![Behind every crisis lies a Manufactured Crisis narrative, crafted to uphold power structures and maintain the status quo. [SAT Creatives]](https://southasiatimes.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Manufactured-Crisis-1.webp)
“Crisis is often constructed to maintain power structures,” argued Michel Foucault. This assertion frames the role of power in shaping contemporary society, politics, and the economy. Today, power dynamics and economic interests heavily influence political landscapes, controlling resources and public behavior to sustain authority. Politics manipulates power by regulating resources and the public to achieve goals. Hobbes and Rousseau aimed to define the relationship between individuals, society, and the state. Hobbes imagined a “war of all against all.” In this scenario, fear and survival instincts drove people to demand a robust and authoritarian government. Rousseau, however, stressed society’s corruption and unfairness after people claimed private property. These philosophical discussions are highly relevant today. They provide insights into the rise of authoritarian regimes and populist leaders across the globe. The concept of “Manufactured Crisis” further illustrates this dynamic.
Authoritarian governments in China and Russia use fear and economic suffering to gain power. Even democratic states like the United States and some European nations employ similar tactics. Like Hobbes’ authoritarian state to protect citizens from disorder, these regimes justify harsh actions as required for security and order.
The Manufactured Crisis and Fear as a Tool for Control
We live in an age of calculated chaos. From terror threats to economic instability—Behind every crisis we face, there’s a carefully crafted narrative designed to maintain the status quo.
Governing elites know that fear works, and they’ve been using it—through technology, media, and propaganda—to rationalize authoritarian policies. Global leaders have constructed narratives of persistent external threats, including terrorism, economic downturn, and cultural degradation. They do this to secure widespread endorsement for authoritarian policies. For example, Russia depicts the West as a menace to national sovereignty. China justifies its suppression of dissent through claims of Western influence. Meanwhile, the United States’ post-9/11 “War on Terror” restricted civil freedoms via the Patriot Act.
Other examples include Turkey’s reaction to a thwarted military coup. Brazil emphasizes crime and corruption. Hungary manipulates the refugee crisis. Egypt suppresses dissent under the pretext of combating terrorism. India’s citizenship legislation incites apprehensions among minorities. Israel depicts existential threats to rationalize violence against Palestinians. These instances illustrate how fear related to terrorism, crime, immigration, and instability is used to strengthen authority and uphold authoritarian governance. They exemplify how the “Manufactured Crisis” narrative serves to fortify power structures.
The Role of Technology and Media
We are witnessing how governments worldwide have exploited digital media and crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, to justify authoritarian measures and accumulate power, often at the expense of civil liberties.
Digital media has made spreading information and misinformation easier, allowing governments to amplify fear and enforce stricter regulations.
Examples include China expanding its digital surveillance, India allegedly censoring social media, and Hungary’s Viktor Orban bypassing democratic oversight. In the Philippines, Duterte used lockdowns to suppress dissent, while Putin in Russia strengthened state control over media and public discourse by spreading misinformation. Brazil’s Bolsonaro downplayed the pandemic to maintain economic stability, leading to chaos, and Israel used digital tracking to monitor citizens. In the US, after the Capitol riot, the role of big tech in manipulating information raised concerns. These examples highlight how governments leverage technology and media globally to create fear and justify authoritarian rule, diminishing civil freedoms.
Rousseau’s Concept of Social Inequality
Rousseau’s notion of social inequality is pertinent in contemporary politics, as developed and emerging countries encounter increasing economic disparities between the affluent and general populations. In numerous nations, individuals with economic influence can sway legislation, rules, and public sentiment to advance their interests, intensifying inequality and compromising democratic systems.
In the United States, the Citizens United verdict has facilitated unregulated corporate involvement in politics, whereas, in India, the connections between political leaders and business magnates provoke apprehensions of cronyism. Brazil and Russia exemplify the manipulation of economic discontent by populist leaders who yet favour the affluent. Comparable processes occur in South Africa, Mexico, and Nigeria, where economic inequality and political corruption obstruct change. In both the UK and France, movements such as Brexit and the Yellow Vests highlight the discord between elites and the disenfranchised. These instances demonstrate how economic disparity influences political authority, corroborating Rousseau’s criticism of the concentration of power within a select few to the detriment of the many.
Also See: Political Playbook of India: Fear, Identity, and the Vote
Theorising the Argument
The modern world presents an apparent dilemma: Are we genuinely facing crises, or are these crises deliberately manufactured to maintain power?
While some threats are natural, political actors often exploit fear for their own ends. Understanding the ideas of Hobbes and Rousseau offers a valuable lens for analysing how today’s political leaders maintain control. According to both philosophers, fear is central; Hobbes argues that people relinquish their freedoms to a strong ruler out of fear of violence and instability, while Rousseau believes the elite cling to power out of fear of losing their wealth and status.
Political leaders manipulate this “manufactured crisis,” with the media amplifying the perception of constant danger, leading to societal submission and justification for authoritarianism. Examples include the post-9/11 surveillance expansions, the use of climate change and terrorism to justify control, rising economic inequality that empowers elites, and the extension of emergency powers during crises like COVID-19. This cycle of fear results in people trading their liberties for perceived security, ultimately giving way to greater state control. As human civilization undergoes a transformative phase, technology has simultaneously facilitated beneficial and detrimental effects on society. Consequently, it is imperative for citizens to critically evaluate “narratives of fear,” seek impartial information sources, and insist on transparency from their authorities. Citizens must actively question the narratives of crisis and the trade-offs authorities ask them to make, as society cannot regain its political and social agency or break the cycle of fear without this action.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own. They do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of the South Asia Times.
Dr. Mohammed Afroz is an Assistant Professor (Guest) at Maulana Azad National Urdu University (MANUU), Hyderabad. A researcher and author, he specializes in political science and is known for his contributions to contemporary political studies.
Add a Comment