Why we must save institutions that whisper moderation into our society

Bangladesh has long depended on quiet, steady forces that make good choices feel natural: teachers who turn study into habit, newspapers that promotes tolerance, and cultural bodies that rehearse pluralism in public life. Behavioural economists Richard H Thaler and Cass R Sunstein call these "nudge" forces that shape the choice architecture so people lean towards better options without coercion. Nudge theory accommodates both liberalism and paternalism because liberalism alone cannot create good habits. In a country where formal systems—especially education—are uneven and people are time‑pressed, nudges are practical nation‑building tools that can create an informed and inclusive society.

Everyday decisions are influenced as much by defaults, framing, and social cues as by deliberate reasoning. Our brain operates through two systems: automatic and reflective. Our mother tongue flows from the automatic system, while speaking another language requires reflective effort. When we act from the reflective system, caution replaces instinct. Thaler and Sunstein's framework draws on this dual‑process psychology: keep good choices in the automatic system while respecting individual freedom.

For decades, mainstream newspapers and secular cultural organisations have played this role and helped shape civic norms in Bangladesh. Publications like The Daily Star championed merit and fairness, often through reporting on education and stories that fostered social harmony. Cultural institutions such as Chhayanaut advanced pluralism through music and performance, reinforcing secular ideals. These efforts formed part of the behavioural architecture of a democratic society.

Individual citizens often lack the capacity to make better choices alone. This is where wealthy countries intervene and surround their citizens with invisible nudges; in poorly educated societies like ours, these institutions are fewer. Unlike welfare states, our government makes limited attempts to build such architecture. Only a handful of media and cultural organisations shoulder this responsibility.

That architecture is now being dismantled by social media. Engagement‑optimised feeds give more weight to outrage and attention-grabbing content over accuracy and balance, systematically amplifying polarising content. Uncritical platforming normalises extreme statements by inflating perceptions of societal support. In Bangladesh, extremist campaigns mobilise online and spill offline into harassment or attacks on media and cultural organisers. Their goal is not only intimidation—it is to delegitimise the institutions that anchor shared norms.

Recent mob attacks on The Daily Star, Prothom Alo, and cultural centres including Chhayanaut mark a dangerous escalation. Arson and vandalism against these spaces are not just violence against property—they are assaults on Bangladesh's traditional "nudge" institutions. These organisations have long shaped social, cultural, and educational norms, making moderation and pluralism the default experience of civic life. In an age dominated by misinformation and outrage-driven algorithms, their role is more critical than ever. Protecting these institutions is not optional; it is a prerequisite for safeguarding the behavioural architecture of a democratic society.

Secular content creators have tried to counter hate with facts on Facebook, YouTube, and short‑video platforms. But the playing field is tilted: algorithms reward heat, not light. "Civility" nudges on platforms struggle to reduce engagement with harmful posts, even if they boost attention to harmless content. That is worthwhile, but it rarely beats virality engineered for rage. Secular content creators have not shown success in cooling down the mob created by extremist content creators.

Should secular voices abandon social media, then? Not entirely—but they must stop treating it as the main battlefield. Secular actors who anchor their strategy on platforms built for engagement are effectively playing away, under hostile referees. Moreover, outperforming social media influencers in traditional media is easier for secular and informed voices. No powerful influencer has succeeded in traditional media with a few exceptions. In most cases, they fail to create knowledge and turn to social media that rewards shallow provocation.

Our Bangalee culture has long been upheld by cultural activities, but their scope has shrunk in the age of social media. Extremists exploit this vacuum to spread hate speech online. Secular activists cannot match this reach through cultural events alone. The good news: institutions like The Daily Star, Prothom Alo, and Chhayanaut remain relatively credible and capable of reaching the masses. They uphold our cultural identity and sense of independence. We must save them.

In Bangladesh, we have fought hard for the political aspect of democracy, but rarely for its cultural dimension. Democracy cannot be smooth or sustainable unless political democracy aligns with its prerequisite cultural democracy. Bangladesh's independence movement in 1971 was a long journey towards that alignment—but we have struggled to hold it. Today, Bangladesh faces a severe deficit of cultural democracy and is mired in an environment of cultural authoritarianism. At times, we defeated cultural authoritarianism while tolerating political authoritarianism; at other times, we fought political undemocratic forces by enforcing cultural intolerance. This cycle must end. We need to defeat both simultaneously. That is why traditional "nudge" institutions are essential—not only to sustain democracy but to deepen it.

The smarter move? Stop treating social media as the main stage. Use it tactically, not existentially. Reinvest in the quiet infrastructure—mainstream media and cultural forums—that once made decency the default. These spaces still command trust, reach, and depth. They can inoculate society against the rage economy.

If we want pluralism to remain Bangladesh's everyday common sense, the answer is not to shout louder on an outrage machine. It is to protect and strengthen the institutions that whisper moderation into our civic life. Because when the quiet guardians fall, the noise will rule.

Altaf Russell  is a PhD researcher in Economics at the University of Glasgow in United Kingdom. He can be reached at [email protected].

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.