Impact of Power and Statesmen - Research Paper Example

Impact of Power and Statesmen Title: We assume that statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as power, and the evidence of history bears that assumption out Introduction The above quotation exerts that political and governmental actors that have been lifted to statesman classification seek power as their primary motivation or objective. A statesman is defined by the MacMillan Dictionary (2012, p.1) as “an experienced political leader that many respect”. The term is further defined by Merriam-Webster (2012, p.1) as “one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies”. Thus, the basis of understanding the term statesman is akin to political influence or advisory positions that offer opinion and influence to legislative, executive, or even monarchical rulership. Having defined the role, the quotation illustrates that one’s objectives in politics or governance are first and foremost seeking authority, control or other definitions of power rather than necessarily considering the welfare of society as a primary goal. Nonetheless, on the same hand, the political structures that guide legislation and executive control within a society are determined by the specific systems that drive autonomy or consensus as a governing philosophy. For example, the United Kingdom is classified as a parliamentary monarchical democracy in which powers are shared between legislative bodies and the Queen who still maintains considerable executive authority. The People’s Republic of China, in opposite accord, still maintains significant communist values in which various political actors maintain strict regulatory control over business, society and finance, therefore political actors would be expected, by design, to carry significant power simply as a matter of attaining political office. Though, does it necessarily matter what types of governance systems demand rigid compliance to governmental mandates as to whether a political actor would seek power and think along the lines of authority and dominance as a primary goal? The evidence would suggest this is the case. In order to create a stern opinion about the relevance and accuracy of this quotation, various respected knowledge sources in political theory and the nature of democracy must be consulted and analysed. It would be appropriate to suggest that most political actors do seek power as their rationale for attaining statesman status based on impending analyses of literature. Clarifying the quotation’s intent The introduction identified the intent of the quotation as it relates to dominance, control and authority as objectives in the role of statesman. Nevertheless, the author of this quote intends to illustrate that history continues to reinforce that this is, in fact, true and justified by certain historical scenarios. One theory of learning as it relates to strategic thinking identifies that the process of understanding is emergent, meaning that the past is important to justifying a rational statement (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel 1998). If past historical occurrences illustrate a statesman’s tendencies to react and respond as if attempting to satisfy one’s own personal control and dominance objectives and this is repeated throughout history, then this particular quote is well-justified. In World War II, Adolf Hitler who was a respected statesman by many in German society clearly sought personal authority and power as a primary goal. During the Cold War, Russian statesmen continuously reinforced their military dominance through the procurement and development of nuclear technology toward the United States who, at the time period, were not acting significantly aggressive toward the Russian state. With these two scenarios as relevant examples, it is likely the author of the quotation recognised these historical patterns of power and thus believed it was therefore the primary goal of most politically-minded entities in international society. Theories of morality and political governance In order for a true and legitimate democracy to exist, which is the model for the majority of contemporary developed countries, there are seven practical guidelines for political actors to adhere to. These are equality, freedom, accountability for action and intent, trust, openness, transparency of governance and fairness (Barrett 2011). Under the basic premise of democracy, if any of these elements are missing from governance systems and practices, the state must be classified as something other than a democratic society. The basis of a democratic society is a shared authority system, usually governed by a Constitution, that outlines the acceptable behaviours of statesmen and the power that lies in the hands of the voting population. In this case, it is offered that political actors must divest their own objectives for authority and consult with constituency in order to create effective and just legislation and action designed to preserve the statehood and its resources. Under the democratic model of governance, it is suggested that statesmen illustrate the utmost in integrity and morality with a primary focus on preserving the welfare of citizens in the political community. When governing through a multi-tiered consensus-style governance process, the political actor may think along the lines of improving individualised power attainment, but must not illustrate these characteristics for fear of removal of office by the constituency. Therefore, a practical thinker who clearly understands the dimensions of statesman integrity, morality and the systems that