Hegemony and the World Politics of Narrative Production

The language of power has changed on the stage of world politics. Once upon a time, military power, territorial possession, economic resources, and a fleet of warships were the main criteria for dominance. Today, that power has been combined with more subtle weapons-information, technology, algorithms, media, culture, and narrative. Wars are no longer fought only on borders; wars are fought within people’s thoughts, beliefs, memories, and future imaginations. Therefore, to understand today’s world system, the question of who owns how many warplanes or missiles is not enough. The question must be asked-who is controlling the flow of information, who is creating the narrative, and who is determining which reality we will accept as true?

This is where the concept of ‘hegemony’ or dominance comes to the fore. Political hegemony influences the policies and decisions of the state; economic hegemony creates dependence through trade, credit, and investment; Military hegemony exerts influence through the display of power and security structures. But cultural and ideological hegemony works even deeper-influencing people’s thoughts, values, and conceptions of life in such a way that the structure of domination itself seems ‘natural.’

Bangladesh’s path should be that - neither blind imitation nor blind resistance. We need independent thinking, information sovereignty, pluralistic democracy, balanced diplomacy and national interest-based leadership. Because the biggest question of power in today’s world is not who has the weapons; but who has the direction of people’s thoughts.

The Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony is particularly relevant here. In his view, domination is not established simply through coercion; it is often established through the production of consent. When people accept a particular set of values, culture, or political ideas as natural without question, the most subtle form of power is at work.

Today, that hegemony has expanded into ‘super-hegemony’-the combined exercise of political, economic, military, cultural, technological, and informational power. Here, not only territory but also people’s ‘mind space’ are the realms of power. The role of narrative is increasingly important in determining who is the hero and who is the villain; what is just and what is unjust.

Reality is one thing, and the interpretation of reality is another. An event happened; but how we learned about it, in what words, and what information was presented to us-that determines our perception. The media, cinema, social media, academic research, think tanks, and digital platforms can all create a particular worldview. As a result, when a gap is created between facts and narratives, ‘perception’ takes over reality.

Added to this is ‘data colonialism’. Colonial powers once controlled land, forests, minerals, and labour. In today’s digital economy, data generated from people’s behaviour, preferences, communications, and online activities has become a new asset. As a result, the question is crucial-who owns this data? Individuals, states, or large technology corporations? If people do not have control over the information generated by people’s lives, a new kind of colonial dependency can emerge even in the digital age.

With this change, geopolitics has also gained new dimensions. In addition to geography, data, technology, sea routes, semiconductors, energy, and cyberspace are now important components of global power. As a result, the geopolitics of the future will be determined not only on maps but also on the invisible map of information and technology.

Here, it is also important to rethink the question of fascism. In the historical sense, fascism is an extremely authoritarian political ideology, where a single leadership, exaggerated nationalism, suppression of dissent, and the use of propaganda machines are seen. The regimes of Mussolini and Hitler are terrible historical examples of this. However, fascist tendencies can also arise in modern society, when a power centre seeks to establish a single narrative as the ‘only truth’ and labels dissent as anti-national or hostile.

Fascism does not always come in the roar of tanks; sometimes it comes in the language of news headlines, in the selected frames of cameras, and in the controlled choice of words. The day the media loses its role as a truth-seeking tool and becomes a propaganda machine for power, the seeds of danger are planted within democracy itself.

In this context, Iran’s experience deserves discussion. Despite long-standing international pressure, sanctions, and geopolitical conflicts, Iran has tried to maintain its state capacity and strategic position. Self-reliance, national solidarity, and strategic diplomacy are important elements of its resistance. One lesson can be learned from Iran’s experience-military power alone is not enough for a state to survive; it needs its own capacity, social solidarity, and long-term strategic thinking. However, resistance does not mean blind obedience. National strength is sustainable only when unity is accompanied by civil liberties, accountability, and the right to dissent.

Niccolo Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’ reminds us that reality, strategy, situational awareness, and decision-making are essential in statecraft. But in a modern democracy, the power of leadership lies not only in toughness; it also lies in gaining the trust of the people, strengthening institutions, and the ability to accommodate dissent. This is the biggest lesson for Bangladesh. In its relations with superpowers, balanced diplomacy and prioritising national interests are needed. At the same time, we must increase our confidence in our own knowledge, history, culture and capabilities. If we cannot overcome the colonial mentality, even if we have political freedom, intellectual freedom will remain incomplete.

A nation that can create its own narrative gains the right to build its own future. And a society that fears dissent gradually loses its inner strength.