Politics Of Division: Why Autocrats Foster Binary Thinking

ౠIn the wake of the Iraq War, then US President George W. Bush famously proclaimed, “If you are not with us, you are against us.” This statement was not just a justification for war. It epitomised a dangerous worldview that has since proliferated across political and ideological spectrums. The binary logic of absolute divisions—where one is either an ally or an enemy, a patriot or a traitor—has increasingly shaped global political discourse. As the world grapples with the failures of neoliberal capitalism and the crises it has engendered, the rise of authoritarian and fascist regimes has only deepened this trend. The fight against these regimes, therefore, is fundamentally a fight against this vision of binaries.

The Advent of Neoliberalism

🗹The two decades following World War II were a golden phase for capitalism. The widespread destruction caused by the war provided enormous opportunities for investment in reconstruction. The United States, emerging as the dominant global power, implemented the Marshall Plan in Europe, while Japan and other war-torn economies underwent rapid industrialisation. This period was characterised by state intervention, economic planning and high public investment, creating stable employment and sustained growth. Keynesian economic policies, which emphasised government spending and demand-driven growth, were the foundation of this prosperity.

🐎However, by the late 1960s, the growth model that had fuelled post-war capitalism began to stagnate. The saturation of markets, declining profit rates, and the inability of existing industries to absorb surplus capital led to an economic slowdown. Trade unions in the West demanded higher wages, welfare provisions expanded, and corporate profits began to shrink. The system that had thrived on expansion struggled with overproduction and declining returns.

🔯The structural weaknesses of post-war capitalism became fully evident with the oil crisis of 1973, when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) imposed an embargo, causing a sharp spike in oil prices. The crisis led to stagflation—a combination of stagnant growth and high inflation—that Keynesian policies struggled to address. Western governments, facing economic turmoil, found themselves unable to sustain the welfare state while maintaining corporate profitability.

ꦑIn response, capitalist elites, particularly in the US and Britain, championed a new economic model—neoliberalism. This approach, promoted by economists such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, called for deregulation, privatisation and the opening of global markets. Under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the US, neoliberal policies were implemented aggressively. Public industries were privatised, financial markets were deregulated and capital was given free rein to move across borders.

The Fall of Neoliberalism

🧜Neoliberalism appeared to reinvigorate capitalism in the short term. It promised economic prosperity and assuaged the poor with its ‘trickle-down’. The expansion of financial markets, the growth of multinational corporations and the integration of developing economies into the global supply chain created an illusion of prosperity. Countries such as China—newly incorporated into the capitalist world order—became manufacturing hubs, providing cheap labour for Western corporations.

🐓However, the very success of neoliberalism contained the seeds of its own crisis. By dismantling social protections, weakening labour rights, and prioritising financial speculation over productive investment, neoliberalism deepened economic inequality. While corporations and the rich amassed unprecedented wealth, the working and middle classes in developed economies faced stagnant wages, job insecurity and declining social mobility. The 2008 financial crisis exposed these contradictions brutally, as reckless financial speculation led to economic collapse, widespread unemployment, and massive government bailouts for banks and corporations.

The Birth of Binaries

🔴The crisis of 2008 shattered public faith in neoliberal capitalism. Governments were forced to intervene heavily, contradicting the free-market ideology that had been dominant for decades. Rather than abandoning neoliberalism entirely, the ruling elites sought new ways to sustain their control. With economic grievances growing, they turned to authoritarian populism and nationalism to maintain power.

🅺Fascist and autocratic leaders exploited the failures of neoliberalism by offering simplistic solutions to complex problems. Instead of addressing systemic economic inequalities, they redirected public anger toward scapegoats—immigrants, minorities and dissenting voices. The binary logic of ‘us versus them’, which had been a feature of war-time rhetoric, was now internalised into domestic politics. Political leaders demonised the opposition, curtailed civil liberties and consolidated state power to suppress resistance.

♏In this post-neoliberal world, democracy itself became an obstacle to the ruling elites seeking to maintain control. The media was co-opted or silenced, judicial institutions were weakened and elections reduced to a formality rather than a genuine democratic process. The rise of leaders like Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, Narendra Modi, Recep Erdogan, and others reflected this global shift toward autocratic governance as a response to neoliberal capitalism’s failures.

🌼Autocratic and fascist regimes thrive on this divisive framework. They consolidate power by reducing complex socio-political realities into rigid binary oppositions. This manufactured polarisation serves as a tool to silence opposition, justify repression and mobilise support through fear. Once entrenched, these regimes systematically dismantle democratic institutions, erode civil liberties and suppress alternative visions of governance.

♐The world is fraught with binaries today: ‘us versus them’, a classic authoritarian narrative that delegitimises dissent and forces people into conformity; ‘Nationalist or Anti-national’, used in many countries to silence critics of the government; ‘Hindu or Anti-Hindu’, India’s own binary, where dissent is framed as opposition to the majority religion; ‘Patriot or Traitor’, a way to brand the opposition as disloyal or ‘internal enemies’; ‘Right or Left’, political positions are often reduced to extreme labels, leaving no space for nuance; ‘Religious or Anti-religious’, used to attack secular or scientific worldviews as inherently hostile to faith; ‘Male or Female’, gender fluidity is denied, reinforcing binaries; ‘Pro-Government or Anti-Government’ or ‘Urban Naxal’, criticism of policies is dismissed as anti-national behaviour; ‘Traditional or Modern’, cultural identities are boxed in as either preserving a so-called ‘pure past’ or embracing ‘corrupting Western influences’; ‘White or Non-White’ or ‘Indigenous vs. Settler’, used in racialised politics to deepen ethnic divisions; ‘People or Elite’, populist leaders claim to represent ‘real people’ against ‘corrupt elites’, even when they themselves belong to the latter; ‘Climate Activism or Anti-Developmentalism’, complex debates on environmental policies are often polarised into extreme stances; ‘Law and Order or Chaos’, any movement for justice (e.g., protests against police brutality) is framed as a threat to stability. The list is infinite since the regimes have unlimited capacity to produce new binaries.

