The Politics of Narrative: Truth, Power and Public Consciousness

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.” — Julius Caesar, De Bello Gallico, III.18 “Men generally willingly believe what they wish.”

These are the words by Julius Caesar who wrote this almost two thousand years ago, yet the thought continues to be relevant with the politics of the present time. The way people receive and perceive information is shaped by what they already believe, fear,  desire, or even expect. Political communication, hence, functions within a much larger psychological and social landscape. The influence of a political narrative lies not merely in the information it carries, but also in the manner in which that information is perceived, interpreted and gradually grasped by the Collective.

Politics has always been directly linked with the construct or genesis of public consciousness. Institutions, laws, military power and economic strength constitute visible forms of political authority, while ideas, language, symbols and collective narratives influence how societies understand political events. The means of communication have transformed across centuries, yet the relationship between narrative and political power continues to remain deeply significant.

Julius Caesar offers one of the earliest and most interesting examples of this relationship. In Commentarii de Bello Gallico, Caesar presented his campaigns in Gaul through his own account of military events, political circumstances and Roman interests. His Commentarii de Bello Civili similarly presented his understanding of the civil conflict in which he was involved. These works are important historical sources, but they also raise a larger question about political authority: when a political actor has the ability to tell the story of an event, that actor also acquires influence over the way the event enters collective memory.

The relationship becomes even more striking after Caesar’s assassination.

Mark Antony’s funeral speech occupies an important place in the history of political communication. Rome was going through a major political split or rupture, and the meaning of Caesar’s assassination was deeply contested. Antony strategically addressed the Roman public through memory, emotion and political symbolism, turning a funeral into a moment of political mobilisation. The question was no longer simply what had happened to Caesar. It was also how Caesar’s death would affect the Roman people and what that understanding might mean for Rome’s political future.

This is one of the aspects of political communication that I find particularly significant. Events occur within circumstances, but their political meaning develops through interpretation. The manner in which an event is presented, remembered and emotionally experienced can influence the political response that follows.

With newspapers, radio and television, the reach of political communication expanded considerably. Political leaders could address increasingly large publics, while political campaigns began to place greater emphasis on rhetoric, imagery, symbolism and the presentation of political ideas.

The Indian independence movement offers another important historical example. Newspapers, speeches, pamphlets, political writings and public gatherings created spaces through which ideas about colonial rule, freedom and India’s political future could circulate and acquire wider social meaning. The struggle for political power was accompanied by a struggle over ideas, interpretation and the consciousness of the public.

The arrival of the digital age has altered this relationship once again, particularly in terms of speed, reach and participation.

Contemporary political figures today possess the capability for real-time mass communication. A statement can immediately become a headline, a video can cross geographical boundaries, an image can acquire political significance and a short digital message can become part of a much larger public conversation. Political communication, journalism, public opinion and citizen participation increasingly blend into a single same communicative space.

Donald Trump’s political communication provides an important contemporary example of this transformation.

His political rise demonstrated the political potential of direct, highly personalised and digitally amplified communication. Twitter, television, campaign platforms and public rallies became interconnected spaces through which political messages moved rapidly between the political leader, supporters, journalists and the wider public.

What is particularly interesting here is the manner in which political communication can also influence the media agenda. A political statement can generate media coverage, that coverage can generate public discussion, and the resulting discussion can create another political moment. Communication becomes continuous, immediate and deeply interconnected.

During the 2016 United States presidential election, the circulation of false and misleading political stories through social-media networks became part of a much larger discussion about the changing nature of political information. What interests me here is the wider phenomenon rather than any single story. Digital networks allow information to acquire political significance through repetition, emotional appeal, community reinforcement and extraordinary speed of circulation.

This makes the politics of narrative particularly significant.

People encounter information through networks of relationships and communities. When a particular narrative repeatedly appears within a community, familiarity can gradually become associated with credibility. Emotional material often travels quickly because it commands attention. Political identity also influences the way the same information can be received and interpreted by different groups. The structure through which information travels therefore becomes part of the political process itself.

The question then moves from communication towards ethics.

What responsibility accompanies the ability to influence public consciousness?

Early Buddhist thought offers an interesting perspective on this question. Speech is considered in relation to truthfulness, intention, circumstance and consequence. In the Abhaya Rājakumāra Sutta of the Majjhima Nikāya, the Buddha’s discussion with Prince Abhaya presents a nuanced consideration of speech and the circumstances in which something ought to be said. The question of speech is therefore connected not simply with what is communicated, but also with intention, timing and consequence.

This becomes particularly relevant when we consider political communication today.

Political speech exists within relationships of influence. A statement made by a political leader can reach millions. A journalist can influence the interpretation of an event. A citizen can circulate information across an extensive personal network. Digital platforms can carry a political message far beyond the circumstances in which it was originally expressed, giving communication consequences that may extend considerably beyond the speaker’s immediate intention.

Modern communication happens faster and the scale has become broader, intensifying the need for accountability as well as responsibility.

The Buddhist understanding of sammā vācā, generally translated as Right Speech, places speech within a broader ethical consideration of human conduct. It analyzes the motives, nature of speech and consequences of communication, offering a framework to evaluate modern political lies, spin, and media quality.

