Descriptive sovereignty – the ability of a nation to control how it is perceived internationally – is an essential but often overlooked dimension of sovereignty. Historically, colonial powers weaponized the narrative to justify exploitation, portraying colonized nations as uncivilized and incapable of self-governance. This practice continues today in more insidious forms, with international organizations, the global media and, in some cases, foreign governments, creating narratives that often misrepresent India. These narratives, rooted in what Edward Said called ‘Orientalism’, perpetuate stereotypes and prejudices that align with the geopolitical and economic interests of their creators.
Studies analyzing global media coverage of developing countries have found that more than 70% of articles in major Western outlets portray these countries negatively, emphasizing conflict, corruption, or poverty. This asymmetric framework shapes international perceptions and has concrete consequences. For example, countries that are often portrayed as unstable or corrupt attract 20–25% less foreign direct investment than their counterparts, regardless of their actual economic performance. This narrative, in some cases, also impacts sovereign ratings.
Why should a nation be free to define itself?
Nations must prioritize the protection of their narrative sovereignty because control over a nation’s narrative is intrinsic to its autonomy, legitimacy, and capacity for self-determination. At its core, narrative sovereignty is about ensuring that a state has the power to define its identity, articulate its aspirations, and shape its collective memory in ways that serve the interests of its people rather than those of external actors. be in accordance with. Without this, the very essence of a state’s sovereignty – which lies in its ability to govern itself – is compromised.
Hannah Arendt reminds us that power is fundamentally relational and the narratives underpinning society are the main basis of that power. When a nation loses control over how it is viewed domestically and internationally, it risks losing a significant impact. Foreign actors with geopolitical agendas have long recognized this. Organizations like OCCRP, often supported by the state or private interests, are more than mere information spreaders; They are architects of perception, framing issues in ways that serve external goals rather than reflect nuanced realities. Their narratives can erode trust in domestic institutions, destabilize public opinion, and manipulate policy discourse – all without direct confrontation.
This also aligns with Joseph Nye’s concept of ‘soft power’, where influence is achieved not through coercion but through attraction and persuasion. Nations that fail to effectively assert narrative sovereignty lose this form of power to external forces, thereby shaping global perceptions or even their citizens’ understanding of internal affairs. Their ability to reduce is reduced. Barry Buzan’s securitization theory similarly highlights the importance of protecting intangible assets such as narratives, considering them as important to national security as physical infrastructure or borders.
Narrative and validity
Furthermore, narratives play a fundamental role in building national legitimacy and cohesion. Robert Putnam’s work on social capital highlights how trust and collective identity are necessary conditions for social resilience. When a state’s narrative is hijacked, it shatters this trust, creating polarization and destroying the civic sense necessary for collective progress. Over time, this delegitimization leads to a kind of cultural and political disintegration, as seen in Alasdair MacIntyre’s book. after virtueWhere societies that fail to maintain coherent narratives suffer moral and structural entropy.
In the digital age, the stakes for narrative sovereignty are higher than ever as information flows with unprecedented speed and access, often bypassing traditional accountability and control mechanisms. Digital platforms, which now serve as the primary medium for public discussion, promote foreign narratives and disinformation campaigns, giving them far greater audiences than their original counterparts. This amplification is not accidental; It is driven by algorithms designed to maximize engagement, often by prioritizing sensationalism, outrage, or polarizing content over accuracy or nuance. The result is an information ecosystem where the loudest, most provocative voices dominate, regardless of their veracity or intentions.
Scholars such as Yochai Benkler, Robert Farris, and Hal Roberts have detailed how these information ecosystems are not neutral. in his book network promotionThey demonstrate how digital platforms and their algorithms are inherently shaped by structural biases that serve the interests of elites, whether domestic or foreign. These platforms become vehicles for operating influence, enabling powerful entities to control the narrative with minimal resistance. This dynamic creates an asymmetry where external actors with resources and expertise in narrative engineering gain unequal influence over a nation’s discourse.
regulatory possession
This phenomenon reflects what George Stigler and others have described as “regulatory capture”, although in a more insidious form. Instead of industries capturing regulators, foreign and elite actors capture the very platforms and structures through which narratives are constructed and disseminated. In this form of capture, the national narrative—its values, aspirations, and perceptions—is distorted to align with the interests of these external actors. Unlike traditional policy capture, it is more difficult to identify and address because it operates broadly and in a decentralized manner, often cloaked in the rhetoric of free speech or transparency.
The implications are huge. When external entities manipulate the debate, they distort public perception, shape policy debate, influence electoral outcomes, and undermine trust in democratic institutions. For example, coordinated campaigns may highlight specific flaws or crises to delegitimize governments or policies, while ignoring context or progress. They can also create artificial divisions within society, increasing polarization and weakening social cohesion. Over time, this destroys a country’s capacity for collective action, leaving it vulnerable to internal strife and external exploitation.
The role of algorithms is particularly important here. These are not passive tools but active gatekeepers that determine what information reaches whom and how it is prepared. As Shoshana Zuboff argues The era of surveillance capitalismThe logic of these systems is driven by commodification and profit, not public interest. In such a scenario, narratives that are sensational and divisive gain momentum, while those that require complexity and balance are sidelined. This systemic bias ensures that foreign narratives designed to exploit these trends find fertile ground.
Invest in the marketplace of ideas
Furthermore, this manipulation often operates in the shadows. The entities behind these campaigns are rarely transparent about their funding, intentions, or methodology, making it challenging for states to counter them effectively. Without strong regulatory frameworks to demand accountability from these platforms and the actors who exploit them, nations are left helpless against this type of narrative intrusion.
To combat the erosion of narrative sovereignty, states should take concrete steps focused on transparency, education, and narrative infrastructure. First, governments should mandate independent algorithm audits for digital platforms to ensure they do not promote divisive or sensationalist content. Platforms should be required to disclose data on content moderation and clearly label the origin of all sponsored or paid posts. of the European Union Digital Services Act Provides a practical framework for implementing such transparency measures. Second, media literacy programs should be integrated into national education systems to equip citizens with the skills to identify misinformation and critically analyze content. of finland anti fake news initiative One model that combines public awareness campaigns with formal education to promote resilience against manipulation. Needless to say, the government should also invest in narrative infrastructure. Governments should actively participate in the marketplace of ideas.
Ultimately, narrative sovereignty is about reclaiming agency. It is about ensuring that a nation’s story is told by people who understand and prioritize the aspirations of its people. In this digital age, where perceptions shape reality, it is important to protect narrative sovereignty. The risk of leaving a nation’s destiny in the hands of those who neither share nor serve its interests is small.
(Aditya Sinha is a public policy professional.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
