Populism’s fanatic flaw

On the face of it, it was a simple question. Why do fanatics usually lose in the end? I was reading a history book, and it had not escaped my attention that radicals and fanatics typically had the force of conviction on their side compared to their moderate opponents. Yet, usually, they were the ones to lose in the end. My fourteen-year-old brain was having difficulty processing it, so I decided to consult our resident soldier, my father, who was still alive. He beamed at me and replied, “Because the fanatics are good at winning battles but not wars.” The point was still unclear; therefore, I requested him to explain. “Oh, it is fairly simple. The fanatics are good at fighting fearlessly; therefore, they often win the battles. But it takes more than courage and conviction to fight a war. You often must beat a tactical retreat, regroup, clear your head, and fight again.

This is a big ask for the fanatics.” Populist politics revolves around the alpha predator stereotype of the leader; therefore, it refuses to see tactical retreat as an option. So, basically, populists are the modern-day counterparts of the fanatics. Why else do you think Trump inspired an insurrection after losing in the presidential election when he knew he could easily win back the White House and Congress in just
a matter of four years if he had cooperated? Why else did Bolsonaro behave in the same manner? Why do you reckon Netanyahu started a forever war in Gaza when his approval ratings reached a single-digit number? Populists do not see reason. Willfully so.
In our neck of the woods, the story is more complicated. In India, for instance, you see a complex strategy at play in the rise and rise of the BJP. The party initially adopted the moderate stance of its predecessor, the Janata Party, but to no avail. Even though the party shifted its gears and made LK Advani (a firebrand hardliner who is now considered a moderate in comparison to Narendra Modi), when the party was in a position to form the union government, it chose Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a man of letters and moderate in the party’s ecosystem.

That’s not all. While it did not directly support any Congress-led government before it rose
to power, it did support many coalition governments backed by its archrivals. BJP spent the nineties and early two thousands leapfrogging and expanding its base. By the time it was voted out in 2004, it had already changed the grassroots politics. Lesson: while a populist party, it did not shy away from tactical retreats or strategic planning. This, of course, was to change within a decade. Since 2014, when the party returned to power under a new populist leader, it has been clear that it no longer
believes in retreats. Hypothetically, if it were to lose in the upcoming elections, removing it from power would be more challenging than Trump or Bolsonaro. Perhaps that is why the Indian superstate has stopped fighting it.

When you can’t fight them, join them. I have gone into details of how it affects India’s long-term health many times, but frankly, I haven’t got an infinite life. So, let’s leave it there. Suffice it to say that if the BJP looks invincible now, it is due to the intricate ecosystem it has built and not a one-off. As renowned Indian political tactician Prashant Kishor puts it, regardless of
whether it is in power or out of power, Indian politics is going to be about the BJP for decades to come. We still do not know whether the BJP has permanently managed to change the core of Indian society or it is just a marriage of convenience, but populism has forever altered the DNA of many other countries. Take Israel, for instance. Even when Netanyahu hits approval rock
bottom, his politics finds traction among the masses.

A mixture of fear, hate, anger, expansionist ambition, and a tendency to dehumanise the adversary has kept him in power for sixteen years. Another country that has witnessed a rapid transition is Turkey. There, too, a right-wing populist has ruled the country for over two decades. One aspect distinguishes these two countries and various other populist domains from what is hap-
pening in India. These leaders have built their careers at the cost of their potential successors, and the political
ecosystems of their countries will have a hard time replacing them once the time comes. Remember, no one lives forever, and they are already in their seventies. Now, let’s talk about Pakistan, where the PTI manifests all the telltale signs of a populist force. A
charismatic leader in his seventies has a loyal following. The party is mortally afraid of the dreaded ‘minus-one’ formula. That is why any leader who grows too big for his britches is asked to throw himself at his sword. That is why the party resigned en masse from the national assembly when Imran Khan was voted out. That is why the Punjab assembly had to go. And with most notables
now gone, it feels comfortable to return to the parliament. There is a reason why parties develop elaborate infrastructure to diffuse power.

But that is a debate about succession, which can wait. For now, the existential issue that matters most is its shabby state. Never mind the party-wise cognitive dissonance. That is the hallmark of populism. But the party also suffers from a severe case of ADHD (Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder). And it keeps warping its priorities. I do not know what possessed it to stake everything for short-term gains. For instance, did it really think that if it was removed from power, it could never return? Or that an army chief’s appointment mattered more than its leader’s safety? Or that May 9 could actually deter the attempts to arrest IK or bring down
the entire system? All those miscalculations led it to incarcerations and dead ends.

Incredibly, despite so many mistakes, providence still dealt it a brilliant hand. But instead of building on this success and finding a way out for its leader, the same erratic behaviour, over-reliance on conspiracy theories, and the desire to relitigate everything continue unabated. Likewise, it rejected with undisguised contempt the olive branch extended by the PPP. And yet, it
has no problem sitting with Maulana Fazlur Rehman. If it is so concerned about the minus one formula that it wouldn’t form the government, it has clearly chosen to sit in opposition. Prudence would demand that it becomes inconspicuous and the spotlight shift to the new government. In this way, it can bide its time and wait for the day when the system needs its help. That eventuality would serve as its get-out-of-jail-free card. But if the president’s attempts to delay the inaugural national assembly session, the much-hyped letter to the IMF, and calls for nationwide agitation are any indicators, it has neither learned the virtues of tactical
retreats nor managed to overcome its ADHD