Infrastructures As Tools For Manipulating And Furthering Political Agendas

by Fizza Fatima

Abstract: In light of the fast-paced urbanization taking place globally, this paper aims to analyse the role played by infrastructures as tools of the state to manipulate and further its agendas. Through secondary sources, I aim to examine how the planning, implementation and provision of infrastructures — albeit in varying contexts — can be used to achieve the same objective i.e. establish and exhibit state power to its citizens.

The paper encompasses three case studies from the Global South i.e. Mumbai, New Delhi and Jerusalem, to understand and analyse the provision of infrastructure and how it sets the stage for inclusion or exclusion. In addition, the paper also studies the impact of infrastructures on societies, when driven by political motivations and zero–sum rationality.

Keywords: Urban infrastructure; politics; manipulation; power

Introduction

“Planning is always shaped by the hegemonic order from which it evolves and thus never independent from it… The city as a certain spatial configuration is the locus and outcome of power relations.”

Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space (1974)

City planning, to put it simply, can be understood as a constant effort to shape one’s own milieu. This notion becomes evident in how we shape our environments according to varying motivations; whether one examines Baron Haussmann’s reflection of Napoleon’s authoritative and imperialistic leanings in Paris or Le Corbusier’s vision of mass-production and standardization in Chandigarh. Through this shaping, one asserts their preconceived images of their environment, aiming to attain and maintain control of the said milieu.

A strong parallel may be derived between this control and Lefebvre’s assertion of “hegemonic order”, which can best be understood with regards to the “power relations” that the city manifests. Among a wide range of scholarly works, Mazza (2009), Larkin (2013) and Nolte (2016) represent recent perspectives of understanding the relationship between politics and space. Nolte (2016) refers to the “struggle for physical, territorial and symbolic hegemony” and posits that “sometimes planning the city is already part of controlling it”. She discusses Mazza’s perspective which considers planning “an instrument of governance” (Mazza 2009, 114) and reiterates how planning and implementing urban infrastructures lie at the crux of the power struggles in a city.

This paper contends that it is in this provision of infrastructure by the state that sets the stage for inclusion or exclusion; for prioritization and marginalization. According to Larkin (2013, 329), infrastructures can help reveal “political rationality that underlie technological projects” engendering “an apparatus of governmentality”. It is precisely this role of infrastructures, as an “apparatus of governmentality” and hence, facilitators of political agendas, that this research aims to examine.

Infrastructures as facilitators of manipulation:

In order to further explore the concept of planning as an attempt to shape and “control” one’s environment, I aim to explore it as a fundamental principle of “manipulation” done at the state level through provision of infrastructure.

Manipulation, according to Oxford English Dictionary, can be defined as “controlling or influencing someone or something, often in a dishonest way so that they do not realize it”. From a critical perspective, the unfulfilled promises of the state or its pandering to the public can be a worthy example to analyse this state manipulation. This perspective that the state is complicit in manipulating the public, in its attempts for control and hegemony, is a stance echoed by various scholars discussed by Larkin (2013) such as Chalfin (2001; 2008; 2010), Harvey (2012), Limbert (2010) and Mains (2012). In particular, Larkin (2013) discusses in depth how massive infrastructural projects are used as a tool by the state to establish and exhibit its power to the citizens. He also maintains that the political effects of these infrastructures should not be examined merely from the surface, as they evoke complex and counterintuitive responses (Larkin 2013, 334). He refers to Khan’s (2006) work that explains how the first multilane motorway in Pakistan evoked counterintuitive feelings in the citizens as its modern design greatly outweighed the modernity of the country. Based on the examples Larkin (2013) presents of countries such as India, Pakistan, Nigeria and Congo, I argue that state manipulation is a ubiquitous phenomenon, observed more prevalently in the “Global South” (Sauvy, 1952) and particularly at the time of elections (Anand, 2011). This section aims to examine how this manipulation takes place, what tools can and are used in the process, what actors are involved and how visible it is in cities today. This shall be done through the analysis of three case studies, namely, (1) Mumbai, (2) New Delhi and (3) Jerusalem, to empirically establish manipulation through the provision of infrastructure as a common practice around the world.

As a precursor to the empirical analysis, it is beneficial to discuss the “dual nature” of objects that provide ground for other objects to operate and in doing so (2) help constitute a system that they become a part of (Larkin 2016, 329). He further delineates this by discussing Anand’s analysis of water supply in Mumbai.

