Narrative sovereignty—the ability of a nation to control how it is perceived internationally—is an essential yet often overlooked dimension of sovereignty. Historically, colonial powers weaponised narratives to justify exploitation, portraying colonised nations as uncivilised and incapable of self-governance. This practice continues today in more insidious forms, with international organisations, global media, and, in some cases, foreign governments, framing narratives that often misrepresent India. These narratives, rooted in what Edward Said termed ‘Orientalism’, perpetuate stereotypes and biases that align with the geopolitical and economic interests of their creators.
Studies analysing global media coverage of developing countries have found that over 70% of articles from leading Western outlets portrayed these nations negatively, emphasising conflict, corruption, or poverty. This skewed framing shapes international perceptions and has tangible consequences. For instance, countries frequently portrayed as unstable or corrupt attract 20-25% less foreign direct investment than their peers, irrespective of their actual economic performance. This narrative also, in some cases, impacts sovereign ratings.
Why A Nation Should Be Free To Define Itself
Nations must prioritise safeguarding their narrative sovereignty because control over a nation’s story is intrinsic to its autonomy, legitimacy, and capacity for self-determination. At its core, narrative sovereignty is about ensuring that a state retains the power to define its identity, articulate its aspirations, and shape its collective memory in ways that align with the interests of its people rather than external actors. Without this, the very essence of state sovereignty—rooted in its ability to govern itself—is compromised.
Hannah Arendt reminds us that power is fundamentally relational and the narratives that underpin a society are a key locus of that power. When a nation loses control over how it is perceived domestically and internationally, it risks surrendering a critical form of influence. Foreign actors with geopolitical agendas have long recognised this. Entities like OCCRP, often backed by state or private interests, are more than disseminators of information; they are architects of perception, framing issues in ways that serve external goals rather than reflecting nuanced realities. Their narratives can erode trust in domestic institutions, destabilise 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 assert narrative sovereignty effectively forfeit this form of power to external forces, undermining their ability to shape global perceptions or even their citizens’ understanding of internal affairs. Barry Buzan’s securitisation theory similarly highlights the importance of protecting intangible assets like narratives, treating them as vital to national security as physical infrastructure or borders.
Narrative And Legitimacy
Moreover, narratives play a foundational role in building national legitimacy and cohesion. Robert Putnam’s work on social capital underscores how trust and collective identity are prerequisites for societal resilience. When a state’s narrative is hijacked, it fractures this trust, creating polarisation and eroding the civic spirit necessary for collective progress. Over time, this delegitimisation leads to a form of cultural and political disintegration, as observed in Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue, where societies that fail to sustain coherent narratives face moral and structural entropy.
In the digital age, the stakes for narrative sovereignty are higher than ever because information flows with unprecedented speed and reach, often bypassing traditional accountability and control mechanisms. Digital platforms, which now serve as the primary vehicles for public discourse, amplify foreign narratives and disinformation campaigns, giving them an audience far beyond their origin. This amplification is not accidental; it is driven by algorithms designed to maximise engagement, often by prioritising sensationalism, outrage, or polarising content over accuracy or nuance. The consequence is an information ecosystem where the loudest, most provocative voices dominate, irrespective of their veracity or intent.
Scholars such as Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts have detailed how these information ecosystems are not neutral. In their book Network Propaganda, they demonstrate how digital platforms and their algorithms are inherently shaped by structural biases that serve elite interests, whether they are domestic or foreign. These platforms become conduits for influence operations, 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 disproportionate influence over a nation’s discourse.
Regulatory Capture
This phenomenon mirrors what George Stigler and others have described as “regulatory capture”, though 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, this is more difficult to identify and address because it operates diffusely and in a decentralised manner, often cloaked in the rhetoric of free speech or transparency.
The implications are huge. When external entities manipulate the discourse, they distort public perception, shape policy debates, influence electoral outcomes, and undermine trust in democratic institutions. For instance, coordinated campaigns can highlight specific flaws or crises, ignoring context or progress, to delegitimise governments or policies. They can also create artificial divisions within society, exacerbating polarisation and weakening social cohesion. Over time, this erodes a nation’s capacity for collective action, leaving it vulnerable to internal discord and external exploitation.
The role of algorithms is particularly critical here. These are not passive tools but active gatekeepers determining what information reaches whom and how it is framed. As Shoshana Zuboff argues in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, the logic of these systems is driven by commodification and profit, not public interest. In such a scenario, narratives that align with sensationalism and divisiveness gain traction, while those that require complexity and balance are sidelined. This systemic bias ensures that foreign narratives designed to exploit these tendencies find fertile ground.
Invest In The Marketplace Of Ideas
Moreover, this manipulation often operates in the shadows. Entities behind these campaigns are rarely transparent about their funding, intentions, or methodologies, making it challenging for states to counteract them effectively. Without robust regulatory frameworks to demand accountability from these platforms and the actors who exploit them, nations are left defenceless against this form of narrative intrusion.
To counter the erosion of narrative sovereignty, states must 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 amplify divisive or sensational content. Platforms must be required to disclose data on content moderation and clearly label the origin of all sponsored or paid posts. The European Union’s Digital Services Act offers a practical framework for implementing such transparency measures. Second, media literacy programs must be integrated into national education systems to equip citizens with the skills to identify misinformation and analyse content critically. Finland’s Anti-Fake News Initiative is a model, combining public awareness campaigns with formal education to foster 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 those who understand and prioritise its people’s aspirations. In this digital age, where perceptions shape reality, safeguarding narrative sovereignty is crucial. Anything less risks leaving a nation’s destiny in the hands of those who neither share nor serve its interests.
(Aditya Sinha is a Public Policy Professional.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
