E.E. Schattschneider on Political Strategy
Yesterday, we learnt that Buchanan’s definition of politics was that it is the study of the whole system of coercive or potentially coercive relationships.
Otto van Bismarck, who knew a thing or two about the practice of the art, said that politics was “the art of the possible”.
Kenneth Galbraith, by the way, said that politics is actually about choosing between the unpalatable and the disastrous – but tempting though it may be for your author to ensconce himself in cynicism, we shall regretfully decline and stay in the realm of constructive thought.
But regardless of which definition of politics you choose to go with, the point is not to define it for its own sake. Rather, the point is to understand how to think about political systems.
But Why Do we Need To Think About Political Systems?
Because we live in society. Because we want society to be better. And because some of the solutions that can make society better come from fields other than economics. If you want to find out why some of these solutions are political, you may want to take a look at yesterday’s post.
Should Dalit women who work in the salt pans of Thoothukudi get the same wage as men, or should they get Rs. 10 lesser? Now, I hope you agree with me that they should be paid the same as the men who work in these salt pans, but perhaps you do not. Pick, in that case, your political problem of choice as an example to work with.
What do you do about the problem? How do you solve that problem?
Well, you might say (note that I’m sticking with the salt pans of Thoothukudi) that government should pass a rule saying that everybody should be paid the same. Enforcing this rule will be tricky, of course, but leave aside that pesky little detail for now.
How do you get government to say “Hey everybody, this is now the new rule”?
Get a petition going? Talk to your local MLA? Take out a morcha? Something else?
E.E. Schattschneider suggests a four-pronged approach.
It Begins with a Strategy
Remember, you have identified a problem, and You Want To Do Something About It. This means that you need a strategy.
More specifically, you need a political strategy. That strategy, you hope, will result in a change to the political system. This means, of course, that the political system needs to be amenable to change – it should be dynamic, not static.
This change, you further hope, will be a change in the correct direction – that is, your attempt at changing the political system will result in a new world. In this new world, your identified problem no longer exists – it has been solved because of your strategy.
Hopefully.
But It Also Begins With Conflict
So you now have a plan to come up with a strategy to solve this political problem you have identified. And that means you are going to be in conflict.
Who are you going to be in conflict with?
You are going to be in conflict with two sets of people. The first set is the folks who think that the world doesn’t need to change. The wage arrangements at the Thoothukudi salt fans are fine the way they are, these folks might say… why do you want to change things? Especially because that’s how they’ve always been, they might add mutinously. And so you have one set of people you are in conflict with.
But it gets worse for you, alas. Because there is another group of people you are also going to be in conflict with. You see, you are not the only person who wishes to change the world. There are folks who may want cleaner streets. Or more schools. Or there may be folks who are worried about the climate. Or maybe corruption.
All of these folks who care about all of these issues also wish to change the world. And as far as they are concerned, their particular change is much more important than your particular change. And to the extent that you disagree with them, you are going to be in conflict with them too.
And to win out in these conflicts, you’re going to need a strategy. So, politics: it’s about changing the world, overcoming conflicts, and having a strategy.
That, at any rate, is E.E. Schattschneider‘s take on the issue.
So this strategy of yours, in his take, needs to consist of four things, or features. What are these features?
Intensity, visibility, direction and scope. Let’s tackle them in turn:
Intensity
What is the intensity with which “the public” regards the issue at hand? Are we at level “meh”, or are we at “Let’s all march together for this”? How can you get the public to think about your particular issue much more intensely? That’s one thing you gotta care about.
Visibility
The word has an obvious meaning, but the implications are not necessarily equally obvious. Do not take this to mean that success only lies in ensuring that your problem gets a lot of visibility.
In fact, in some cases, one should attempt the exact opposite! The most interesting thing in that report is not the data, but the date. What else was happening in India when the CRS data for 2020 and 2021 was finally released in early May, 2025?
As E.E. Schattschneider blandly puts it: “it seems to me that a slight change in the visibility of government or in the public habit of seeing the government is likely to have a great impact on the outcome of conflict.”
Barbara would agree.
Direction
Remember how I said that conflict is a two-front war? You’re not just in conflict with the the folks directly in opposition to your strategy. You are also in conflict with other folks who have other strategies about other conflicts. Why should they cede precious mind-space they may have gotten from the public?
For that matter, why should you?
The art of figuring out which conflict should and does take centre-stage, of figuring out how to keep that conflict front and center, and of how to resolve it (or keep it festering forever, if that be your choice) – that is the decisive factor in all of this.
E.E. Schattschneider’s words, not mine. But I do agree with him.
Scope
Remember the kid from yesterday’s blog post who wanted to watch TV a little bit longer instead of going to bed? That little kid is engaged in a battle of wits with one of the parents – this is a political conflict.
If the parent that the kid is negotiating with is the “good cop”, the kid has an incentive to carry out further negotiations, and to push the boundaries of what might be deemed acceptable. The kid also has an incentive to not involve the “bad cop” parent in these negotiations.
Why? Because every kid in that situation knows that the bad cop will simply issue a diktat, and that’ll be the end of that.
So what? So the kid would dearly love to not “socialize” the conflict. Nobody else should be involved, and let’s have private negotiations carry on until a mutually amicable solution is reached.
In the case of your conflict, are you better off keeping negotiations private, or are you better off getting as many people as possible involved?
That’s the scope bit.
TMKK?
So, if you have a problem rooted in a coercive or potentially coercive relationship:
You’re going to need a strategy to overcome that problem
You’re going to need a strategy because you are going to have a two-pronged conflict (with folks who oppose you, and with folks who have conflicts of their own to handle)
That strategy needs to have four features, and you need to think clearly about how your problem is best solved given these four features:
What is the intensity with which the public is thinking about your particular problem?
Should you be dialing up the visibility of the problem, or dialing it down?
What is the direction of the problem? Is it trending upwards in public consciousness?
What is the scope of the problem, private or social?
Let’s use this framework to think about the best political strategy for the unequal wages for the workers at the Thoothukudi:
How do you get the public to think about your particular problem with greater intensity? Whatever your particular answer, you’re better off with it being a problem that is thought about more intensely by as many people as possible.
You should of course be dialing up with visibility of this problem.
Can you ally with folks who are working on issues of caste? or of gender? Or of wage inequality? Or rural laborers in general? Can you get most, if not all of them, to agree to push your particular issue to No. 1?
You are much better off “socializing” this problem, as opposed to keeping it private.
If Only It Ended There
The side that wants to keep things as they are will, of course, be working on an opposite strategy. The conflicts can become layered and complex, and yes, we’ve waded right back into game theory. But don’t let the complexity be discouraging. What Schattschneider gives you isn’t a guaranteed winning formula, but a map. The next time you see a political debate, a protest, or even a quiet policy change, try to spot these four features. Who is trying to raise the intensity? Who is benefiting from low visibility? Who is controlling the direction of the conflict, and who is trying to change its scope?
You may not be able to change the world overnight, but with this framework, you’ll certainly understand it a whole lot better.
As always, that’s the hope!