Through the case of a hilltop slum settlement in Mumbai which was deprived of water supply by the state, Anand (2011, 547) asserts that Mumbai’s water supply department, established in 1860 by the colonial government was “limited” and aimed to serve the “wealthy class and the British”1. This condition is further exacerbated by the density of the population as the main cause of a scarce and irregular water supply in Mumbai (Anand, 2011). The municipality justifies this by pointing to technical reasons such as topography, but Anand’s (2011) ethnographical analysis reveals it as an issue of political mobilization for slum residents. Also observed in many similar settlements, this has led to the development of a social infrastructure called Dadas, who are powerful patrons, responsible for bringing the services of the state to these settlements. Anand (2011, 547) emphasizes that Dadas help meet the settlement’s water requirements by employing pressure on elected officials in exchange for support during election campaigns. This example also aptly highlights state manipulation at the time of elections, as claimed in my hypothesis above.

He further delineates the politics of infrastructure by discussing a nexus of social and political relations that slum settlers have to maintain in order to access water. He discusses the arduous documentation — as a prerequisite for water supply — required by water offices that most slum settlers are often unable to provide, and hence, opt for “direct political negotiations” (Anand, 2011, 546) with elected representatives, Dadas and social workers. He terms this practice“hydraulic citizenship — a form of belonging to the city made by effective political and technical connections to the city’s infrastructure” (Anand, 2011, 545).

Nolte (2016, 443) goes a step further in analysing the duality of infrastructure, by establishing the politics of infrastructure beyond an instrument of “governance and control” (McFarlane et al. 2008), and as “the site of the political itself”, where the “notions of access, inclusion, exclusion play out and are negotiated”.

Manipulation through inclusive and exclusive planning:

It is in this process of inclusion and exclusion that infrastructure can be observed to become a tool for manipulation. In order to understand this further, De Boeck (2011) discusses the slum settlements of fishermen in Kinshasa in Congo, which were demolished by the state to make way for an elite housing project. According to De Boeck (2011, 272) the state “waged war on these slum dwellers”, who, despite being evicted, supported this act of the state. “Yes, we’ll be the victims, but still it will be beautiful” was the response by one of the fishermen (De Boeck 2011, 278). This serves as perhaps the finest example of understanding state manipulation. In its act of governance and control, the state chooses to exclude a particular group, yet builds a narrative of attainment of a greater good–in this case the construction of a modern and ‘planned’ project. This misleads them into believing their sacrifice would lead to their city’s development, albeit at the cost of their own marginalization. This finds resonance with the observations made by Ghertner (2003) — explained in the next section.

Manipulation through world-class aesthetics:

In addition to planning, it is beneficial to consider how infrastructure can be used as an instrument for manipulation, through aesthetics and vision for a city. Ghertner (2003) refers to this as the “world-class aesthetic”, which according to him, has legally become the parameter to assess urban space in Indian cities.

Building on this framework, Ghertner (2003) asserts that a project in Delhi would most often be declared as a “planned” project, if it simply adheres to the aforementioned “world-class” aesthetics. In addition, he discusses the demolition of a multi-generational slum in the vicinity of the shopping complex after being termed unplanned and illegal, despite being in conformity with the Delhi Master Plan. Ghertner (2003) argues that the slum’s failure to adhere to the world-class aesthetic envisioned for the city, was the motivating factor behind its demolition, regardless of its adherence to the city’s masterplan.

He further discusses this notion in the context of Delhi hosting the 2010 Commonwealth Games, which engendered “highly visible and modern” infrastructure development — financed by funds previously designated for education, public housing and health care. Ramesh (2008) posits that the objective behind this redistribution of funds was the state’s determination to eradicate the “image” of a poverty-stricken India on an international platform. This led to the construction of 25 new fly-overs, two new toll roads leading to Delhi’s high-end districts and demolition of settlements that did not adhere to this state-imposed aesthetic. The important point to consider here is the narrative promulgated by the state, which according to Ghertner (2011) manipulated the slum dwellers into believing that the slums were dirty and spread filth. Observing the internalized impact of the state’s agendas instantiated in Kinshasa and Delhi, it becomes evident how infrastructure can be employed as a tool for political manipulation by the state.

Infrastructures as reinforcers of political agendas:

As discussed earlier, Nolte (2016) highlights the importance of looking beyond the politics of infrastructure and considering infrastructures as sites of “the political” itself. She puts forward the example of the Jerusalem Light Rail (JLR), to establish it as an influential instrument in changing the city’s landscape. She discusses how the JLR was proposed and portrayed by the Jerusalem Municipality as a solution to (i) address the mobility needs of the congested city, (ii) improve interconnectivity in the growing metropolis and (iii) revitalize the declining city centre. However, Nolte (2016, 449) presents the contrary position taken by Palestinian citizens and international NGOs, who perceived the JLR as another step in Israel’s forceful occupation of East Jerusalem.

She further highlights that the role of infrastructure in the production of urban space is a widely discussed urban planning concept and argues in favour of Jerusalem as an apt example of the framework. According to Nolte, Jerusalem is not an exception or a model city — but a “hyper concentration of forces, events and movements to be found in most urban regions in various combinations and assemblages” (2016, 442). She contends that the planning and implementation of the JLR strongly reflects this notion and highlights the Israeli hegemony over the entire city. In doing so, and by stating “politics and the political are always inherent to infrastructure” (2016, 442), she also provides further evidence for infrastructure as an “apparatus of governmentality”, as discussed earlier in this paper.

She further analyses the planning and implementation of the JLR in light of two parameters, namely, (i) its controversial routing and (ii) the naming of its stations — both of which provide a crucial understanding of the process through which infrastructure can become an “apparatus of governmentality”.

Nolte asserts that since the illegal occupation2 of east Jerusalem by Israel, its authorities are striving to plan such urban spaces that would let them maintain control and prevent any future division of the city. She also discusses how the Jerusalem Municipality is controlled by the Israeli State and is constantly working to minimize Arab and increase Jewish influence in the city. She refers to the works of Yiftachel, Chiodelli and Rokem (2016, 445) to explain how the Master Plan developed in 2004, was a further step in the direction to unify the metropolitan areas of Jerusalem as one entity. The JLR was an excellent tool to further this agenda as it was planned to connect West Jerusalem with the Jewish-Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem. The JLR has twenty-three stops, out of which twelve have been built in East Jerusalem, but connect merely three Palestinian neighbourhoods to the travel network. Moreover, it has led to these Palestinian neighbourhoods becoming “peripheral, weakened and marginalized spaces” while providing territorial continuity (Nolte, 2016, 450) to Israeli neighbourhoods. From a critical perspective, she argues that these circumstances strengthen Israel’s “physical grip” on the city.

There are four additional points to consider regarding state intervention through the JLR, which establish the argument further for infrastructure as a site for “the political” to take place.

1. In addition to its routing, the assigning of names to the JLR stops, according to Nolte, was also an inherently political move. She contends that naming is a “political and ideological act”, (Nolte, 2016, 448) which gives the naming authority, the power to define the space. Out of the twelve stops in East Jerusalem, only three were given Arabic names, even though all these stops are part of the of the Palestinian neighbourhood, Shuafat.
2. Nolte further delineates that the Arabic names of these stops have entirely different variations in Hebrew, citing the example of ‘Sheik Jarrah’ in Arabic having a Hebrew equivalent as ‘Giv’at Ha-Tichmoschet’.
3. She further argues that the names of these three stops in Arabic indicate their actual locations; such as South Shuafat, Central Shuafat and North Shuafat. In Hebrew, however, their names are: ‘al-Sahl’, ‘Shuafat’ and ‘Beit Hanina’ respectively, which indicates that the JLR stops in three different Palestinian neighbourhoods; when in reality, it only stops at three points in one single neighborhood. In actual fact, the train does not even go through the area named ‘Beit Hanina’, as it is a predominantly Palestinian neighbourhood and hence disconnected from the JLR route.
4. As a final argument she highlights how the other nine Hebrew names of the stops in East Jerusalem are named after important biblical events or historical sites — but the Arabic names simply indicate their locations. (Nolte 2016)

From these observations, it can be established that the routing of the JLR and the naming of its stations serve as examples of how infrastructure can be used as an instrument to further political agendas. In this case, the routing of the JLR stops provides the Israeli authorities access — which allows more power and control — to the Palestinian neighbourhoods it passes through. Additionally, the assigning of names clearly indicates a reinforcement of the Israeli ‘territorial dominance’ (Nolte 2016) of these neighbourhoods and alters their history and legacy in the favour of an Israeli political agenda.

Conclusion:

This paper examined the role infrastructures may play in manipulating and furthering political agendas through the analysis of three case studies in Mumbai, New Delhi and Jerusalem. The discussion began with Lefebvre’s ideas from 1974 of the city being the locus and outcome of its power relations, which were later used as a lens to examine contemporary urban infrastructures.

Anand’s analysis of the social and technical water infrastructure of Mumbai, provided a deep insight into how infrastructure is used as an instrument of manipulation. In this case, instead of the technical infrastructure, he was more interested in the nexus of social and political relations that become a means for the residents to access water.

As supplement, Ghertner’s analysis of Vasant Kunj in New Delhi and De Boeck’s review of Kinshasa in Congo, assist in understanding the impact of this manipulation on the marginalized communities who are left responsible for this sacrifice. These two case studies raise important questions such as:

(i) Are these infrastructures essential to their respective contexts?
(ii) Who are they serving or intend to serve?
(iii) Are they merely state tools to assert and maintain control and power?

Through Nolte’s research, infrastructures are discussed as sites that set the stage for providing or denying access, facilitating inclusion or exclusion. After analysing the planning and implementation of the JLR, it becomes evident how it was used by the Israeli state to further its political agendas and strengthen control over the conflicted city of Jerusalem. An additional case study that can be further analysed in this regard, is Meehan’s analysis of water infrastructures in Tijuana. She moves past the idea that infrastructures are handy implements used by humans to exercise dominion — toward the notion of tool-power: that objects-in- themselves are wellsprings of power.

In conclusion, the above discussion helps in examining the role of infrastructures through the use of case studies in three cities. A deeper analysis of more cities and can lead to a more comprehensive understanding and globally informed perspective of the relationship between infrastructure and political power.

About the Author:
Fizza Fatima is a Mundus Urbano student from Karachi, Pakistan. She graduated summa cum laude as an architect from NED University of Engineering & Technology. Before joining MU, she was involved in promoting sustainable urban mobility measures in Karachi on a project initiated by Friedrich Naumann Stiftung Pakistan. Having a strong passion for community upliftment, she has collaborated with various NGOs in Pakistan, alongside conducting research with her alma mater on street dwellers in Karachi.

Bibliography: (APA)

Amin, A. (2014). Lively Infrastructure. Theory, Culture & Society, 31(8), 137–161.https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276414548490

Anand, N. (2011). Pressure: The politechnics of water supply in Mumbai. Cultural Anthropology, 26(4), 542–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2011.01111.x

Anand, N. (2015). Leaky states: Water audits, ignorance, and the politics of infrastructure. Public Culture, 27(2), 305–330. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-2841880

Boeck, F. De. (2011). Inhabiting Ocular Ground: Kinshasa’s Future in the Light of Congo’s Spectral Urban Politics. Cultural Anthropology, 26(2), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2011.01099.x

Ghertner, D. A. (2003). Planning without Plans. Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of Being Global, 279–306. Retrieved from http://personal.lse.ac.uk/ghertner/Asher_Ghertners_LSE_Research_Page/Asher_Ghertne rs_Publications_files/Ghertner2011(RuleByAesthetics).pdf

Harvey, D. (2017). The right to the city. Citizenship Rights, 464–482. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315260211

Larkin, B. (2013). The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure. Annual Review of Anthropology, 42(1), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155522

Mazza, L. (2009). Plan and constitution — Aristotle’s Hippodamus: Towards an “ostensive” definition of spatial planning. Town Planning Review, 80(2). https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.80.2.2

McFarlane, C., & Rutherford, J. (2008). Political infrastructures: Governing and experiencing the fabric of the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(2), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00792.x

Khan, N. (2006). Flaws in the flow: roads and their modernity in Pakistan. Soc. Text 24(89):87–113

Meehan, K. M. (2014). Tool-power: Water infrastructure as wellsprings of state power. Geoforum, 57, 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.08.005

Nolte, A. (2016). Political infrastructure and the politics of infrastructure: The Jerusalem Light Rail. City, 20(3), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2016.1169778

Von Schnitzler, A. (2008). Citizenship prepaid: Water, calculability, and techno-politics in South Africa. Journal of Southern African Studies, 34(4), 899–917. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057070802456821