opinions. There is a deep connection between such narrative politics and populism.

Populist leaders always create a simple, emotional and powerful narrative – ‘We the pure people vs. them the corrupt elite.’ Politics is not just about gaining power, it is also a means of narrative, which creates meaning, builds identity, shapes social divisions and evokes emotional resonance in the people.

Narrative is not just a story, it is a powerful political weapon. It changes the way people think by selectively presenting reality. American communication theorist Walter Fisher, while putting forward the concept of the narrative paradigm, said, ‘People are more influenced by the logic of stories than by facts and logic. Such stories focus on internal logic and feelings that are consistent with people’s lives. In the words of cognitive linguist George Lakoff, ‘Cognitive frames or narratives trump facts.’ Hayden White, a thinker who considers history as a narrative, has warned that ‘reality’ rather than ‘narratives’ will rule politics.

Populist politicians basically say ‘we are the only true representatives’, consider opponents more enemies than legitimate opposition, and consider one person as a superhero as the culmination of personality worship. This is exactly the infectious disease that Nepal is currently suffering from. Using empty and abstract words like ‘nationality’, ‘motherland’, ‘people’, ‘development’ and prosperity, a large-scale enterprise of fishing in murky waters has been launched by uniting individuals and groups who are dissatisfied for various reasons.

The main reason for the success of populist politics is the narrative it creates. The strongest first weapon for that is – nostalgia. That is, ‘everything was good before, now corruption has ruined the country.’ Another is to keep saying ‘we are always victims’ through the ‘victimhood narrative’. The ‘strongleader myth’, that is, ‘I am the only protector of the people.’ Another oversimplification formula is – the superficial style of presenting simple solutions to complex problems. The politicization of all sectors has made the country hollow, the root of all problems is foreign conspiracy, the past was a golden age, now it is destroyed, etc., are being used to bake the bread of power by using hair-raising and misleading lies, from US President Donald Trump to those who are called Nepali alternative forces.

In the context of Nepal, the politics of commentary has been displayed as a traditional business, both latently and openly. Commentaries like ‘King, come save the country’, ‘save democracy’, ‘rights of Madhesh’, ‘Hindu nation’ have been deceiving the people time and again. These old commentaries are now being ignited through (un)social media. Commentaries like KP Oli’s ‘arrogant nationalism’, Prachanda’s ‘revolutionary change’, and Balendra Shah’s ‘clean image and system change’ can be considered representative examples of our politics. Why shouldn’t Shah be an explosive role model for recent initiatives? In such a situation, democracy is not only threatened by the change of power, but also by the transfer of the monopoly of commentary. Populism is considered a fleeting story and thin political air, which populists appeal to for its political utility. 

Casting the opinions of others

The main feature of populism is to gain power by exploiting the discontent of the people. Even though the old parties Nepali Congress, UML and Maoist Center have ruled in Nepal for decades, corruption, instability and lack of development have left the people disappointed. In such a situation, new parties like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) are making maximum efforts to present themselves as an alternative force by saying that the old ones have ruined them. But the main question is how do they mean 'building the country'? What do they mean by building it? What is the political structure? They avoid answering these questions. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has already exploited the feelings of the Madhesi people by making Balendra Shah the prime ministerial candidate and presenting him in Madhesh. But this populist strategy must have mocked Shah's political experience and lack of planning. Populist parties of various shapes and colors around the world try to use personal popularity as a weapon to gain electoral benefits, but they never build the policy framework necessary for long-term good governance, and this has not been seen in practice around the world. Moreover, in our country, the heads of the so-called self-proclaimed alternative forces are openly running away from public debate and creating new initiatives.

After registering his candidacy in a flashy and pushy style, Shah ran around in different districts, running around with hundreds of supporters. But he did not interact meaningfully with the people, did not give any policy speeches, and only kept repeating the one-sided slogan of 'he has come to build the country'. Dozens of YouTubers and social media influencers are doing the rounds on the network. This is the height of populism's superficiality. By trying to emotionally excite the people, they are running away from presenting concrete plans for real problems such as economic development, employment, education, and health. It may attract voters momentarily, but if it reaches the level of actual governance after the election, it will cause serious problems because our country has been a great example of the misfortune of running a government without a plan. 

Populist appeals create confusion among voters – they place their hopes on a new face but forget that the old problems may repeat after being elected. This trend makes politics a magical game of personal popularity and ambition, further weakening institutional development. Balendra's first-hour campaign has proven this. He is engaged in a frantic horse race on the path of claiming that it is possible to gain power by just giving slogans without interacting with the people. Voters should evaluate their policies, visions and implementation capacity while supporting such parties. Otherwise, nothing will be achieved except struggling with new problems while looking for an alternative to the old (established) system. Balendra's party, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)'s Madhesh policy is mainly focused on electoral appeal and personal non-caste grievances. The Balendra Mandali is strongly opposed to Madhesh-specific issues such as identity, language, land reform, Haruwacharuwa/Kamaiya Mukti, or the demands of Madhesh-centric parties (such as an autonomous Madhesh province). 

