top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Chaos Diplomacy

Donald Trump has always understood one thing better than most modern politicians that markets respond to perception. In the grinding drama over Iran, the American president appears to have weaponised uncertainty itself. One day he hints at a diplomatic breakthrough with Tehran and signals the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz which causes investors to breathe a sigh of relief. However, hours later, he reverses course by declaring there is “no rush” for a deal and that restrictions will remain...

Chaos Diplomacy

Donald Trump has always understood one thing better than most modern politicians that markets respond to perception. In the grinding drama over Iran, the American president appears to have weaponised uncertainty itself. One day he hints at a diplomatic breakthrough with Tehran and signals the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz which causes investors to breathe a sigh of relief. However, hours later, he reverses course by declaring there is “no rush” for a deal and that restrictions will remain until Iran bends fully to American conditions. The markets wobble again Trump’s defenders may argue that unpredictability is a negotiating tactic. Henry Kissinger once cultivated strategic ambiguity during the Cold War. Richard Nixon perfected the so-called ‘madman theory’ to keep adversaries guessing. Yet Trump’s oscillations differ in both scale and intent. In recent weeks, analysts and ethics experts in the United States have raised uncomfortable questions about whether political messaging is increasingly shaping market volatility in ways that benefit insiders, speculators and politically connected traders. When geopolitical brinkmanship begins to resemble a financial instrument, public trust in democratic institutions erodes. Nearly a fifth of the world’s oil passes through Hormuz. A closure or blockade affects fuel prices in Mumbai as much as manufacturing costs in Shanghai or inflation in Berlin. Trump’s repeated shifts between escalation and reconciliation have had grave implications for India, which imports more than 80 percent of its crude oil requirements. Any prolonged instability in Hormuz translates directly into higher import bills, inflationary pressures and stress on the rupee while ratcheting prices of essentials. India has spent years carefully balancing its ties between Iran, the Gulf monarchies and the United States. Tehran remains important for connectivity projects such as Chabahar Port and for India’s access to Central Asia. But allies and adversaries alike are forced into a perpetual state of recalibration because American policy itself appears unstable. Trump’s Iran manoeuvring reflects a dangerous transformation in global politics, which is the merger of geopolitics with spectacle capitalism. International crises are increasingly consumed like market-moving entertainment. This may generate short-term leverage for him or even produce tactical victories at the negotiating table. Iran, under immense economic strain, reportedly agreeing in principle to surrender its highly enriched uranium stockpile is no small development. Yet diplomacy built on volatility carries long-term costs and lead to the weakening of institutions. Markets become addicted to chaos and chaos, once normalised, rarely remains controllable. The world’s largest economy cannot afford to conduct foreign policy like a reality television script, with cliffhangers designed to manipulate sentiment every news cycle. Great powers are supposed to provide stability, not amplify uncertainty for strategic theatrics. Trump may believe that time is on America’s side. But for an anxious global economy already strained by wars, inflation and fragmentation, time spent trapped in manufactured uncertainty is becoming increasingly expensive.

Promises and Polemics

Updated: Jan 27, 2025

As Delhi braces for a key assembly election, the clash of governance models and fiery rhetoric sets the stage for a defining political moment.

Delhi
Delhi

The keenly-contested Delhi Assembly election, slated for February 5, is more than just a contest for control over India’s capital. The outcome is expected to settle the debate over whether the governance of Delhi merely an extension of civic administration, or is it a test case for innovative policy models in India’s federal structure? The campaign has turned into a fierce clash of vision and ideologies, with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Congress battling not just for votes but for the very soul of Delhi.


At the heart of this election lies a dichotomy between competing governance styles. The AAP, under former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, champions its ‘Delhi model’ of governance marked by subsidized electricity and water, free bus rides for women and overhauled public education and healthcare systems. For its supporters, this model demonstrates how localized, welfare-oriented governance can transform urban India. Critics, however, argue that these populist measures are unsustainable, especially when juxtaposed against Delhi’s chronic issues of air pollution, waste management and urban sprawl.


The BJP, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s relentless campaigning, offers a different vision. It accuses the AAP of fiscal irresponsibility and corruption, pointing to scandals like the now-scrapped excise policy and alleged mismanagement during the pandemic. Modi’s rhetoric has sought to portray AAP as an impediment to Delhi’s development, while promising a “developed capital for a developed India.” The BJP’s approach leans on its national dominance and its ability to align Delhi’s governance with central policies, painting AAP as a local upstart ill-suited for larger ambitions.


The campaign trail has been anything but genteel. Kejriwal’s accusations of BJP-orchestrated hooliganism and misuse of the Delhi Police have set the tone for a combative showdown. The BJP, in turn, has dubbed the AAP a disaster, with Modi’s “aapda” jibe dominating party rallies. The Prime Minister has sought to mobilize voters by highlighting AAP’s alleged failures in providing basic amenities, while also emphasizing BJP’s commitment to middle-class welfare and urban development.


The Congress, the once-dominant player in Delhi politics, is trying to re-establish its relevance but lacks the firepower of its rivals.


Of Delhi’s 70 constituencies, a handful will act as bellwethers. The New Delhi constituency remains the crown jewel, with Kejriwal seeking re-election against formidable challengers from both the BJP and Congress. Kalkaji and Jangpura, featuring high-profile AAP incumbents like Atishi and Manish Sisodia, will test whether the party’s welfare-centric governance resonates beyond its strongholds.


Other constituencies, such as Rohini and Malviya Nagar, pit seasoned BJP leaders against AAP’s grassroots candidates. Meanwhile, areas like Ballimaran, with a significant Muslim population, will be a litmus test for communal politics.


While governance remains a prominent theme, identity politics is an undeniable undercurrent. Modi’s outreach to Purvanchali voters—a crucial bloc in Delhi—highlights the BJP’s strategy of consolidating regional identities. On the other hand, the AAP has faced allegations of alienating these groups during the pandemic, a charge it vehemently denies. The Congress, banking on its secular credentials, is attempting to appeal to voters disillusioned with the polarizing narratives of its rivals.


Regardless of the outcome, Delhi’s unique status as a quasi-state continues to complicate its governance. The lack of full statehood means that critical areas like law and order remain under central control, often leading to friction between the elected government and the Union. Both the AAP and BJP have used this issue to their advantage—AAP to portray itself as a victim of systemic constraints, and BJP to highlight AAP’s alleged incompetence in managing its limited powers.


As February 5 approaches, the air is thick with anticipation. Will Delhi reaffirm its faith in AAP’s welfare model, or will BJP’s promises of national alignment sway voters? For now, the battle rages on—of promises versus pragmatism, and of local aspirations clashing with national ambitions.

Comments

bottom of page