demand consensus would find the notion that a statesman seeks power as a main objective to be irrational and quite impossible to attain. As such, one could never theoretically rise to an influential system without first considering broader social welfare. However, it would be necessary to offer several objections to the pragmatist view of democracy that suggest acumen and astute thinking about reality of governance would guide a statesman’s objectives when seeking the role of advisor or political governor. In the real world of governance, statesmen notoriously abandon practicality as a means of using existing systems to deceive or otherwise get away with non-democratic action. In the 20th Century, several domains of political theory arose that described these behaviours, attempting to place rationalisation on the ability of political actors to achieve power whilst still abiding by principles of morality and social welfare. The first of these is classical realism in which a statesman has full knowledge of morality and its demands from constituency, but justifies self-gain or expression of political might as a product of real-life circumstances that occur within the state (Morgenthau 1978). Under this political theory, a statesman would be justified to balance moral and integrity-based thinking and action against the tangible survival of the state and have their objectives justified due to realist philosophy and values. Thus, backed with classical realism, a statesman can achieve power as a primary ambition without necessarily concerning oneself with consequence. Another historical example of this is the development of the Homeland Security Department in the United States. Constructed by the executive branch, a limited power division within a three tiered democracy, managed to convince Congress (the main authoritarian in this government structure) that the needs of the state and its longevity superseded its Constitutional constructs for freedom and transparency (required for a true democratic society). With a supposed lust for higher authority granted to the executive branch, statesmen created a persuasive argument to gain power by legitimate power source allocation that ultimately led to invasion of constituent privacy and curtailing of freedoms to the now-justified and suddenly dominant executive branch. In this case, it was clear that power was the main objective of these statesmen and they were able to avoid consensus as well as openness to attain this goal. The ancient Greek historian Thucydides supported that these types of situations can occur regularly within governance systems when suggesting that conceptions of right versus wrong as it pertains to just governance “have never turned people aside from the opportunities of aggrandizement offered by superior strength” (Woodruff 1993, p.76). The executive branch in the United States managed to exaggerate the legitimate threats to national security and thus enlarged the executive branch role in the legislative process. No clearer, contemporary historical example of questionable ethics and integrity to achieve power can be illustrated than in the development of the Homeland Security agency in the U.S. which serves to justify the quotation absolutely. A more recent school of thought referred to as neo-realism further justifies that power-minded statesman have the justification to abandon democratic principles in the pursuit of power. Neo-realism offers that interdependence (essentially consensus-based systems) is an overly-optimistic view of governance (Donnelly 2000). This school of thought and rationale provides opportunities for interstate dependence to be forsaken in the pursuit of ensuring the longevity of individual states or as a means to simply justify aggressive posturing. Waltz (1979, p.93) supports this concept offering, “Internationally, the environment of states' actions, or the structure of their system, is set by the fact that some states prefer survival over other ends obtainable in the short run and act with relative efficiency to achieve that end”. Again, new theories of thought continue to justify power ambitions as being realistic based on social or political changes that occur as a matter of circumstance. Whether legitimate or not, these accepted modes of thinking seem to negate the personal ambitions for power dominance, but simply state that these are natural human behavioural responses and will occur as the statesman considers longevity of the state or empire against upholding, primarily, constituent freedoms, equality and governance transparency. These schools of thought would seem to create a template by which statesman can abandon broader social welfare ambitions and negate them with achievement of personal desires to improve their authoritarian control or military-based might. There is another, differing school of thought referred to as Constructivism that suggests that governance processes are dictated by the social environment and evolve over time based on changing social dynamics (Wendt 1999). Constructivism would seem to allow statesman to abandon rigid principles of consensus-based leadership by offering justification for power enhancement by suggesting it is necessary to secure the social condition or remove excess liberalisation as a means of returning a state’s society back to long-standing traditionalist values. For instance, some governmental systems are driven by teleology, a religious-based viewpoint that the destiny of states are determined through pre-ordainment and are often divinely-purposed (Doyle 1997). Statesmen who ascribe to teleological philosophy can justify creating a