Why Vijay is more than an electoral upset in Tamil Nadu

In Tamil Nadu, politics has never been just politics. Ever since independence, it has always been a theatre. A fusion of cinema and politics, star and statecraft. From M Karunanidhi to M G Ramchandran to J Jayalalithaa to Vijay, cinema and politics have always been playing into each other’s territory. Kalaignar used cinema as a powerful medium to propagate the Dravidian ideology. Before the breakup, MGR used his films to spread DMK ideology. He often wore DMK party colours like red and black in the films.

For almost six decades the political story in Tamil Nadu has been scripted by DMK and AIADMK. The story is rooted in the Dravidian movement revolving around Tamil identity, language and social justice. But even the most dominant narratives are exhausting. Decades of alternate power sharing between DMK and AIADMK produced a predictable stability but uninspiring to many. Party leaders of both these parties also lack the charisma of their predecessors. So, the timing of Vijay and TVK is very interesting. It is not an electoral upset but a major political shift.

Over the years the governance in Tamil Nadu has remained functional with sound welfare systems. The rise of Vijay is very different. We did not see any mass movement in Tamil Nadu. Vijay is not the product of any movement. He created something out of people’s expectations. Voters do not seek change but they want something new without the baggage or legacy. Vijay was the answer. TVK also avoided being trapped in Dravidian versus national politics. He focused on youth. He promised jobs, entrepreneurship, and a digital future. Since cinema in Tamil Nadu has never been mere entertainment; it has been a language of mass aspiration. And the urbanised young voters of the state easily get attracted towards a fresh larger than life figure. This created a powerful desire for change.

Look beyond India. In the United States, Donald Trump did not follow the usual path of party politics. He came in as a brand. A TV personality who had spent years building an image of strong leadership through the American series The Apprentice. So, his campaign was not just about policies; it was also about a character. The outsider who would ‘fix’ a broken system. Supporters did not just agree with him but they had faith in him. Ukraine followed an even more literal script. In Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy took a more direct approach. Before he became president, he portrayed a character of a school teacher on TV. In the show ‘Servant of the People’ a schoolteacher unexpectedly rises to power and combats corruption. By the time he entered politics, the line between fiction and reality had already blurred. Voters were not meeting a stranger but a familiar moral figure. So, the transition from screen to statecraft is a global template.

To better understand this template German Sociologist Max Weber theory of ‘charismatic authority’ is quite relevant. According to ‘Charismatic Authority’ the leader gains power and authority solely on the basis of his or her “larger than life” personal appeal and charm. The real power does not come from institutions or laws but rooted in the perceived extraordinary qualities of an individual. Here, the voters do not primarily evaluate policies or governance records but simply believe in him and see him as a symbol of hope in movements of dissatisfaction. So, in the past MGR’s cinematic role as a protector was easily converted into vote and political trust.

In the present Vijay’s role as a crusader against injustice builds a similar moral aura. Vijay’s screen image has been carefully constructed and curated over the years. For example, 2014 movie ‘Kaththi’ exposed the agrarian crisis and desperation of farmers. In another movie ‘Mersal’ he focused on the healthcare sector and talked about medical ethics. In 2018 his movie ‘Sarkar’ raised electoral manipulation and fraud. Thus, Vijay’s films craft an image of a morally upright, anti-corruption figure and the voters feel they already know the leader.

Parasocial Interaction theory of psychology also explains this phenomenon. According to this theory, when viewers repeatedly see a star on screen, they begin to feel that they know him personally, and when the time comes, the boundary between fictional character and real individual blurs. The reel hero who fights injustice is subconsciously assumed to do the same in real life. Voters don’t just support Vijay or MGR but they feel personally connected to them. The bond is not ideological but based on trust, admiration and identification. The whole phenomenon is socially produced and psychologically sustained and distributed. The voter is not just choosing a leader, instead they are choosing a story they want to trust. Because stories simplify the complex realities. They promise justice ignoring the processes and in the time of dissatisfaction promises are hard to resist.

When political institutions (political parties in the case of Tamil Nadu) stagnate, cultural icons step in as vehicles of change. This is not unique to Tamil Nadu. Modern democracies are increasingly shaped by figures who understand the power of narrative.  We are seeing this in Nepal too. Cinematic charisma can win power, but only governance can sustain it. Democracy at its core is far from fiction. Its functioning depends on constitutional institutions. Governance is not a three-hour script. The changes are often slow, procedural and even frustrating. The real question is whether the system can absorb charisma without being overwhelmed by it. Can institutions remain stronger than individuals? Can a hero transition from symbol to administrator? Today the screen has expanded. The audience has grown. Democracy is not only undergoing a subtle shift but is also learning to live with the consequences.

END OF ARTICLE