In politics, the art of governance often involves the delicate balance between managing public expectations and responding to crises. However, some political leaders and governments engage in a controversial strategy: creating or exacerbating problems, allowing them to escalate, and then “resolving” the issues once the public outcry reaches a boiling point. While this approach may appear pragmatic or strategic, it raises questions about leadership, accountability, and the true motivations behind such actions.
The Problem-Creation Strategy: A Deliberate Approach
At its core, the tactic of creating or inflating problems can be seen as a form of political manipulation. Leaders may introduce policies, make decisions, or allow certain issues to fester, knowing that it will create public discontent. These problems may be real, but their magnitude or urgency is often exaggerated to serve the interests of those in power. Here’s how it works in practice:
Policy Shifts or Actions That Worsen Existing Issues: Governments might pass legislation, introduce taxes, or privatize public services in a manner that negatively impacts citizens. For example, austerity measures that reduce social welfare or raise fuel prices can spark widespread protests. By creating a financial burden or a social divide, the government stirs public frustration.
Deliberate Inaction or Misdirection: In some cases, governments may avoid addressing known problems, allowing issues to grow worse over time. This delay in intervention — such as not improving infrastructure, ignoring environmental concerns, or failing to address public health crises — creates a situation ripe for public dissatisfaction.
Polarization and Public Outcry: Once the issue is prominent enough, it triggers a public backlash. Media outlets, opposition leaders, civil society groups, and social media users amplify the concerns, creating a groundswell of protest or debate. The dissatisfaction spreads quickly, forcing the government to respond.
The Resolution: Political Leaders Take Credit for “Fixing” the Problem
After a period of protest or public outcry, the government often steps in with a solution, claiming to have heard the people’s concerns and taken corrective action. This is where the cycle often culminates:
Making a “Concession”: The government offers a resolution — this could be a change in policy, a new investment in public services, a compromise in laws, or a reversal of unpopular measures. Often, the solution is portrayed as a great achievement, with leaders congratulating themselves for listening to the public.
Public Praise and Political Capital: While the government may have created the problem, it now gets to play the hero. The media narrative often focuses on the government’s role in resolving the crisis. Public relations campaigns are launched, and the leaders are hailed for their decisive action. The leaders regain their credibility and support, despite the fact that the crisis was largely of their own making.
Cycle Repeats: This tactic can become a self-perpetuating cycle. Once the immediate issue is “resolved,” it’s not unusual for new problems to emerge, giving the government another opportunity to intervene and gain political capital. This cycle of problem-creation and resolution can keep governments in a state of political advantage, as long as the public remains unaware or apathetic to the underlying tactics.
Examples of the Manufactured Crisis Cycle
There are several examples in modern politics where this strategy appears to have been used effectively:
Fuel Price Hikes and Public Protests: In many countries, government-imposed fuel price hikes lead to widespread protests, as the increased cost of living hits everyday people hard. Often, after significant public outcry, the government will “relent” by cutting taxes on fuel, reducing prices, or offering subsidies. The resolution is seen as a win for the public, though the problem was created in the first place by the government’s decision.
Educational and Healthcare Reforms: Politicians sometimes propose cuts to public education or healthcare funding, which causes frustration and resistance from the public. After protests and strikes, the government may reverse course, restoring funding or offering reforms. The public is then led to believe that the government is responding to their needs, despite having created the crisis in the first place.
Environmental Policies: Governments might neglect environmental concerns, allowing pollution or deforestation to worsen, and only after environmental disasters or public pressure do they introduce laws or regulations to address the issue. This often leads to the government being lauded for taking “decisive action” when in reality, they only acted after the problem became too large to ignore.
The Impact on Democracy and Public Trust
While some may argue that this tactic is simply part of the political game, it raises significant concerns about governance and trust. Politicians who repeatedly create problems for the purpose of solving them often undermine the public’s confidence in their ability to lead effectively. When people begin to suspect that the government is manipulating crises for political gain, it can lead to cynicism and disengagement.
Moreover, this strategy can also divert attention from more pressing, long-term issues. While governments focus on responding to self-created crises, they may neglect structural reforms or fail to address deeper systemic problems. Citizens may rally around the latest crisis, only to find that the underlying issues remain unresolved.
The Ethical Dilemma: Is This Leadership?
Ultimately, the question arises: is this style of governance ethical? Creating problems to solve them may appear to be a form of strategic leadership, but it also reflects a lack of genuine concern for the public’s well-being. True leadership involves identifying and addressing challenges proactively, not orchestrating them for political gain.
Governments should be held accountable for the long-term consequences of their actions, and citizens should demand transparency and integrity from their leaders. While solving a crisis can be politically advantageous, it should not come at the cost of trust or long-term stability.
Conclusion: A Cycle to Break
The cycle of creating problems and solving them for political advantage is an unfortunate feature of modern politics. While it may offer short-term gains for those in power, it often comes at the expense of public trust and long-term progress. True leaders should aim to prevent crises from occurring, not manufacture them. Citizens, in turn, must remain vigilant and demand accountability from their elected officials, ensuring that their interests are truly being prioritized, not manipulated for political advantage.