Also: Our letter of the week
May 10th 2026 For subscribers
Opinion
The best of our leaders, columns and guest essays
Triumph and folly
Simon Long
Editor-at-large
When I moved to India in 2002 for a stint as _The Economist_ ’s South Asia bureau chief, one of the first big stories I had to cover was an election in the state of Gujarat. It has coloured my view of Narendra Modi ever since. Earlier that year, there had been terrible rioting in the state, and a vicious pogrom directed at its Muslim minority. Mr Modi was Gujarat’s chief minister at the time, and he and his government were accused of having done too little to stem the bloodshed, and even of having encouraged it. Mr Modi campaigned for re-election as the protector of the state’s Hindu majority against the threat of Pakistan-sponsored Muslim terrorism. It worked: his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) increased its share of seats in the state assembly.
Mr Modi—India’s prime minister for the past 12 years—is again on a roll, as our leader notes this week. After its victory in the state election in West Bengal, the BJP and its allies now run over two-thirds of states and territories, home to 80% of India’s people. The BJP’s popularity stems in large part from a vibrant economy, strengthened by Mr Modi’s willingness to push through welcome reforms, and from a fragmented opposition desperately short of ideas and credible leaders.
There are darker sides to its success, too: a heavy-handed revision of the electoral register, disenfranchising millions; an erosion of the Election Commission’s independence; criminal investigations into the government’s opponents; and an increasingly pliant press. Our leader worries about how the BJP may react if rising energy costs in the next few months start turning voters against it. Might it double down on divisiveness, as it did at the beginning of Mr Modi’s rise to power?
That would be folly. But, as The Telegram points out, that doesn’t rule it out. The column is a sparkling if ultimately depressing catalogue of political own goals scored by current and historic political leaders—from Caligula to Montezuma to Britain’s George III to an array of contemporary blunderers, such as Vladimir Putin, Binyamin Netanyahu and, of course, Donald Trump. It notes that Mr Trump has already earned an entry in the annals of self-harm and that, after the war with Iran, his self-inflicted mistakes may need their own chapter.
Citing the book “The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam”, by Barbara Tuchman, an American historian, The Telegram points out that the important question about rulers’ acts of foolishness is whether they can be blamed on an individual, and so can be fixed by an election or two. Or are they, in effect, systemic and likely to persist even after a change of leader?
My letter of the week is a response to an earlier Telegram column about the links between politics and mass migration, and the argument that one explanation for the resilience in recent years of nasty regimes, from Hungary and Russia to Syria and Turkey, is that pro-democracy liberals who do not like them find ways to emigrate. Professor Francois Melese , of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, suggests that the phenomenon can also be seen in full democracies where one party is persistently in power—and as evidence points to the unprecedented number of people leaving his own home state of California after nearly three decades of one-party rule. He refers to surveys, which list many reasons for leaving beyond just an unresponsive state. But he is surely right that a functioning democracy requires competitive pressures—a truth both Mr Modi and Mr Trump sometimes seem to undervalue.
Or am I being unfair to two elected leaders exercising their popular mandates? Do let us know what you think. Roger McShane will be back at this desk next week and he looks forward to hearing from you, especially with complaints about his stand-in. You can reach us at opinionnewsletter@economist.com.
Leaders
Indian democracy
Narendra Modi’s party is on a roll in India
The BJP has beaten a bad ruler in West Bengal. But India must not become a de facto one-party state
No one should mourn the exit of Mamata Banerjee, ejected by voters in West Bengal, India’s fourth-most-populous state. For 15 years she presided over failure. Though the economy booms nationally, for the 100m people in her state it stagnates. An average Bengali now has an income just half of someone’s in Gujarat, the home of Narendra Modi, the prime minister. Just as bad were Ms Banerjee’s thuggish tendencies. She silenced critics and jailed opponents. Her party ran extortion rackets. Allegedly, its goons sometimes got away with rape. Businesses were forced to pay bungs for land and licences. No wonder many left.
Read the full article →
More leaders
Our cover
The Trump-Xi summit will expose a dysfunctional duo
Mutual vulnerability is no substitute for global leadership
The world must stop AI from empowering bioterrorists
To fight antisemitism, first grasp where it comes from
Europe is unshackling business. But not enough
Columns
The Telegram
America must hope Donald Trump is not a new Caligula
In the annals of rulers committing acts of folly, Roman decadence stands out
The peace of the world is being broken by dunderheads. At every turn economies are being wrecked and lives ended by wars of choice and policy blunders. Strikingly often, these actions were ordered up by rulers and regimes blind not just to common sense and decency, but to their own people’s long-term interests.
More columns
Buttonwood
Can Bill Ackman save the closed-end fund?
An outspoken financier wants to build a modern-day Berkshire Hathaway
Bagehot: One decade, two Britains
Charlemagne: Inside the Brussels deep state
Lexington: The Supreme Court has become a great place to build your brand
Banyan: The case against trees
Free Exchange: The myth of the petrodollar
By Invitation
A bleak view from Moscow
Vladimir Putin is losing his grip on Russia
His every move to preserve power accelerates decay, writes a former senior official in the Russian government
It arrived not as an event but as a sensation, felt everywhere at once: Vladimir Putin has led Russia into a dead-end and nobody has a map for what comes next. The first manifestation is a shift in the language used by senior officials, regional governors and businessmen: they have stopped using the first-person plural when talking about the actions of authorities in the country.
More guest essays
The pact that could help America and China repair relations
The civil-rights activists planned to change the world, not just America
Letters
A selection of correspondence
Why does Britain consistently fail to capture economic returns from innovation?
Also this week, the Marquis de Morès, human rights, voter choice, maths and AI, the Victorians, bald men, eggs
Asia Bulletin
Your guide to politics, trade and tumult in Asia
Get exclusive analysis and colourful dispatches tackling the biggest political, social and economic stories from a vast region
Download our app for iOS and Android
This email has been sent to spence.burleigh@gmail.com because you signed up for this newsletter or because it is included in your subscription.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 236383.
The Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London, WC2N 6HT
View email onlinePrivacy PolicyTerms & Conditions
Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2026. All rights reserved.
This email was sent to: spence.burleigh@gmail.com
This email was sent by: The Economist Newspaper Ltd., The Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London, London, WC2N 6HT, GB