Normal parliamentary rule works by balancing force and consent, with corruption bridging them

Evidence

The ‘normal’ exercise of hegemony on the now classical terrain of the parliamentary regime is characterised by the combination of force and consent, which balance each other reciprocally, without force predominating excessively over consent. Indeed, the attempt is always made to ensure that force will appear to be based on the consent of the majority, expressed by the so called organs of public opinion newspapers and associations which, therefore, in certain situations, are artificially multiplied. Between consent and force stands corruption/fraud (which is characteristic of certain situations when it is hard to exercise the hegemonic function, and when the use of force is too risky). This consists in procuring the demoralisation and paralysis of the antagonist (or antagonists) by buying its leaders —either covertly, or, in cases of imminent danger, openly in order to sow disarray and confusion in his ranks. In the period following the World War, cracks opened up everywhere in the hegemonic apparatus, and the exercise of hegemony became permanently difficult and aleatory. — Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, 1952

Categorization

• XREF: The force/consent/corruption triad is the canonical model of hegemony that Islamophobia scholars invoke when analyzing how state racism combines police exclusion with manufactured public opinion; connects forward to Said’s Orientalism and studies of media representation of Muslims.
• DEFINE: Defines the core mechanism of hegemonic rule in parliamentary regimes: force legitimated by manufactured consent, with corruption/fraud as the intermediate technique.