Title: Interpreting moral narratives of regimes in power with a pinch of salt

Authors: Brajesh Mishra; Avanish Kumar; Ishaan Mishra

Addresses: Economics and Public Policy Area, Management Development Institute Gurgaon, Mehrauli Road, Sukhrali Gurgaon 122001, India ' Economics and Public Policy Area, Management Development Institute Gurgaon, Mehrauli Road, Sukhrali Gurgaon 122001, India ' School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Shiv Nadar University, India

Abstract: The article analyses public action of the state which are contested between societal perception and state predicaments. The article is driven by the research question - how a state seeks moral purposive arguments to legitimise perceived oppressive actions? Four cases of state actions related to two autocratic regimes (North Korea and Saudi Arabia) and two largest democracies (India and the USA) have been analysed. The difficulty in contemporary governance arises due to the blurring of three distinct classical arguments of states and is being replaced by simultaneous instrumentality to seek political legitimacy. The crux of findings of the study, inter-alia, include classification of moral narratives, which may be used by the regimes in power to legitimise their oppressive actions - namely, traditional doctrines of colonial era, radical nationalistic ideologies, religious and geopolitics, legislative illegality of racial discrimination, law and order or internal security issues.

Keywords: legitimacy; oppressive; welfare; instrumental role; moral purposive arguments; regimes in power.

DOI: 10.1504/IJHRCS.2023.131858

International Journal of Human Rights and Constitutional Studies, 2023 Vol.10 No.3, pp.303 - 319

Received: 17 May 2022
Accepted: 27 May 2022
Published online: 04 Jul 2023 *

Full-text access for editors Full-text access for subscribers Purchase this article Comment on this article