The rationale of power

ELECTION DAY is coming. For the first time in 12 years, the elections here and in the United States will coincide. It is also the first time a presidential election will be held after the rapid rise of social media.

Perusing the comment sections in Facebook, one finds that everyone has a say about who should or should not be the next president. It inspires one to review some fundamental facts about the democratic process, so that some careful reasoning may serve as a guide as to who is truly fit to govern for the next six years.

Politics is by definition the study of power. The nature of leadership lies in the power vested in the leader. But the first thing about power is that, by its very nature, it is a corrupting influence on any individual. Democratic institutions are founded on this premise and are structured to prevent the abuse of power. For instance, power is dispersed through the three branches of government and curtailed further by way of restrictions on terms in office. By this criterion, we may also judge that the most fit to govern is one who is immune to the temptations of power. One who is incorruptible will not be interested in personal glory and wealth. A mind that will not be warped by power may be judged fit to rule.

Thus, power cannot be sought as an end in itself. And one who does so is accused of being thirsty for power. It may be one who will use his or her position to further his or her own power: for example, one who tries to create a personality cult or one who is incapable of self-sacrifice.

At this point, we must ask: To what end do power and position exist? What is the purpose of power? Why do we have to elect a leader in the first place?

The purpose of power is to make efficient the realization of things that benefit the people. Power necessarily concentrates the efforts of the masses through a single will and allows a multitude of minds to attend to a focused set of objectives. It is neutral, by definition, but the objectives or ends for which power is exercised may be judged good or evil, worthy or unworthy.

The basic critique of this aspect of power is available in the caricatures of the totalitarian state, on one extreme, and anarchy, on the other. In a totalitarian state, all powers are concentrated in the hands of a select few or one man. If accorded to a good man, we call it a benevolent dictatorship; if to an evil man, we call it a tyranny. Anarchy, as well, is neither good nor bad. In a commonwealth where all men and women are educated and of good disposition, government is unnecessary and there is justice in the dispersion of power through the people. In the opposite case, when the people are uneducated, anarchy becomes mob rule.

All the paradoxes of democracy consist in the attempt at a compromise between power and its attenuation—that is, to incorporate elements of concentrating and dispersing power that may be in some respect mutually incompatible. And whether one is just or unjust or whether one is to be favored over the other depends on the current state of the people.   In the case that the people are educated and of good disposition, for example, anarchy is arguably just.

Societies evolve constantly, and so the structures of power that best address its needs must adjust accordingly. In rich and well-educated societies, greater individual freedom is achievable and desirable, whereas poorer societies suffer being trapped in cycles of poverty, malnutrition and lack of education. In such a society, individual freedom and meaningful political participation would be close to impossible. These societies are at a point where they need a power that actively seeks to break the cycle of poverty with the ultimate goal of empowering the people to take power for themselves.

If our current society is such where government is necessary, then one aspect of power remains uncontroversial. It is clear that the first criterion for the worthiness of a leader is that he or she must think of and work for the benefit of the people. He or she must empower the people by educating them and attending to their basic needs, such as food and shelter.

While these aspects of power touch on its nature, another one addresses how power is obtained and how it is kept. This is important because it is one thing to deserve power and yet another to actually possess it. This was addressed by Machiavelli. Those admiring his realism and practicality inspired the philosophy of realpolitik, which dominates the practice of politics today.

Given that the noble goal of helping the people is clear, achieving this goal also depends on the leader’s ability to maintain power. And in relation to this, the most controversial claims of this philosophy concerns whether the same moral rules that apply to ordinary citizens apply to a leader. If we will be realistic, then the short answer is “no.”

This is why commoners hate politicians. Because of the very nature of politics, politicians must act contrary to some moral codes. For example, flexibility in honor morality is essential in effectively forming and breaking of alliances. But in this respect, we say the end justifies the means. The noble end that we speak of is uplifting the people.

The second question is to what extent they are allowed to break moral codes. Insofar as the means will not supersede this end, then the means are just.

It’s a minimum requirement for a politician that he or she must be adept at navigating the structures of power. For example, charisma may be important. The uneducated will take charm as real at face value. Those who are clever or with some education will be fixated with its superficiality, while those with basic knowledge in the art of politics understand it as a necessity. In short, a good politician must be able to win his or her place of power. Otherwise, he or she will generate the impression of having abandoned important facts about power. He or she may be deemed unelectable, or a fool, for not understanding the electorate.

To summarize, a leader must be incorruptible and immune to the temptations of power. He or she must, above all, love the people because serving the commonwealth is why power exists in the first place. And he or she must be effective; otherwise, power will escape him or her, and much energy will be wasted to futility. Thus will be the primary basis for supporting one over another.

Mario T. Rosete III, 28, is a math lecturer at the University of the Philippines Diliman.