When a group of people make decisions through a process that involves authority and power through social relations; that is politics and it comes with ethics. And political power is said to be that type of power that arrogates the administration of most public resources if not all to a group in a society and that resources includes labor and wealth.
When a group of people make decisions through a process that involves authority and power through social relations; that is politics and it comes with ethics. And political power is said to be that type of power that arrogates the administration of most public resources if not all to a group in a society and that resources includes labor and wealth.
One additional fact in political power is the power to coerce others within the society to accept the control wielded by the group with political power ostensibly under the guise of enforcing the laws of the land. Power is different from influence. Macmillan I.C. enumerates both when he defines Power as “…the capacity to restructure actual situations.” And defines influence as “…the capacity to control and influence the perceptions of others.”
Without visiting the rhetoric of other forms of government because Democracy has rendered them effete and unattractive to civilized minds, the assumption of this discourse will be Democracy especially in its ideal form that guarantees human freedom and its elastic capacity to accommodate the views and opinions in a “give and take” spirit among contending groups.
If Democracy is therefore the setting for this discourse, it naturally means that Influence is a precursor to Political Power in a process.
When a politician seeks to control and influence the perceptions of others with intent to grab political power in order to administer most of public resources including labor and wealth as stated earlier on, he or she relies mainly on ethics as a strong pedestal upon which to convince others.
Thus, ethics is germane in quest for political power. Ethics is no more in meaning than Morality but just that as Jovito R. Salonga postulated, Ethics have a spiritual dimension of “Do unto others what you would like others to do unto you.” Unfortunately, Ethics which ideally should be inseparable in the quest for political power through the process and mechanism of democracy is what is lacking in all parts of the world regardless of whether it is enduring or oldest democracies.
In order to appreciate the rot in the system, and the cynicism and distrust among members of the societies in different parts of the world due to lack of ethics among political power seekers, we may have to refer to some quotations to buttress the harsh realities of crooked democracies. To
start with, let us revisit the observation of that great teacher, Mahatma Gandhi who said many years ago that the first evil of the century he was commenting on was “politics without principle.” J.R. Salonga also observed that politics is a field where “…self interest, treachery, double speaking, trickery and lack of candour are the prevailing trademarks…”
Other damning condemnations of politics are not in short supply: Jonathan Swift who authored ‘Gulliver’s travels’ defines politics as ‘…nothing but corruptions.” George Orwell on his part says “Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful … murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” H.L Mencken, an essayist observes that “If experience teaches us anything at all, it teaches us that a good politician, under democracy, is quite an unthinkable as an honest burglar.”
Many opinions condemn operators of or partisans in democratic politics, but not Democracy as an Ideal or a Doctrine.
The process of assuming political power starts from the intention of an individual or group of individuals, (please note that we are appropriating our discourse only on Democracy and not any other form of government), and lies, deceit and dissimulation are embedded right from the
onset of the quest for political power. The first treachery starts with the so called “plastic smiles” (pretentious smiles) to potential field workers and foot soldiers who are made to see a warm and pleasant personality in a potential aspirant. He or she portrays a generous outward humility, tolerance and agreement with all shades of field workers who hitherto would not have been privileged to step their feet into his or her high brow residence.
From that stage he goes to the next stage of dusting potential damaging pasts with intent to hide or at least manage for damage control from potential opponents. Such opponents are not also free from some hideous pasts but it is just a matter of who blinks first. More often than not, most aspirants are far from God and Godliness, yet they profess God’s supremacy and pretend Godliness.
Every aspirant will start to undermine the others and vice versa in a desperate attempt to attain victory and that even happens in intra-party’s contest.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
Whoever emerges victorious in intra-party struggle for supremacy will extend all the “vices” and even add more to assail equally victorious inter party contenders and vice versa. A challenger will attack every act of an incumbent and incumbent will take every advantage to undermine the prospects of a challenger especially if the incumbent is re-contesting.
At times or more often than not, a candidate emerges from
the resolution of an interest group who provides all the finances to prosecute the election but definitely not a “free dinner”, it must be predicated on something or everything in return most especially the continued sustenance of economic hegemony of a few over many. And it is on the assumption of this hegemony theory that two political scientists, Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz argued that it is too simplistic to submit that decision making is the source and main indicator of power, rather, they argued is “agenda setting by elites who worked in the backrooms and away from public scrutiny in order to exert their power upon society.” In the same vein, Steven Lukes, a British academic added a third when he asserted that the dimension of power entails “preference shaping” as an important aspect of normative power in politics… similar to notions of cultural hegemony.”