martial law state without consensus agreement in the event of social condition deterioration to return the order of the state back to self-prescribed religious intention and traditionalism. In this case, the ambitions and rationale of the statesman might actually be to gain power over society by expressing might of resources, however the actor justifies this stand through the constructivist school of thought and religious destiny. Outside of these recent philosophies of statesman responsibilities and the reality of governance and social systems, it is also highly recognised that most states do not function as unitary agencies, meaning that either structurally or realistically there is a need for consensus-style governance in order to effectively govern the state and respond to changing circumstances that threaten national security or state longevity (Schweller 2006). According to Markey (1999), formal appeals for enhancement of power in favour of statesmen in a democratic society rarely have the persuasive power to gain public support for agendas. Thus, a realist with discernment would simply abandon self-indulgent beliefs regarding personal power attainment due to the genuine difficulties to foster any type of social support toward these objectives. For societies that are governed by Constitutional law, without the acknowledgement of the people, any such objective is declared unconstitutional and abandoned. Thus, logic and rational thinking would offer that those who seek statesmen status in society already understand the realities of consensus governance and would have abandoned personal power ambitions due to the difficulties associated with gaining multi-source approvals in this pursuit. Aristotle was an individual who believed in the concepts of integrity and morality as political actors and maintained highly negative and suspicious views about the foundations of human behaviour when it comes to seeking power, dominance and authority. However, this philosopher was also a stern realist that seemed willing to abandon his principles on justice versus political injustice to suggest that circumstances often dictate a more aggressive response to secure national welfare or state security. Again, even the historical school of thought would seem to justify the quotation that history always serves to support the notion that statesmen, by design of human nature, find rationale to circumvent consensus as a means of achieving might or authority. The realities of attempted consensus government The international community established the United Nations as a mediating force to assist in securing social liberties and establishing laws that would benefit the needs of a growing global community. It was the product of what is referred to as “idealist political thinking” in which various statesmen could establish order by growing inter-dependencies to attain peace and harmony among nations (Stanford University 2010). However, quite often the United Nations served as a power platform for individuals seeking dominance, using policies and loopholes to explain away aggressive posturing against other nations. In one situation, from 2002, Ambassador Irumba of Uganda stated in response to United Nations interventions, “We are simply asking for fair and equitable rules that would take into account our development needs and allow us to participate fully in the trade system. But instead we risk being pressured once again into accepting rules we don’t need and can’t afford” (Irumba 2002, p.4). The United Nations was denying certain privileges to Ugandan leadership as a means of forcing compliance to rules that were neither relevant nor financially equitable for the country’s needs. This particular statesman recognised that members within the United Nations were utilising its legislative authority improperly and thus protested against power ambitions that were not appropriate for the situation. Even though the UN maintains idealistic inter-dependent ambitions as the justification for its ongoing presence as moderator and lawmaker, members within the organisation found methodology to use law as a means to justify their position to sanction or otherwise compel action that favoured their personal goals. Thus, it would seem that even in a situation or structure designed to facilitate cooperation, human behaviour and the need for personal expression of this might outweigh equity, freedom and fairness in negotiation between international actors. Consociationalism is a type of government most closely associated with the structural dynamics of governance found within the United Nations and similar international governance systems. This guarantees group representation and consensus management with legitimate power-sharing occurring as a matter of representation (O’Leary 2005). However, much like the United Nations and its evolutions over time, consociationalism is closely associated with corporatism whereby ultimately the interests of corporate entities generally supersede the needs of a broader constituency. In contemporary society, those who favour the economic position of corporate entities as statesmen are given privileges for additional power due to close affiliation with those who procure significant financial resources. Even though this particular structure of governance demands consensus-based leadership, its affiliations with corporate power bring about additional power and thus, again, human behaviour takes advantage of this authority and attempts to exploit it whilst abandoning broader social welfare issues. In conjunction, the neoliberalism movement recognises primarily the sovereign rights of