The 2025 Nobel Peace Prize once again transformed a ceremonial announcement into a political spectacle. On October 11, the Norwegian Nobel Committee honored María Corina Machado, Venezuela’s opposition leader and vocal critic of President Nicolás Maduro. The decision followed a year in which Donald Trump had openly campaigned for the prize, citing his role in the Gaza ceasefire, India–Pakistan border de-escalation, Korean peace talks, and oil diplomacy initiatives as proof of his peacemaking credentials. His rallies and media allies portrayed him as the rightful recipient. When the committee instead chose Machado, and Trump allegedly denounced the decision as “a Western signal dressed as moral judgment,” accusing it of rewarding ideology over achievement. The White House echoed his criticism, while Vladimir Putin dismissed the award as “political theater.” The uproar turned what was meant to be a celebration of peace into a contest over power, legitimacy, and moral authority. This moment raises a broader question: are international awards such as the Nobel Peace Prize merely honors for achievement, or are they strategic instruments used to shape political discourse, influence perception, and legitimize change, writes Prof Dheeraj Sharma, Director, IIM Rohtak.
Past research and media analysis show that awards rarely exist outside politics. They often function as tools to shape narratives, reward allies, and consolidate power. Studies of both cultural and political honors suggest that recognition transforms into influence the moment it enters the public eye. The Oscars provide a striking example. Winning films and acceptance speeches frequently advance social or political messages. From post-9/11 patriotism in The Hurt Locker to racial reconciliation in Green Book and the feminist messaging of Barbie, Hollywood’s biggest stage has long acted as a moral platform.
The same logic operates in diplomacy. The Nobel Peace Prize has often aligned moral prestige with strategic timing. Henry Kissinger’s 1973 award reframed the Vietnam withdrawal of the US forces as a measure for world peace. The 1994 recognition of Yassar Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitchak Rabin lent fragile negotiations the aura of progress. The award merely cemented US desired positions on each side. Barack Obama’s 2009 prize celebrated promise more than results and the award given for symbolic representation of having President from Muslim background. Finally, Narges Mohammadi’s 2023 honor echoed Western support for dissent in Iran and to further Western view on Iran. The Nobel awards have carried messages of peace on a little and but has served more of political convenience. These awards convert recognition into influence and use this soft power to sway public opinion.
The Nobel Peace Prize has often marked moments of political hope rather than confirmed resolution. Scholars identify five interconnected processes that explain how recognition becomes authority: 1) agenda amplification, where global attention centers on a single moral actor; 2) symbolic personification, which turns abstract ideals into an identifiable hero; 3) normative legitimization, when symbolic approval becomes moral authority; 4) network diffusion, as institutions and audiences align around the endorsed figure; and 5) structural endorsement, which embeds symbolic credibility into diplomacy and policy. These stages, drawn from symbolic interactionism and Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital, show how belief converts recognition into power. Awards thus act as mechanisms of social reproduction, translating prestige into influence.
Sociologists call this the Matthew Effect, where recognition multiplies visibility rather than redistributing it. The Nobel Peace Prize, therefore, amplifies rightfulness of the recipient and his/her views. Thereby, peddling a push to their agenda on that side. These theoretical dynamics contrast sharply with the prize’s founding philosophy. Alfred Nobel originally conceived the Peace Prize as a recognition of genuine reconciliation and the reduction of armed conflict. His intent was moral and humanitarian, not performative, yet over time the award’s spirit has shifted from rewarding peace achieved to symbolizing peace desired.
The prize derives its influence as much from timing as from symbolism. Behind this moral authority stands a small Norwegian committee. Appointed by Norway’s parliament, its five members deliberate in private, with records sealed for fifty years. Each year, their decision captures global attention as media outlets, governments, and international organizations quickly echo the committee’s language, treating it as moral truth. This dynamic reflects what communication theorists call agenda-setting: the ability to influence not just how and how much people think, but what they think about. By spotlighting one cause, the prize lessens others, determining which struggles appear urgent and which must fade from view. Its power lies not in its monetary value but in its capacity to organize global attention around a curated narrative of virtue on a matter that Norwegian Committee deems virtuous.
Yet this symbolic authority does not end with the announcement; it evolves through media cycles that determine whether visibility turns into lasting legitimacy. Researchers note that, much like major cultural awards, the Nobel generates both a nomination effect and a winning effect. The initial announcement produces a surge in visibility, funding, and diplomatic recognition, followed by either decline or consolidation depending on sustained storytelling or strategic action usually by or on behest of those interest. When coverage fades, legitimacy weakens; when it continues, symbolic influence solidifies into political authority. Through the lens of signaling theory, recognition communicates trustworthiness and moral credibility. In this way, the Nobel functions as a narrative multiplier, transforming symbolic acclaim into policy relevance and moral capital into material power.
