Publications by Fellows: Shafi Md Mostofa: Understanding State Behavior and Regime Unpopularity through the “Tripartite Struggle” Framework

The global hegemony of the West, especially that of the United States (U.S.), is often attributed to its promotion and adherence to key principles such as democracy, free markets, secularism, diversity, the rule of law, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and human rights. By championing these values, the U.S. has, to a great extent, been able to shape international norms, institutions, and policies, exerting influence on a global scale — an aspiration articulated by former President George H. W. Bush. Following the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, President Bush proclaimed a unipolar world order led by the U.S., rooted in American values of liberal democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. While initially advocating for international cooperation, Bush emphasized that the U.S. could act independently if needed, leveraging its unique strength to shape global peace. As the world continues to evolve, the U.S.’s commitment to these principles will remain crucial in maintaining its global hegemonic position and shaping the trajectory of the international system.

Majoritarian Discourse

Majoritarian discourse is a socio-political phenomenon that arises when dominant groups, defined by their religious, ethnic, cultural, or racial identity, seek to assert and maintain power, often at the expense of minority communities. Religious identity serves as a particularly potent driver of majoritarian discourse, offering a sense of shared belonging, values, and heritage. Majoritarian discourses based on religious identity often seek to preserve the dominant position of the majority religious group by asserting its norms, rituals, and practices as societal standards. This can lead to marginalization, exclusion, or persecution of religious minorities, hindering interfaith dialogue, and impeding efforts toward religious pluralism and tolerance.

Majoritarian discourses also manifest through intersections of ethnicity, culture, and race. In diverse societies, majoritarian discourses can emerge along ethnic lines, where dominant ethnic groups strive to maintain cultural hegemony and exert control over resources and political power. Culture plays a crucial role in majoritarian discourses, as dominant cultural groups may emphasize their cultural superiority, thereby marginalizing or erasing minority cultures. Similarly, race-based majoritarian discourses can perpetuate racial hierarchies, marginalize racial minorities, foster divisions, and hinder efforts toward racial equality and social justice.

Ruling Narrative

Ruling narrative refers to the story crafted and promoted by the ruling party to delegitimize opposition politics and unify its base. It employs various communication strategies specifically designed to undermine opposition and consolidate internal cohesion. One key strategy is framing, wherein ruling authorities construct narratives that shape public perceptions of opposition actors and their agendas. Framing techniques in political narration involve emphasizing negative aspects, distorting intentions, or highlighting inconsistencies to paint opposition politics as illegitimate, radical, or impractical. Another common strategy is labeling, where ruling authorities employ derogatory terms, stereotypes, or stigmatizing labels to marginalize and discredit opposition actors, tarnishing their reputations and undermining their credibility.

Propaganda also plays a significant role in the ruling narrative. Ruling authorities often employ propaganda techniques to disseminate selective or false information, manipulate public opinion, and promote narratives that align with their own interests. Propaganda can be used to create a distorted image of opposition politics, portraying it as a threat to stability, security, or the values of the ruling regime. By controlling the dominant narrative through propaganda, ruling authorities seek to maintain their grip on power and suppress dissenting voices.

The Tripartite Struggle

The principal argument of this piece is that global hegemony, majoritarian discourse, and ruling narrative collectively shape state behavior and determine its unpopularity as well.

These three ideological components of the tripartite struggle work as an “unseen power,” influencing the regime’s behavior.

For example, under a secular government, there is often indirect support for majoritarian values and subtle marginalization of religious and ethnic minorities, as the regime aligns more explicitly with global norms and principles. Conversely, majoritarian governments directly promote their values, frequently suppressing religious and ethnic minorities, while exhibiting a more indirect alignment with global/liberal values. In democratic countries, political parties adopt strategies and narratives to shape public opinion, which in turn delegitimizes opposition politics.

Figure 1: Tripartite Struggle Framework

From an empirical standpoint, Bangladesh’s Hasina regime (2009-2024) can be considered a government with a secular framework, aligning itself directly with global values. However, Hasina’s administration has also indirectly established connections with religious groups such as the Hefazat-e-Islam (HeI),  a non-political Islamic organization established to protect Islamic values. Additionally, nearly 4,000 attacks on minorities have been reported in Bangladesh since 2009, with ruling party members accused of involvement in many cases. These attacks have marginalized minority communities in Bangladesh. Furthermore, the Hasina government has employed ruling narratives to delegitimize opposition parties and consolidate internal cohesion within the ruling party. The ruling Awami League has positioned itself as the sole custodian of the liberation war spirit, portraying the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Jamaat-e-Islami as violators of this legacy. Thus, the behavior of Bangladesh under Hasina’s leadership as a secular nation-state reflects the influence of global hegemony, majoritarian discourse, and ruling narratives.

In contrast, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, led by Narendra Modi, has established a majoritarian rule based on the Hindutva ideology. Modi’s administration has directly suppressed religious minorities while indirectly embracing global values such as secularism, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Notable examples of this approach include the revocation of Kashmir’s special status, lynching of Muslims, beef bans, bulldozer justice, and the revocation of Muslim citizenship in Assam. These actions are presented as protection of majoritarian values. To delegitimize the opposition, Modi often accuses the Congress Party of being an anti-national, corrupt, and pro-Muslim force. Through a divisive and contentious campaign, Modi successfully merged nationalism with promises of development, creating a dichotomy between his supporters, labelled as nationalists, and his political rivals and critics, portrayed as anti-national. On the question of liberal values, Modi’s government seems to be deeply influenced by liberal values such as free markets, human rights, the rule of law, and democracy.

Managing Regime Popularity

The popularity or unpopularity of a regime can indeed be influenced by how effectively it capitalizes on or manages the three ideological components of the above-mentioned trilemma. When it comes to global hegemony, civil society emerges as a critical stakeholder in the country. In majoritarian discourse, religious and ethnic leaders play a pivotal role, while the ruling party becomes a crucial component of the ruling narrative. However, it is important to remember:

No government system can fully satisfy every group. Dissent and demands for greater commitment to specific causes are inevitable within each group, and there may be instances where the government falls short in serving its purposes to some extent.

This dissatisfaction is a primary source of the unpopularity of a government. Thus, the success of a government lies in its ability to strike a balance and effectively address the concerns and aspirations of all these stakeholders.

However, the failure of governments to fulfill the diverse expectations of specific groups (civil society, religious and ethnic groups, and dissenting groups within the ruling party) often results in widespread unpopularity. In consolidated democracies, such unpopularity can lead to regime change. Opposition parties’ success depends on their ability to capitalize on the grievances of these three groups. In unconsolidated democracies, outcomes can vary: some countries may shift towards authoritarianism, as exemplified by Bangladesh, while others may experience the rise of populist movements, as seen in India.

This article was originally published in the Review of Democracy.