Sakshi Venkateswaran
There is a rising trend towards nationalism in the political landscape globally. Right wing leaders claim to represent the people and pit them against the opposition, whom they allege are not concerned with the interests of the majority.
In ‘Nationalism and the Marketplace of Ideas’, Snyder and Ballentine explore the relationship between absolute freedom of speech and press, an important characteristic for a democracy, during the process of democratization and nationalism. Conventional wisdom dictates that the cause of an ethnic conflict is the propagandistic content that manipulates public opinion and is disseminated through the media. In such a situation, freedom of speech and expression becomes the prescribed remedy. However, Snyder and Ballentine argue otherwise; during the process of democratization, institutions are not equipped and developed enough to regulate the information being circulated. In such an instance, the state is left with no choice but to garner public support; often achieved by playing the nationalist card.
The term ‘marketplace of idea’ is often associated with John Stuart Mill’s work On Liberty. The expression reflects Mill’s liberalist ideology and his desire for every individual to express their ideas and views, reducing interference from the government and the state. Mill’s idea of freedom of expression stems from Europe’s history of moving from a recognized monarchy to democracy wherein individual freedoms take precedence. His promulgation of a marketplace of ideas was in order to achieve human progress, arguing that for human progress to be served, individual thought had to be given the freedom to flourish among the public. The mere expression of an idea, no matter true or false, would be beneficial to the individuals. However, Gordon argues that the juxtaposition of the metaphor against economic markets provides for a very different understanding.
In an economic marketplace all individuals are assumed to be rational. There is demand and supply for a product or service. These markets have several competitors and it is up to the consumers to decide whether a product and/or service is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. They do this by analyzing several factors such as quality, price and if the product/service meets their requirements. When such a model is applied to the marketplace of ideas there are several glaring errors that crop up. A market responds to the buying power of the parties involved. The product/service that prevails in the market is a result of the demand expressed by several wealthy individuals. Similarly, the ideas that would prevail in the marketplace of ideas would be those espoused by powerful and influential individuals. Therefore, when Snyder and Ballentine talk of extreme segmentation and how oligarchs and/or political elites take advantage of the market segmentation that promote nationalistic tendencies, they do not account for the tyranny inherent in the ideas, wrongly assuming that all individuals have the same liberty to express their ideas. Even within democratic institutions there exists a divide between the majority and the minority. Mill’s conceptualization of the marketplace speaks of the social oppression that ideas expressed by minorities face. It is for this reason that Mill’s marketplace of ideas assumes an undertone of equality. He emphasizes the fact that it is not necessary for the ideas to be true or false, mere expression is sufficient. However, Mill’s own rationale of expecting the truth to emerge from rigorous public debate falls short due to the inherent asymmetry in the power of the ideas in the market.
Snyder and Ballentine’s claim of nationalist tendencies incited by the media and politicians being detrimental to the process of democratization is not exclusive to states in democratic transition. Political elites of both ‘developing’ and ‘developed’ states frequently employ what the authors call “nationalist myths” to garner political clout. This often means pandering to the larger ethnic populace of the country in spite of personal opinions. Their distinction between the government and opposition and how it is usually the opposition that uses the nationalist card becomes redundant. Politicians have always fallen back on nationalism to gather public support by emphasizing a cultural and historical distinctiveness and broadcasting the threat that a supposed “other” pose.
Snyder and Ballentine argue that a well-institutionalized marketplace is essential to prevent the circulation of nationalist mythmaking that political elites indulge in; proposing regulations such as verification of sources and qualification checks for journalists. “Centralized regulation subject to democratic control and held accountable to international standards” is what the authors prefer over an imperfect market. However, regulation is a point of contention for even mature democracies. What are these international standards and who determines them? For example, the US’s First Amendment allows its citizens complete freedom of speech and of the press among other things.
In the US, public opinion is very often swayed by experts in media who are viewed to be credible. How is this any different from the marketplace of ideas in democratizing states where one idea contends with another? Rather than political elites trying to disseminate nationalist ideologies directly, in mature democracies they get institutions to do it for them, creating an illusion of objectivity and independence from the government. Journalists are still beholden to political parties even with established institutions. The most relevant example for this would be former President Trump’s campaign against the media/institutions and his condemnation of the content these places put out as “fake news”. Several Late-Night shows, did daily segments of Trump’s relationship with the media and his admiration and praise for Fox News, Fox News being the only channel that consistently supported his erratic policy decisions while channels such as CNN, MSNBC and ABC remained critical. However, this does not suggest anything regarding the reliability of institutions. People continue to believe what they want to.
Regulatory institutions, quality reporting and objective journalism are all necessary for the media to not fall into a pit circulating nationalistic sentiments that incite conflict. However, these are not independent to just states in democratic transition; most mature democracies continue to grapple with similar issues.
(Ms. Sakshi Venkateswaran is currently working as Project Staff under the BOBLME Project Phase II at the Bay of Bengal Programme Inter-Governmental Organisation (BOBP-IGO. She is a graduate of FLAME University’s Scholars program with a concentration in International Relations and Public Policy. Her research interests lie in the nexus of the environment, economics, sustainability and foreign policy. She has previously worked at The Peninsula Foundation, National Maritime Foundation and Medall Healthcare Diagnostics.)