Empirical studies show that media framing determines real-world impact. Different media systems construct competing storylines, some celebratory and others skeptical, shaping how the world interprets the award. Supportive framing strengthens moral authority while critical framing undermines it. This aligns with media constructionism, which holds that legitimacy is produced through repetition and consensus. Each retelling of the Nobel story by journalists, diplomats, or NGOs reinforces belief in the laureate’s virtue. The results are measurable. When laureates are portrayed heroically, donations, and diplomatic engagement often rise. For instance, our content analysis of global news coverage on the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner, conducted using NVIVO across twenty major newspapers, reveals several prominent narrative themes. The analysis indicates that the most frequently emphasized narratives are: 1) “Venezuela suffers under a dictatorship,” 2) “The Venezuelan people are enduring hardship,” 3) “Machado is in opposition to Trump,” 4) “Machado is the true leader of the Venezuelan people,” and 5) “Machado has endured significant personal struggle”.
Collectively, the results of our analysis demonstrates that the aforementioned narrative strengthens the image of Machado and could further her credentials to be the President of Venezuela. Also, the narrative also presents her: 1) as a world leader, 2) someone who has the backing of major powers, 3) as a neutral candidate as she contested and defeated Trump, and 4) she is the rightful leader. Reality may be far from this. The Peace Prize therefore operates as both mirror and mechanism: it reflects moral hierarchies and empowers those already legitimized by through the prize. Below is a table that demonstrates the aforementioned contentions in detail:
| Year | Laureate(s) | Context / Controversy | Narrative Outcome | Reality |
| 1973 | Henry Kissinger, Lê Đức Thọ | Awarded for Vietnam ceasefire; Lee Duc Thọ refused due to ongoing war | The award was framed as a triumph of diplomacy, transforming the disastrous Vietnam War into an emblem of American-led peacebuilding. Kissinger’s recognition recast a military failure as a moral and strategic victory, portraying the U.S. as a responsible global power-seeking reconciliation. | In reality, the war raged on, and no meaningful peace was secured at the time. Lê Đức Thọ’s refusal of the award itself exposed the hollowness of the claim. The U.S. withdrawal was not a peace accomplishment as genuine stability came only years later, well after American influence had waned. |
| 1991 | Aung San Suu Kyi | Under house arrest as symbol of Myanmar’s pro-democracy movement | The award elevated Aung San Suu Kyi as a global moral icon of non-violence and the true voice of Myanmar’s democratic struggle. It framed her as the embodiment of peaceful resistance against military oppression and the rightful leader destined to restore freedom in Burma. | When in power, Suu Kyi governed in uneasy alignment with the military, compromising core democratic ideals. Her tolerance of military influence revealed the dissonance between her global image and political reality. |
| 1994 | Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin | Oslo Accords amid unresolved Israeli–Palestinian tensions | The award celebrated the Oslo Accords as a landmark breakthrough, portraying peace as achieved and mutual compromise as a historic victory. It framed Israel as having conceded significantly, while Palestinians were seen as gaining political recognition and a pathway to statehood. | In practice, the peace was largely symbolic, with core conflicts unresolved and violence resuming soon after. The award legitimized a fragile and unequal process, leaving Israel’s position largely unchanged and Palestinian aspirations unfulfilled. |
| 2006 | Muhammad Yunus & Grameen Bank | Celebrated for microfinance revolution; later governance disputes | The award hailed Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank as symbols of Bangladesh’s social progress and poverty eradication through microfinance. Yunus was portrayed as a visionary leader whose model empowered the poor and sparked a grassroots economic revolution. | Over time, Yunus’s work became mired in controversy, with mounting criticism over exploitative debt cycles and limited long-term impact. Governance disputes and political tensions further clouded the idealized narrative of inclusive development. |
| 2009 | Barack Obama | Early presidency, no major peace achievement | The award projected Barack Obama as the global face of hope, dialogue, and renewed diplomacy, symbolizing a break from the militarized past. It portrayed the West as reconciliatory toward the Muslim world and positioned Obama as the moral leader of a new international order. | At that time, Obama had achieved no substantive peace milestones. The recognition was largely anticipatory, serving to legitimize Western leadership renewal rather than reflect concrete accomplishments, and it occurred amid widespread misinformation campaigns, including unfounded claims about his religious identity. |
| 2010 | Liu Xiaobo | Imprisoned Chinese dissident; China condemned the award | The award to Liu Xiaobo was framed as a powerful statement of moral courage and defiance against authoritarianism. It reinforced the Western narrative of standing for universal human rights and positioned Liu as a symbol of peaceful resistance in China. | In practice, Liu remained imprisoned, and China denounced the award as political interference. Rather than fostering reform, it deepened the East–West divide and hardened Beijing’s stance on dissent. |