Autocracies Foster Binaries

🦄Binary thinking is a politically manufactured strategy that benefits authoritarian rulers. The more people are forced into rigid categories, the easier it is to suppress opposition and maintain control. Some of these strategies include control through polarisation whereby autocratic regimes force people into opposing camps to prevent the emergence of collective resistance. When societies are deeply polarised, individuals become more invested in their ‘side’ rather than questioning the legitimacy of the ruling power. This ensures that dissent remains fragmented and ineffective.

෴Authoritarian control is weakened when people engage in nuanced discussions. To prevent this, autocracies simplify issues into black-and-white narratives. This discourages independent thought and makes mass mobilisation easier, as people are led to believe in a singular enemy rather than questioning systemic problems. Autocrats frequently manufacture external or internal enemies to shift blame for economic failures, social unrest, or dissent. Immigrants, religious minorities, or political opponents are often portrayed as threats, allowing the regime to justify crackdowns, scapegoat failures and rally public support under the guise of national security.

🧜To sustain control, autocrats systematically weaken democratic institutions. Courts, independent media and opposition parties are branded as ‘anti-nationals’ or ‘traitors’, discrediting any criticism. This delegitimisation erodes checks and balances, allowing the regime to consolidate power unchallenged. Modern autocrats exploit social media algorithms that amplify extreme content, creating echo chambers that reinforce binary thinking. This not only deepens divisions but also ensures that propaganda spreads rapidly, shaping public opinion in favour of authoritarian rule. The deliberate manipulation of digital platforms turns them into tools of mass persuasion.

♕Autocrats use fear as a governing tool. By portraying minorities, dissidents and activists as threats to national stability, they justify repressive laws and surveillance. A fearful populace is more likely to accept curtailment of civil liberties in exchange for a false sense of security, making resistance to autocratic rule even harder.

♐Many autocratic regimes present themselves as the protectors of a dominant religious or ethnic identity. By positioning minorities as ‘outsiders’, they create a sense of unity among the majority while justifying exclusionary policies. This tactic consolidates power and also fuels social divisions that keep authoritarianism entrenched.

Dangerous Consequences

🌜A deadly consequence of this binary-driven autocratic politics is the erosion of democratic institutions. The judiciary, independent media and civil society organisations are labelled as enemies of the state if they challenge the ruling regime. The press is either censored or co-opted into serving the government’s propaganda machinery. The legal system is weaponised to silence critics, and electoral processes are manipulated to ensure continued dominance. The space for legitimate political opposition shrinks, leaving citizens with no meaningful alternatives.

🐼Autocratic regimes, through their expansionist policies and aggressive rhetoric, inflame international tensions. The polarisation within nations often spills into geopolitical conflicts, where alliances are forged based on ideological conformity rather than diplomatic engagement. The binary vision of the world—democracies vs. autocracies, East vs. West, religious majorities vs. minorities—escalates the likelihood of military confrontations. In a world armed with nuclear capabilities and sophisticated warfare technologies, this brinkmanship poses an existential threat to humanity.

🤡The creation of binaries also manifests in economic policies that prioritise self-sufficiency and isolation over global cooperation. Protectionist measures, trade wars and the vilification of multinational institutions weaken economic stability. In an interconnected world, such policies harm individual nations as well as destabilise global supply chains, exacerbate inequalities and intensify economic crises. The result is a world where economic disparities widen, social unrest grows, and extremist ideologies find fertile ground to take root.

🦩Furthermore, the environmental crisis is exacerbated by autocratic regimes that dismiss scientific consensus and prioritise short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability. The refusal to acknowledge climate change as a global crisis, coupled with policies that favour resource exploitation, accelerate environmental degradation. In a world already witnessing devastating climate catastrophes, this negligence threatens the survival of future generations.

The Challenge Before the People

𒈔History does provide hope. While autocracies appear formidable, their foundations rest on repression, fear and the suppression of truth—all inherently unsustainable elements. The resilience of democratic movements, grassroots activism and global solidarity has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to challenge and dismantle authoritarian structures. The need of the hour is to reinforce democratic values, encourage political engagement and foster a culture of critical thinking that resists the allure of simplistic binaries.

♛The challenge today is not just to resist these regimes but to dismantle the very foundation of binary thinking that sustains them. Democracy flourishes in nuance, dialogue and the ability to navigate contradictions. The world’s current trajectory, however, favours absolutism, making any dissent appear as an existential threat rather than a legitimate difference of opinion. The task ahead, therefore, is not merely political but also intellectual and cultural—to foster a politics that recognises diversity, complexity and coexistence over crude divisions.

(Views expressed are personal)

Anand Teltumbde is an Indian scholar, writer and human rights activist

This article is a part of Outlook's March 1, 2025 issue 'The Grid', which explored the concept of binaries. It appeared in print as 'My Way or the Highway'.