According to political scientist Ernesto Laclau, Nepal is now becoming a laboratory for populism to portray the ‘people’ as pure and suffering, while blaming and corrupting the ‘elite’ (old parties, established power). This style creates an antagonistic frontier. The RSVP’s rhetoric has drawn this boundary – new versus old parties. However, it will take some time for voters to understand the reality that without a concrete policy or program, this is nothing more than emotional nonsense. It is natural for such thin ideology to become hollow in itself when combined with nationalism or other stereotypes. 

Social media facilitates the appeal of popular appeal for mass self-communication. It is clear that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has made using it as its main strategy and principle to reach the people without intermediaries. For this, they have been carrying out direct psychological attacks since the last election by spreading viral slogans, targeted advertising and influencer-created commentary. This weakens pluralistic and interactive politics. Social media algorithms intensify political polarization and hatred by showing users only their own opinions. The RSS has been mastering the campaign of creating an ‘echo chamber’ by monopolizing this commentary. This means that only their supporters see the praised content, and there is rarely any criticism. This facilitates the spread of misinformation and promotes political exploitation.

The RSS is adopting a strategy of monopolizing a single ‘truth’ like ‘building a nation’ and weakening other alternative ideas. Such performative politics are gaining more importance than their actual capabilities and power. It remains to be seen how aware the established party and its new leader, Gagan Thapa, are of the fact that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Balendra team have made social media their main weapon compared to other parties.

Why stories? 

Stories have always played a significant role in the political process. From ancient times to the present, orators, then ‘spin-doctors’, were and are the main influencers in political decisions. The combination of political, technological and social media factors specific to the current world has made understanding how stories shape politics and exercise power more relevant than ever. 

The growing role of narrative logic in contemporary political communication can best be seen through the lens of the ‘mediatization of politics’. Mediatization is ‘a long-term process by which the importance of the media and their spill-over effects on political processes, institutions, organizations and actors has increased. The rise of mediatization, the relative importance of the media as the main source of political information, the relative autonomy of the media as a social institution, the tendency for the media to follow their own logic rather than political logic, and the tendency for political leaders and institutions to be guided by media logic rather than political logic, is occurring in the contemporary world due to the dominance of social media over traditional procedural media. Although the media has many purposes and functions, the most basic one is to tell stories about the world. In fact, it is so essential that all other functions can only be done through storytelling. Therefore, the role of stories in politics increases as politicians adopt the media logic. In this regard, if established parties and politicians fail to transform themselves at the same pace as they leapfrogged from monarchy to federal democratic republic, they will be doomed to fade from the political stage. 

In literature, the Greek word mimesis means imitation or representation. In literature, the writer tries to show the real world (life, society, nature, human emotions and events) as they are or as they really are in a story, novel, play or poem. The ancient philosopher Plato had commented that mimesis is far from truth and that it is only a copy of the truth. It deceives reality by presenting it as beautiful, systematic and meaningful. Its ultimate is antimimetic. It breaks all boundaries by making artificiality seem like reality. In the current context, it is appropriate to call it the postmodern story, i.e. the (un)social network. The monopoly of commentary

The style of ‘focusing’ only on the commentary that ‘the old ones spoiled’ and completely denying the contributions of other parties has become the main weapon of the so-called alternative and new. Through such indiscriminate cotton farming, people’s frustration is commodified and converted into votes. In the words of Karl Marx, politics is now ‘commodity fetishism’, i.e. politics itself is becoming a marketable commodity. This is distorting the public sphere of democracy. According to sociologist Habermas, Nepali society is being pushed towards extreme polarization by giving priority to emotional performance instead of deliberative discourse. This is clearly threatening to trap the country in a serious geopolitical vortex. 

The populist strategy exploits the network as a powerful tool and misuses it for political gain. Theoretically, this is the Nepali part of the global populism meteor shower. What it does is to put charisma above competence. Ultimately, it is weakening the country's nascent federal democratic republic, and the political landscape is being led into a quagmire of viral illusions due to the lack of concrete policies. 

Commentary is not just speech/language, but a combination of power and knowledge. Intellectuals like Francisco Fukuyama, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida have beautifully explained commentary through the power-knowledge model. भाष्यले नै वास्तविकतालाई प्रतिनिधित्व गर्छ, मान्य/अमान्यतालाई तोक्छ र ‘सत्य’ तथा ‘अर्थ’ लाई सामाजिक रूपमा निर्माण गर्छ । भाष्यले जनता र वास्तविकताको बीचमा, अर्थ र शक्तिबीचमा सम्बन्ध बनाउँछ । यसरी भाष्यको राजनीति केवल संरचना मात्र नभएर राजनीतिक वास्तविकताको उत्पादन बन्छ । यस दृष्टिकोणबाट हेर्दा स्थापित र सुविचारित विचारधाराका आधारमा राजनीति गर्ने खेलाडीहरूले यसमा पारंगत हुनुको कुनै विकल्प पनि छैन ।