The Dhammapada begins with an emphasis upon the mind and its relationship to human experience and action. This becomes particularly interesting when considered in relation to the contemporary information environment. Political narratives influence attention and memory; they affect what people notice, what remains with them and the meanings they attach to events. The information environment, in this sense, also becomes part of the mental environment within which a society forms its judgements.

The question, therefore, becomes larger than misinformation itself.

At its deeper level, it concerns the relationship between communication, consciousness and power. Who determines which stories receive attention? Who possesses the ability to influence the meaning attached to an event? How does repetition contribute to collective memory? How does political communication influence the imagination of citizens? Technology has also given political actors and ordinary citizens an unprecedented ability to communicate across vast distances and within remarkably short periods of time, creating a political environment very different from the communication structures of earlier societies.

For democratic societies, these questions acquire particular significance. Abraham Lincoln’s famous words at Gettysburg — “government of the people, by the people, for the people” — place the citizen at the centre of democratic political authority. When citizens participate in determining political authority, the quality of the information through which they encounter political events becomes an important part of democratic life. Democracy, therefore, involves institutions and elections, but it also depends upon the quality of public reasoning through which citizens arrive at political judgement.

Martin Luther King Jr.’s statement, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” demonstrates another dimension of political communication. A political idea can move beyond its immediate historical circumstance and become part of a much wider moral imagination. Certain forms of political speech continue to resonate because they articulate ideas that societies carry across generations and continue to examine in changing circumstances.

This is also why political communication deserves to be considered within the study of statecraft.

Statecraft is often discussed through institutions, diplomacy, strategy, economics and formal authority. Yet the ability to influence how societies understand events, interests and possibilities constitutes another significant dimension of political power. Culture, memory, symbolism, communication and public consciousness all contribute to the political environment within which formal power operates.

For me, this is where the study of political communication becomes particularly interesting. By examining public consciousness through the varied lenses of political theory, history, psychology, communication, and Buddhist philosophy, political narratives emerge as deep cultural phenomena rather than mere tools of persuasion. Instead, they serve as the foundational frameworks through which societies generate meaning, crystallize collective memory, and conceptualize political possibilities.

The movement from Julius Caesar and Mark Antony to Donald Trump reveals a remarkable continuity in the relationship between narrative and political power. The circumstances are entirely different, as are the technologies, yet the ability to influence how political events are perceived, remembered and understood remains an important dimension of political life.

Caesar used written accounts. Antony used the public forum and rhetoric. Later political movements relied upon newspapers, pamphlets, speeches and radio. Contemporary political leaders operate through television, social media and digital networks. Each transformation in communication has expanded the possibilities through which political actors can reach and influence public consciousness.

What distinguishes the present moment is particularly the speed and decentralisation of communication. A narrative can emerge from a political leader, journalist, citizen or anonymous digital account and move through thousands of networks within a remarkably short period. The distinction between the producer and receiver of political information has consequently become increasingly fluid. Citizens themselves participate in the circulation, interpretation and amplification of political narratives.

This gives the contemporary information environment an extraordinary political significance.

The politics of narrative is ultimately connected with perception, memory and consciousness. The stories through which societies understand power, conflict, identity and political possibility influence the realities they become capable of imagining. Political communication, therefore, deserves to be considered not merely as a method of persuasion, but as a significant force in the formation of public consciousness.

For me, this remains an important area for further intellectual exploration, particularly at the intersection of political communication, statecraft, ethics and Socially Engaged Buddhism. The relationship between truth and power, speech and consequence, communication and consciousness extends well beyond the digital age. It belongs to the much longer history of how human societies understand authority and how political communities construct the meanings through which they organise their collective lives.

The politics of narrative remains one of the most consequential dimensions of contemporary political life. As the capacity to influence public consciousness expands, so does the responsibility attached to that influence. Political power acquires a deeper ethical and intellectual dimension when it is exercised with an awareness of consequence, responsibility and the larger purposes towards which political life is directed.

Primary Textual and Historical Foundations

Julius Caesar, Commentarii de Bello Gallico (The Gallic War), especially Book III, Chapter 18.

Julius Caesar, Commentarii de Bello Civili (The Civil War).

Appian, Civil Wars, Book II, concerning the assassination of Caesar and the political struggle surrounding his death and legacy.

Cassius Dio, Roman History, Book 44, concerning Caesar’s assassination and the political events surrounding Mark Antony’s funeral speech.

Abhaya Rājakumāra Sutta, Majjhima Nikāya 58, concerning speech, truth, intention, circumstance and consequence.

Saccavibhaṅga Sutta, Majjhima Nikāya 141, concerning sammā vācā within the Noble Eightfold Path.

Dhammapada, especially the opening verses concerning mind, perception and human action.

Karaṇīya Mettā Sutta, Sutta Nipāta 1.8, concerning ethical cultivation and relations with others.

Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, 19 November 1863.

Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, 16 April 1963.

Reference Sources for Historical Verification

National Park Service, United States, archival material relating to the Gettysburg Address.

National Civil Rights Museum, archival material relating to Martin Luther King Jr. and Letter from Birmingham Jail.

Srishti Sharma

 Buddhologist