JANUARY 2 — Imagine the camera zooming into the man, usually in red or a military jacket, and hear him saying "Aló Presidente." Hugo Chavez, the then president of Venezuela, was hosting talk show Aló Presidente (Hello President) which was about the charismatic leader talking about wellbeing, the state of politics, foreign policy and various other public policy issues with the citizens.
The show would air every Sunday at 11am on the Venezuelan state television channel. Chavez would go on for hours.
Depending upon the city he was visiting, the folklore and the background format of the show would change. Combined with local rituals and sweeping statements about certain issues, Chavez managed to legitimize his revolution to the masses.
Many believed that Alo Presidente was the realest reality show in the world based on political rationality and decision-making based on weighing objective evidence. However, it was an illusion. It was symbolism and ritualisation of modern politics, saturated through the use of TV.
The death of Hugo Chavez marked an important day in the history of Venezuelan politics and to the leftist revolutionaries in the world.
With him went Aló Presidente. Venezuelans felt with Chavez gone, the Big Brother watching over them was also gone. This left people sad.
Far way from Venezuela, one man who understands the value of erasing the line between normalcy and hegemony is Narendra Modi.
One thing the prime minister of India knows the best is using social media. He and his team brilliantly understood the concept and format of Alo Presidente. They thought the way to legitimise Prime Minister Modi is to blur the line of normalcy.
Modi’s charismatic leadership must be transformed into a permanent hierarchy. And to invoke the folklore of poor and middle class people, the folklore to them must be heard as a song of protection.
But this wasn’t enough. First, Hugo Chavez used TV to legitimise his revolution; but Modi must use radio to legitimise his secular position across the nation.
Chavez on one hand used it to make sweeping statements on various public policies but Modi must carefully use it as a tool for propaganda.
Second, the use of radio must invoke Nehru and Indira. Nehru for secularism and Indira for her leadership. Hence the genealogy of both combined with Modi’s aura can be a brilliant tool to reach out to the rural masses.
Third, the content of the show must be framed in such a way that there is no real content. In contrast to Chavez, Modi must unite everybody under a moral ethic shared by myths, rituals, beliefs, nationalism, and even a utopian political ideology.
The show has been Modi-fied and rolled out as PM Narendra Modi’s Mann Ki Baat. The show airs on Sundays 11am.
If one listens to the show carefully, it is nothing but a periodic re-enactment of legitimized ritual under which the entire India unites. It tries to create a sacred bond that transcends private interests and day-to-day conflicts, while reinfusing the society with the mystical power of the regime.
Issues like khadi, disability, black money, swachh Bharat and health do affect the masses. They are like a song of protection but to create the music, Modi must use the combination of Aristotle and Cicero’s discourse on Logos, Ethos and Pathos.
As a communication strategist, Modi is brilliant on logical appeal — Logos. But as people can’t see him on radio, he needs to focus on emotional and character appeal — Ethos and Pathos.
He does it flawlessly on Mann Ki Baat by reciting stories. Storytelling is a brilliant way to capture the audience’s compassion and imagination. He often begins his episodes by reciting stories of Vijay Dashmi, Diwali and people who write to him on myGov.in. Thus, the diffusion of power combined with sanitised subjects, creates a sense of legitimacy and acceptance among the wider audience.
The combination of condensation of meaning, multivocal and ambiguity, creates the content of the show which has no real content. It is through the rituals of the show, radio and individual’s participation that Mann Ki Baat tries to make a crucial emotional bond with the ordinary citizens, which is otherwise unthinkable. But sadly, such symbolism makes power appear sacred.
* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
