“A nation’s prosperity is not built on natural riches or charismatic rulers, but on the strength of its institutions.” — Daron Acemoglu, Why Nations Fail
In the past decade, South Asia’s democratic landscape has experienced a seismic shift: from robust parliamentary processes and policy-centric leadership to an alarming obsession with personality-driven politics. Whether it is a cricketer-turned-prime minister in Pakistan, a Bollywood actor-turned-MP in India, or a dynastic heir in Bangladesh, the cult of the celebrity-politician is redefining governance. This transformation is not just a superficial change in leadership style, it is a deeper institutional crisis. As charisma begins to eclipse competence, and image replaces ideology, democratic institutions across the region are slowly being hollowed out. This trend, as political scientists have noted, is a dangerous form of “democratic backsliding,” where the quality of democracy declines incrementally but deliberately. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index shows that many South Asian nations remain below the global average for institutional integrity.
From popular leaders such as Imran Khan in Pakistan to Narendra Modi in India, the region has increasingly embraced figures whose appeal rests less on policy expertise and more on personal mythos. According to recent political trend analyses, parliamentary productivity in countries like India has dropped to historic lows, while press freedom has sharply declined.
Celebrity politicians, buoyed by media spectacle, now dominate headlines while institutional oversight is marginalized. South Asia is witnessing not a rise in democratic engagement but a theatrical performance where institutions serve as props for the lead actor. The boundaries between governance and entertainment have blurred. This is a global trend, with similar patterns seen in the rise of Donald Trump in the United States and the popular appeal of Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Ukraine, both of whom have leveraged their celebrity to win power.
The Problem: Charisma Over Competence
At the heart of this crisis is the focus on charismatic leadership over institutional integrity. Political parties, once vehicles for ideological debate and policy formulation, have increasingly become platforms for personality-driven campaigns. Journalistic independence is under siege, with watchdogs turning into cheerleaders.
In Pakistan, former cricket star Imran Khan entered politics with a strong anti-corruption message and significant popular appeal. While his leadership energized many citizens, critics note that his tenure as Prime Minister saw institutional tensions, particularly in his approach to the judiciary and bureaucracy, where loyalty-based appointments sometimes overshadowed merit-based reform.
In India, by contrast, Narendra Modi’s meteoric rise was fueled by his charismatic appeal and media management, often overshadowing institutional checks and balances. Modi’s carefully crafted persona as the “man of the masses” has dominated political discourse, often diverting focus from the institutional frameworks required to ensure India’s long-term democratic health. Compared to Manmohan Singh, an economist who engineered India’s economic liberalization in the 1990s but lacked mass appeal, Modi’s success underscores the growing dominance of charisma over credentials. Despite Singh’s substantive achievements, he was ridiculed as a “silent” prime minister, while Modi, a leader with limited formal academic credentials, continues to command an unwavering public following.
Films like The Kashmir Files and Accidental Prime Minister are used as propaganda tools, glorifying one narrative while demonizing others. Modi’s image is meticulously stage-managed: selfies, holograms, dramatic speeches, and the mythologizing of his origin story. Government websites, textbooks, and museums often rewrite history around Modi’s legacy, sidelining other national leaders. A quote from political theorist Hannah Arendt is particularly relevant here: “The most radical and the most effective way to eliminate history is to change the public’s memory.”
This shift from policy to personality is not isolated to these leaders but has become a widespread trend in South Asia. From Bollywood actors like Sunny Deol and Hema Malini in India to sports stars who pivot into politics, celebrity status often supersedes public service competence. Yet their legislative impact remains minimal, underlining a pervasive decline in the quality of leadership. Data from PRS Legislative Research shows that a significant portion of bills passed during the 17th Lok Sabha were enacted with little to no discussion or scrutiny from parliamentary committees, a direct consequence of a political system that prioritizes a leader’s will over the deliberative process.
