Soft Power, Hard Power?


Written by Southasia Readers • Cover Stories • June 2008

Let’s face it, no matter how many ifs and buts exist; when we break it down to the last atom, the universe is bi-polar. There are two sides of a picture and two faces of a coin. Likewise, there is no middle path to an opinion. Split Ends is a highly charged debate that does not tolerate any grey areas. Each month our dedicated forces, Team Red and Team Blue, fiercely defend their diametrically opposite viewpoints on an electrifying issue.

Blue: The basic concept of soft power is the ability to influence others by attracting or co-opting them, so that they want what you want. It is often contrasted with hard power, which has historically been the predominant realist measure of national power, through quantitative metrics such as population size, concrete military assets, or a nation's Gross Domestic Product. But having such resources does not always produce the desired outcomes as the United States itself discovered in the Vietnam War. The resources from which soft power behavior is derived are culture (when it is attractive to others), values (when there is no hypocrisy in their application) and foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate in the eyes of others). Whereas hard power uses military and economic power to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies, soft power uses diplomacy, culture and history. It is a non-violent way of getting one’s point across and far better than hard power.

Red: True hard power derives its strength from military and economy which is why it is not only more effective than its counterpart but also generates desired outcomes over a short span of time unlike soft power. There are times when one needs to make quick decisions and immediate results are needed, under such circumstances one cannot exercise soft power and wait for others to mature enough so that they can see things the way he does. Throughout Pakistan’s history the country has prospered most during the various military rules, which proves the effectiveness of hard power. At times threatening and coercing are the only ways to get things done and one cannot gamble on the chances of whether or not he would be able to mold the minds of hundreds.

Blue: It does derive results on a short span of time but what about its effects; are they ever lasting? Definitely not! When influencing is done by attracting someone, not only their behavior is being altered but also their beliefs and mindset is being changed. Thus the results it provides might be slow but last much longer. For instance an Indian political leader once claimed to win their war, not on any battle ground, but through their media. And assessing the current scenario in Pakistan, they have won half of it. The strategy they used was to directly access our audience through their media, altering our mindsets. And the result is evident from many of our ceremonies which strongly reflect their traditions, now that our people can easily relate to them and cannot find much difference between them and us, the hostilities are already to a minimum and they can pretty easily influence our masses.

Red: But one cannot use such tactics on all fronts, that is the major difference between soft power and hard power, the latter is pretty much applicable on any scenario under most circumstances whereas the former has its limits. An example would be the ban on media imposed by Musharraf’s government and the PEMRA ordinance. The way the media was fueling the political turmoil and the pace at which negativism was being spread about Pakistan’s image was producing dire results for the economic conditions of the country. Since all the foreign investors were pulling the plug and taking out much needed cash from the economy afraid that Pakistan is an extremist nation and that there money would get stuck here. Many foreign projects were halted and our stock market fell back to where it was 4 years ago in just a couple of days. Whereas the media is supposed to promote one’s country and portray a positive image. Ours was quite busy doing the exact opposite. Musharraf didn’t have enough time to mould our media’s mentality and use soft power, by the time that would have been achieved Pakistan wouldn’t have been much different than Afghanistan if not worse and there wouldn’t have been much left to publicize. Under such circumstances one is left with no option other than to exercise hard power to produce the desired results.

Blue: Musharraf used hard power and the media stopped broadcasting sensationalized news. However, the repercussions of that imposition are not hidden from anyone. Pervez Musharraf’s popularity dropped dramatically on local as well as international fronts, since the ban on media acted as a catalyst for the already present detest the liberal people had for the military dictator, which in turn led to further political turmoil and hence the rising inflation. Therefore the very basic reason for which hard power was used in the first place was no longer there.

Moreover, hard power can be used everywhere but not necessary that it will provide desirable results. On the contrary, strong reaction might occur which happened in the case of Musharraf. The whole media was in an uproar. Protests were held and this act was criticized internationally as well. Adding to it were the results of the 18th February election,where people completely rejected his policies.

Red: Throughout history, almost all successful leaders chose hard power from Alexander to Napoleon, Stalin and even Hitler. It’s pretty much like the example of a child who does not know what is best for him and so the parents have to use hard power in order to make sure that he makes the right choices for himself. The people in our society are not mature and educated enough to make the right decisions for themselves on all fronts and at times tend to opt for the wrong choices, under such circumstances it is mandatory to exercise hard power.

Blue: Alexander, Napoleon, Stallin and Hitler had to face the repercussions of exercising hard power, even though it was much easier to exercise it back in those days since awareness amongst common people was not that common. However nowadays even parents cannot exercise hard power on children without facing reprucussions specially in the more developed parts of the world, so the question of using hard power to influence others is bound to show its after-effects specially when it is being used against other political bodies. Therefore even though it takes longer and is more difficult to implement soft power, it still is the better option when compared to its counterpart.

Note: Whether people contribute more towards the country as expatriates or while remaining in it.

“In or Out?”

Whose side are you on? Share your views at

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it