corporate businesses in relation to deregulation of business activities, open market construction and free trade (Brenner 2006; Boas and Gans-Morse 2005). A neoliberalist statesman seeks to provide freedom for the economic benefit of corporate asset and wealth accumulation as a primary objective with justification that it supports Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand theory with trickle down effects for social welfare improvements. Nonetheless, the statesman becomes involved with corporate representatives in this process, thus giving himself or herself considerable advantage through association or promise of contributions from these corporate entities. History, too, is littered with neoliberalist parties within government that provide extra incentives to corporations as a primary economic stimulator. Would this be considered akin to the quotation about power as ambition by adopting neoliberalist principles? The evidence would seem to suggest that this is exactly the case since it is often corporate needs and ambitions that ultimately outperform the needs of constituents. Thus, those who pursue power as a matter of personal gratification or even ego-satisfying personality would be able to use neoliberalism as a suitable justification for propelling their own authority or political influence. Assessing the viability of the quote There are simply far too many historical examples of how statesmen justify growth in their own authority using different, accepted schools of political thought and circumstances-based rationale to gain authority. It seems to be an inherent human behaviour characteristic to seek power, control and influence and certain political actors become more adept in finding rationale through the legislation or structures that guide governance to achieve this successfully. The fascist regime of World War II, Cold War politics between the U.S. and Russia and recent events with enhancing executive branch authority through deceptive practices and persuasion clearly indicate that individuals will use systems and influence to gain the upper hand and improve their control positions. Even the United Nations, a system designed to avoid such individualisation of control and authority, finds methodology to exploit other nations to achieve their own ambitions of power over other sovereign leaders and statesmen. The quotation is valid in a variety of ways as it relates to general, recognised human behaviour as well as how history continues to justify its stand. In personal respect, it does seem, based on research evidence examined and analysed, that power is almost always the main objective of statesmen and the quote should be supported fully. Conclusion Regardless of whether the governance systems in a state are designed to foster a more democratic system of shared power, there are many statesmen who understand how to circumvent these processes and regulations in order to enhance their own power and authority within a hierarchy. Any individual who would argue against the quotation should examine the many different schools of thought that justify altering the basic principles of equality, freedom, transparency and trust needed to create a democratic system. Power is, in nearly all cases, the main objective of statesmen and it is well-justified all throughout history. References Barrett, R. (2011), Stages in the evolution of democracy [online] http://www.valuescentre.com/uploads/2012-06 19/Stages%20in%20the%20evolution%20of%20democracy.pdf (accessed July 31, 2012). Boas, T.C. and Gans-Morse, J. (2005), Neoliberalism: from new liberal philosophy to anti-liberal slogan, studies in comparative international development (SCID), 44(2), pp.137-160. Brenner, N. (2006), Cities and geographies of ‘actually existing neoliberalism, Antipode 34(3), pp.349-379. Donnelly, J. (2000), Realism and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doyle, M.W. (1997), Ways of war and peace: realism, liberalism and socialism, W.W. Norton, p.43. Irumba, N. (2002), Ugandan Speech on Sovereignty in the United Nations, South Bulletin 33(15). Merriam-Webster. (2012), Definition of Statesman [online] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statesman (accessed July 31, 2012). MacMillan Dictionary. (2012), Definition of Statesman [online] http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/statesman (accessed July 31, 2012). Markey, D. (1999), Prestige and the origins of war: returning to realism’s roots, Security Studies, 8(4), pp.126-172. Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. And Lampel, J. (1998), Strategy safari: a guided tour through the wilds of strategic management, London: Prentice Hall. Morgenthau, H.J. (1978), Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace, 5th ed. Alfred A. Knopf, pp.4-19. O’Leary, B. (2005), Debating consociational politics: normative and explanatory arguments, in Noel, S.J. From power sharing to democracy: post-conflict institutions in ethnically divided societies, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press, pp.3-43. Schweller, R.L. (2006), Unanswered threats: political constraints on the balance of power, Princeton: University Press. Waltz, K. (1979), Theory of International Politics, London: McGraw-Hill. Stanford University. (2010), Political realism in international studies [online] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/ (accessed August 1, 2012). Wendt, A. (1999), Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woodruff, P. (1993), Thucydides on justice, power and human nature: the essence of Thucydides’ history of the Peloponnesian war, Indianapolis Hackett. Read More