The “Messiah Syndrome” and Public Psychology
This celebrity-driven politics taps into a deeply entrenched South Asian cultural phenomenon known as the “Messiah Syndrome.” It is the belief that the “savior figure” can solve all societal problems, a historical legacy that dates back to colonial subjugation and the long-standing tradition of dynastic politics. The public, frustrated by corruption and inefficiency, increasingly turns to figures that promise quick, sweeping change, rather than systemic reform. Economic anxieties and social divisions amplify this trend, making charisma a potent political tool.
This reliance on a single figure to solve all problems undermines the institutional foundations that support democratic governance. The Bhutto dynasty in Pakistan, for instance, thrives on the charismatic legacy of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his daughter Benazir Bhutto, effectively placing family dynasties above institutional integrity. Similarly, the Rajapaksa family in Sri Lanka and Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh have created a culture of personalization, often sidelining democratic processes and institutional independence. This pattern of dynastic politics is also evident in other South Asian countries, including Nepal.
This messianic yearning is perilous, as it diminishes the importance of accountable, transparent institutions that are necessary for the sustainability of democracy. Instead of demanding policy coherence, voters are increasingly drawn to the emotional appeal of these leaders, feeding the cult of personality and exacerbating institutional decay.
The Consequences: Institutional Decay
The consequences of this cult of personality are profound and long-lasting. South Asia’s institutional frameworks are eroding under the weight of this growing charismatic politics. As celebrity-politicians dominate the political stage, the core tenets of democracy, such as parliamentary debate, rule of law, and independent institutions, are slowly undermined.
Parliamentary debates have degenerated into little more than theatrical performances where the leader’s opinion takes precedence over rational discourse. Substance is sacrificed for soundbites. Ordinances and executive orders are increasingly used to bypass legislative scrutiny. Judiciary and civil services, once seen as neutral arbiters, now face increasing politicization as seen in bureaucratic reshuffles, judicial transfers, and politically aligned appointments in countries like India.
The weakening of checks and balances is perhaps the most disturbing consequence. In India, the Election Commission, once a pillar of electoral fairness, is now accused of favoring the ruling party. The press, meanwhile, has become a cheerleading machine, abandoning its watchdog role. This media subservience is further evidenced by issues like the use of sedition laws and the harassment of journalists. The media’s role in holding power to account has been reduced to a spectacle, with personalities dominating the news cycle over facts and informed commentary.
India: Charisma and Secularism at Risk
In India, this phenomenon is even more troubling due to its historical commitment to secularism. Modi’s rise has seen the weaponization of charisma to promote Hindutva, a majoritarian ideology that threatens to undermine India’s pluralistic values. The public’s obsession with Modi has increasingly blended religion and politics, with inflammatory statements from figures like Kangana Ranaut exploiting her stardom to stir anti-Muslim sentiments.
Moreover, elections in India have increasingly become entertainment events more like Bollywood spectacles than democratic contests. Celebrities win elections based on their fame, not their political acumen, leaving seasoned policymakers sidelined by a camera-flash democracy.
Why Nations Fail: The Critical Argument
The crux of the problem lies in the quality of political institutions. As argued in the seminal book Why Nations Fail by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, nations do not prosper because of their natural resources or charismatic leaders but because of their strong political institutions. The authors distinguish between “inclusive” and “extractive” institutions, with the latter designed to enrich the elite at the expense of the many. South Asia’s focus on heroic figures rather than institutional development risks moving its democracies towards this extractive model. Without robust, accountable, and transparent systems, even the most promising economies will falter.
According to Transparency International, South Asian democracies score below the global average in institutional integrity and rule of law metrics. Populist leaders will come and go, but without strong democratic frameworks, the region’s democratic potential will remain unrealized.
Conclusion: A Stark Warning
South Asia stands on a democratic precipice. Institutions once built to safeguard the public interest now buckle under the weight of charisma-fueled populism. Democratic systems that once promised inclusive governance and institutional balance are now in jeopardy. If the celebrity-politician trend is not reversed, the region risks long-term democratic fragility. Institutions, not individuals, are the backbone of a functioning democracy, and until this truth is recognized, the region will continue to stagnate regardless of how charming its leaders are. The survival of democracy will depend on the courage to prioritize institutions over icons.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own. They do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of the South Asia Times.
