This is an exploratory topic on power and corruption and as such I welcome different takes/views/input on the topic .
Give someone some level of responsibility or power and it will reveal their true colour. Let’s say we’re back a few hundred years ago and you’re the king of some country. Power would be a test of what things you would do if there were no consequence for your actions starting of with simple dishonesty to cruelty towards your fellow man. I believe Henry VIII was such an example.
We cannot know for certain how a person will behave once in a leadership position…there are many examples where power absolutely poisons their sense of truth and justice.
The need for just and fair leaders is always there and in demand the issue is when some seek power for power sake … when they do not relinquish such power the result is usually tyranny and dictatorship and often human rights abuses and pointless wars.
I like the idea of philosopher kings although I don’t think it’s possible to implement in a state … in a corporation perhaps as a director or CEO.
Abuse of power can happen to ceos or even world leaders for reasons such as greed, want of control and influence, maintaining the status quo, conquering others (on large scale can lead to pointless wars).
So I guess what kind of checks would we as a society have to stop abuses of power? It’s easier in a democratic society than a country run by a dictator … after all it takes immense courage to overthrow a putin type when even the smallest dissent can land you in prison.
I find it hard to fathom that even in the 21st century we have corrupted world leaders in charge still the same Henry the VIII running circles around us … is there any hope for us at all when even in a democracy we still elect jerks and idiots ?
@invicta I don’t see how this would change any time soon, or that there is anything about our time that makes it in some way less susceptible than previous eras. I often come at this from two basic questions: Isn’t it often the wrong sorts of people who want to be in charge? Isn’t it often the wrong sorts of people that voters find attractive?
The election of certain types relies on some form of discontent or sentiment rather than say the policy or attribute that a leader should have. Others once in power consolidate their position by oppressing opposition different voices opinions etc.
Rather than being pessimistic I’m hopeful that, better choices can be made about who represents us and of course this relies on the consciousness of the everyday man and woman who elects such an individual to represent them. The everyday joe might be just as misguided as the person whom he choose to elect as long as their values align somehow.
There’s no universal measure of who is fit to lead it’s just a popularity contest, but just because popularity wins doesn’t mean it’s right.
Now that we have internet virtually anyone has a voice to express their beliefs and values. Granted some merely parrot opinions they agree with rather then having their own id like to think we are better then we were a few hundred years ago but observing the current modern world … nothing has really improved sadly
I’m not a pessimist either. How do you think we get to a point where candidates and voters can make a genuine difference? I don’t really follow politics but I have met many politicians through my work. To be a politician is to be compromised and arsefucked by systemic exigencies. It’s an environment that selects for ruthlessness. I often think of the quote: Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote.
At the end of the day it’s the will of the people, or democracy, popular opinion can often be wrong and when it’s enacted by those that have the common man’s interest at heart then this short term gain can cause long term loss. (Brexit here in the UK for example)
Usually when there’s a certain political movement it’s matched by a counter movement. Left, right policies etc.
Did people know what they were doing, or were they manipulated and ignorant about the consequences? I know very little about Brexit. From here, it seems to have been largely about racism.
Not so much in countries where not enough people vote. It’s the will of some people.
Gore Vidal used to make the point that a politician’s job is never to give the game away. This creates an inflexible and appalling outcome for the incumbent. They are trapped from the beginning. But I can see why Trump would be attractive, he’s openly a lying, corrupt sack of shit. This is refreshing, isn’t it?
Mostly mislead and manipulated by playing on their fears. Seems to be a theme not just here but over in the US as well!
In my view a leaders job is to enable society to flourish yet they can be influenced by group think or use the power granted to them for their own agenda.
Did people know what they were doing, or were they manipulated and ignorant about the consequences? I know very little about Brexit. From here, it seems to have been largely about racism.
They were manipulated, but it wasn’t about racism for the majority.
There was historical “Euroscepticism”, immigration issues, “left behind” regions, and media dynamics. I will always remember the young woman who said she wouldn’t have voted leave if she knew it would actually happen. Strange times.
Do you think this is how leadership works in politics?
I’m not confident that a directed concern for people is deeply involved by the time someone can contest a serious role like PM or President. But how knows? A lot of pollies I have met are much better than the material they are given to work with or the situation they are in. Politics itself seems to reduce all situations to a Black Friday sale.
In an ideal world politics leadership etc should increase the overall flourishing of that nation in which it operates or the world. There may be different voices of the public about what constitutes overall happiness which can either be ignored or implemented with the overall goal being long term happiness & flourishing etc. the leaders vision of what the ideal state is may vary from the view of the general populace…and implementing their vision may reduce short term popularity, difficult choices may have to be made etc.
The problem is some leaders may compromise their vision and give in to popular demands of the time. Just to remain ahead in popularity polls. This may be an area where corruption takes place despite the good intentions of the leadership/party etc.
But isn’t this what most people think political leadership should be? Isn’t this why they voted for Trump in the US and Farage recently in the by-election?
The problem with flourishing is that people can’t agree, and will never agree, about what it means or how to get there. This seems fundamentally an irresolvable problem. For some people, flourishing means gay rights, for others it means throwing gay people off tall buildings.
And hence the pertinent need for visionaries and good leadership. They don’t venture into the games of pop politics though they lead their tribe in other areas sometimes commercially or artistically. Yet their voice is loud enough to influence political philosophy or just politics and the general consciousness of that generation. Bob Dylan would be a good example.
Sure there are diverging voices in the general population regarding the direction politics should take but not every voice is equal some may be stupid, racist, ignorant or simply wrong.
You seem to have a " Civic Republican" view of government
By which i mean that you seem to feel that the State exists for the good of the people and the Nation and democracy reflects the general will. Ideas often associated with Rosseau
You might contrast that with “liberal republivan approach”. That government exists to protect the liberties and freedoms of the people. Ideas associated with Thomas Jefferson
I am not going to claim that one is better than the other because both have a role but the balance needs to be right as civic republicanism has an inherent risk of centralisating power and of it being upsurped.