| 2017 | ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons) | Awarded amid U.S.–Russia arms treaty tensions | The award to ICAN was presented as a moral stand against nuclear proliferation, signaling hope for a disarmed and safer world. It positioned civil society as a unifying force capable of pressuring nuclear powers toward restraint amid escalating U.S.–Russia tensions. | Despite the symbolic value, the award produced little tangible progress toward disarmament. Major powers continued to modernize their arsenals, rendering the gesture largely normative rather than transformative. |
| 2023 | Narges Mohammadi | Imprisoned Iranian activist amid regime crackdown | The award highlighted Narges Mohammadi as a symbol of moral courage and resistance against Iran’s oppressive regime. It projected solidarity with human rights defenders and reinforced the narrative of global support for democratic activism. | In practice, there was no tangible shift in Iran’s political landscape. The award primarily sustained the Western framing of resistance without altering the regime’s policies or power structures. |
| 2025 | María Corina Machado | Venezuelan opposition under sanctions; oil-rich economy in flux | The award positioned María Corina Machado as a principled defender of democracy and a credible alternative to the current regime, suggesting moral legitimacy for her leadership. It served as a possible cue for Western policy realignment and framed engagement with Venezuela as ethically justified. | In reality, the recognition is largely strategic, tied to Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, and serves more to legitimize Machado’s potential presidency than to reward democratic achievements. |
Table 1 Nobel Peace Prizes reflecting political context and symbolic legitimacy over concrete peace outcomes.
Each award helps construct what peace means in its era, usually echoing dominant strategic narratives of world powers rather than transcending them. This dynamic illustrates what communication scholars call the media-event effect, where exposure of media messages results in changes in cultural norms and political positions. These symbolic acts generate emotional consensus and the illusion of progress. The 2025 recognition of María Corina Machado fits this pattern. Arriving amid shifting oil alliances and sanctions fatigue, it reframed Venezuela’s opposition as a moral and rightful giving a push to it claim for administration change. Present oil market has witnessed OPEC production cuts, rising pressure for stability oil supplies, and advancement of new trade corridors. Venezuela is the center-stage of global oil market as it has one of largest oil reserves in the world. Peace prize is possibly an attempt to coincide the democratic advancement with real economic interests. By elevating Machado’s moral image, the Nobel encouraged a discourse of ethical re-engagement, allowing international governments to justify future sanctions or actions.
Media reactions deepened these divisions. Western outlets celebrated Machado as a reformist hero, while Latin American media questioned whether the award reflected solidarity or soft intervention. The Nobel Prize thus functions as an instrument of persuasion disguised as celebration, transforming political alignment into moral consensus. Beneath the spectacle lies deep rooted corporate fronted economic interests. Far too often, Nobel Laureates are celebrated as heroes by the citizens of their native country but later their political compromises become an act of betrayal.
In the recent years, gaining strength is the argument that the Nobel Peace Prize, while claiming neutrality, operates within a framework of Western moral dominance. Its five-member Norwegian committee, appointed by parliament and bound by fifty years of secrecy, concentrates global moral authority in hand of a selected few. This structure sustains what theorists describe as normative hegemony, the alignment of moral legitimacy with Western diplomatic ideology, and what sociologist Raewyn Connell calls epistemic colonialism, where global recognition follows Western definitions of virtue. Critics warn that without reform, the prize risks functioning as a symbolic extension of power rather than a measure of universal peace. Therefore, transparency, diversity, and independent evaluation will probably diminish the rising view of existing moral monoculture and restore genuine pluralism.
In the digital age, the Nobel Peace Prize no longer merely commemorates; it broadcasts. Each announcement ignites a global wave of headlines, hashtags, and commentary that transform symbolic recognition into ideological performance. When political figures such as Trump or Putin react, the spectacle widens, and peace becomes only a trending content. Digital media amplify emotion faster than reflection, turning the award into a prearranged real-time referendum on power and virtue. Does honoring Aung San Suu Kyi’s defiance, Rabin’s handshake, or Obama’s promise of renewal reflects end of struggle or the politics of hope? By continually celebrating those aligned with dominant power structures, the Nobel reinforces a moral hierarchy that mirrors geopolitics more than it transcends it. To remain true to Alfred Nobel’s vision of peace through reconciliation rather than reputation, the prize must reclaim its universal spirit and speak not for the powerful, but for the world it was meant to unite.
The author is professor and director of Indian Institute of Management, Rohtak, India.
**View expressed are personal. Research assistance was provided by Hrithvik B. and HK Sharma from IIM Rohtak.
Share this article:
