As social media continues to impact popular political discourse across the world, how do such platforms determine and/or alter the discourse? Vihang Jumle and Vignesh K. Rajahmani analyse hashtags from India’s general elections of 2019 to argue how ‘discursive political projections’ on Twitter (now X) created symbolic imageries of political leaders, and the wider implications of such practices for democracy.

*

One need not be reminded of how central social media is to political discourse in India. Twitter (now X) is one such platform which, alongside the general public, is special because politicians too use it extensively — they argue with one another, engage with civil society and interact socially with people, all on Twitter. Some use it for self-promotion and media validation while others reinforce their real-world opinions. For fringe politicians, Twitter also provides a platform to reach the public directly, bypassing mainstream media where their presence may be insignificant. But do politicians also use it to project particular types of identities?

Much like the offline world, digital platforms afford space to various kinds of messaging that can be effectively and tactically used to shift agenda to alternative political identities and representations. For instance, by emphasising or de-emphasising certain aspects of one’s personality, politicians can frame themselves in a particular way to suit specific audiences. Likewise, political disinformation — through deliberate false accusations — can be used to project a competitor in an unfavourable light to an audience.

*

In this post, we examine a form of persistent political projection that users actively engage in on Twitter; we call it ‘discursive political projections’. Our exercise takes inspiration from and resonates with the work of modern scholars like Ernesto Laclau on how populists supply empty signifiers that enable people to project their desires onto them on the one hand, and a classic work like Max Weber on charismatic authority on the other. What is new in our study is how it is operationalised digitally, by whom and how.

For this study, we analysed 586 trending (political) #hashtags during the election year 2019 that (at any given hour) made it to India’s top five trending hashtags; they could be in English or any Indian language like Hindi, Tamil, etc., and two-thirds of these related to individuals. We then sorted them in categories: those that concerned Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, the Gandhi family, the leadership of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and so on.

Based on extensive studies of political trends and given that each of these hashtags was at some point in time among India’s top five, we took these to, in fact, be discursive political projections — a particular way that a political actor wanted to be perceived in ongoing political discourse. Many studies show that hashtag trends on platforms like Twitter can be artificially created, meaning the trending hashtags we see may not necessarily come from genuine public engagement but boosted by bots, automation or groups of people tweeting consistently about a topic collated with the hashtag. Different terms (like ‘political astroturfing’) are used to describe these practices. Such practices trick algorithms into amplifying and broadcasting these trends, making them appear as though there is a widespread public interest. Such practices are especially employed to trend specific political hashtags, in part because political actors tend to have the necessary capital and human resources and in part because it suits them to curate the digital agenda with frames that suit their political positions. However, it is possible that some of these hashtags in fact emerged from the bottom up, as genuine popular public discourse; the theoretical limitation of this analysis lies therein.

*

We propose that a ‘discursive political projection’ is when political figures appear closely associated with imagined traits that are neither literal nor tangible or universally defined. Unlike political disinformation, they have limited semblance to facts. Rather, the meaning of these traits emerges through personal interpretation of the personality and the sense of connection the people feel with the person. This form of mediation does not impose a pre-determined identity onto the individual; quite the reverse, the hashtag political figure adopts the identity the individual wishes to see or find relatable.

We found 125 such hashtags to be about Prime Minister Narendra Modi, 53 of which we interpreted to be discursively framed. Take, for instance, #56InchRocks, a figurative reference to Modi’s chest size. It speaks to his muscularity, masculinity and strength but to what ends are these qualities to be used in political life remains open for the common citizen to interpret for themselves. Similarly, the imaginary idea in #MainBhiChowkidar (lit., ‘ITooAmAWatchman’) outlines certain qualities (fighting corruption, societal evils and cleaning ‘dirt’) but, once again, leaves its exact interpretation open-ended. Many such vaguely imagined ideas re-occurred: #ModiNiti (‘niti’= policy), #CoolestPM, #ModiJahanVikasWahan (lit., ‘DevelopmentIsWhereModiIs’); likewise for other themes like ‘New India’ and ‘Vikas’ (development). Does ‘New India’ here refer to a state that is for inclusive development or otherwise?

The same discursivity crossed over to the other side of the political divide with hashtags like #RahulForBehtarBharat (lit., ‘RahulForBetterIndia’), #VanakkamRahulGandhi (‘Vanakkam’ = Hello), #IStandWithRahulGandhi, #RahulTharangam (‘Tharangam’ = Wave), #IAmRahulGandhi, and #ThankYouRahulGandhi. While BJP-linked hashtags dominate the dataset in volume, our analysis shows that Indian National Congress-linked hashtags too engaged in similar discursive strategies, albeit with less intensity. Hashtags such as #RahulForBehtarBharat, #IAmRahulGandhi and #IStandWithRahulGandhi function as affective projections, inviting users to emotionally invest in Rahul Gandhi’s persona — be it as a symbol of reform, resilience or personal relatability. These hashtags, which we consider to be discursively framed, performed well in trending duration and tweet count. Much like #MainBhiChowkidar, they blur the boundary between leader and supporter, creating a participatory political identity. Notably, the ‘Gandhi family’ personalities occupied 16.7 per cent of hashtags in discourse favouring the Opposition.

Discursive projection is therefore not unique to a particular party; it is a cross-party tactic that leverages ambiguity and symbolism to enable personal–political resonance.

*

This form of projection creates food for thought. Theoretically, it takes public discourse beyond simple binaries of right/wrong, success/failure or appropriate/inappropriate judgments, focusing instead on subjective interpretations and emotional aspects that do not fit in neat either/or categories. While the discourse is represented by a sanitised keyword or hashtag, its literal or common meaning loses coherence or definitiveness.

Scholars often discuss how politics is shaped both by rationale and affective/imaginative aspects but what happens when the latter dominates the discourse? Political discussions around such imaginary associations can be endless and may lack tangible outcomes. If political discourses remain preoccupied with such messaging, there will be little space for definitive political facts to be uncovered, no clear responsibility to assign nor any person to be held accountable. After all, how can one verify or contest a crafted public image? And even if verification were possible, what about the next fictional projection? This, in turn, raises concerns about how societies globally could use social media for good if platforms are instrumentalised in a way that debate on real issues is crowded out?

Perceptions do have tangible political effects, and digital platforms do make it easier to spread them. However, the results of the 2024 general elections in India show that popular discursive perceptions may not necessarily lead to actual votes:  despite a coordinated, synchronised and cohesive social media campaign that projected otherwise, the ruling BJP was unable to secure an absolute majority in Parliament.

*

The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent the views of the ‘South Asia @ LSE’ blog, the LSE South Asia Centre or the London School of Economics and Political Science. Please click here for our Comments Policy.

This blog may not be reposted by anyone without prior written consent of LSE South Asia Centre; please e-mail southasia@lse.ac.uk for permission.

Banner image © Gary Lee, 2022, Unsplash.  

*