To further buttress the collapse or put in another way, the defeat of ethics in politics, Jack N. Anderson, a celebrated American newspaper columnist and indeed adjudged one of the fathers of modern investigative journalism, due to his understandings of inner workings of government and the desire for power by those who are interested affirmed that “Honest men will lie, decent men will cheat for power.”
The above adumbrations are the realities in today’s world of politics but definitely not the idealistic notion of politics, power and democracy. The question now is if the most time tested best form of government-Democracy- is predicated on zeroethics even in civilized countries of the world, what are the chances of survival for world peace and entente (understanding) not premised on balance of terror?
We may go down memory lane to assess the leaders in different parts of the world both former and current and we can start from the world greatest or time tested democracies. In the United States of America, we have had Nixon’s scandal; Ronald Reagan government’s Irangate’ scandal, George Bush Jnr.government’s embellishment of truth for justification of military onslaught against Iraq, Clinton’s moral lapses in Monica Lewinsky’s scandal and Obama not living up to expectations of taking on special and corporate interests in the United States.It was this same United States whose governments have been indicted of sending suspects to Gadhafi’s Libya for torture, a clear case of double standard and pretences.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government in Britain was also culpable in Iraq’s attack on the basis of reinforcing the belief of his people in nonexistent weapons of mass destruction allegations leveled against late Saddam Hussein’s government. In some cases, seemingly innocuous as some actions and inactions of governments and the leaders of governments may appear, apart from honest mistakes which are very rare, they can be causes of dire consequences; such large scale bloodletting of innocent people, large scale destructions of physical, cultural and cherished structures, global tension and uncertainties.
The likes of Chairman Mao Zedong of China argued that Political power grows from the barrel of a gun, but Friedrich Nietzsche submitted that “Democratic contrivances are quarantine measures against that ancient plague, the lust for power: as such, they are very necessary and very boring.” Definitely Nietzsche’s submission is the new world wisdom against the law of the jungle in a human society which Democracy as a form of government is intended to correct. We may therefore ask, what really is Democracy? Or what is the Ideal Democracy? The elementary definition that will most emanate from most people is the famous definition by Abraham Lincoln, “Government of the people, by the people and for the people.” However, we can expatiate further if we consider the origin of the word from the Greek city states, (Athens) said to have emanated in the middle of 5th-4th century BC and as aftermath of a popular uprising against a political system.
Utopia Democracy is supposed to guarantee equal say of all people in the decisions that affect their lives and this was secured by way of indirect representations by parliament or legislative assembly. In those days of the Greek democracy, it could have been possible for all to assemble and decide by direct representation but in today’s world with huge population in every country, it would have been unwieldy for people to assemble, hence the election of representative to represent constituencies. Democracy is also supposed to thrive on the basis of equality before the law; in addition, it is supposed to recognize social, economic and cultural conditions for unfettered political self determination. Sadly however, the defeat of ethics as an integral aspect of Democracy has pulled the rugs off the feet of Ideal Democracy worldwide. Suffice to say Democracy is inchoate without Ethics or Morality.
In history, only very few leaders have taken ethics to government
and have come out with it. George Bush senior acted within the mandate to free Kuwait earlier invaded by Iraq. In my own continent, Nelson Mandela, as president of post apartheid South Africa never fell into the temptation to seek vengeance from his erstwhile persecutors when he had the opportunity to do so, he did not seek to rule for ever, despite his popularity and Mandela had the moral clarity to divorce his wife, Winnie who though despite her struggle with her husband and others for a free South Africa, was found to have been morally compromised. Julius Nyerere of Tanzania was another who led with ethics as his second religion as he went into government a modest man and left a modest man. Had the modern world been privileged to have the likes of Mandela of South Africa, Nyerere of Tanzania, Jean Chrietien of Canada, perhaps the World History would have taken a different course. Iraq would not have been misruled by a character like Saddam Hussein, Muamer Gadhafi would not have subjected his country to avoidable war, my beloved country Nigeria would have moved far beyond a situation where some brainwashed but unfortunate citizens would accept to tie bomb on their bodies with intent to cause mass murders.
The challenge before new generation political scientists and indeed futuristic scholars is how to redefine the processes and practices of Democracy in such a way that sanctions against breach of ethics should be enough deterrence among political leaders who use deception, toxic charisma and sophism to advance self and cabal’s interests in government. The world can be made a better place; it starts with human interrelations based on “Don’t do unto others as you would not want them to do to you.”
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });