“Power was my weakness and my temptation.” —J.ft. Rowling “What is the cause of historical events? Power. What is power? Power is the sum total of wills transferred to one person. On what condition are the wills of the masses transferred to one person? On condition that the person express the will of the whole people. That is, power is power. That is, power is a word the meaning of which we do not understand. ” —Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
“Weknowthat no one everseizespowerwiththe intention of relinquishingit.” —George Orwell, 1984 “The object of terrorism is terrorism. The object of oppression is oppression. The object of torture is torture. The object of murder ismurder.The object of power is power.Now do you begin tounderstandme?” —George Orwell, 1984 “Youcan do anything and smash anything in the world with akopeck.” —Nikolai Gogol “What power has lawwhere only money rules?” —Petronius
“Everywhere the weak execrate the powerful, before whom they cringe; and the powerful beat them like sheep whose wool and flesh they sell.” —Voltaire
“Power is not a means; it is an end.” —George Orwell
“Power gradually extirpates from the mind every humane and gentle virtue.” —Edmund Burke “The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.” —Edmund Burke “Power hasonlyone duty -- to securethe social welfare of the People.” —Benjamin Disraeli “Power, like a desolating pestilence, —Shelley
Pollutes whate’er it touches”.
“It is excellent
To have a giant’s strength But it is tyrannous
To use it like a giant” —William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure “Power lacks morals or principles. It only has interests.” —Horacio Castellanos Moya “Tyranny is a habit, it has its own organic life, it develops finally into a disease. The habit can kill and coarsen the very best man or woman to the level of a beast. Blood and power intoxicate ... the return of the human dignity, repentance
and regeneration becomes almostimpossible.” —Fyodor Dostoyevsky
“Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appearto havethem. AndI shalldare to say thisalso,that to have themandalways toobservethemis injurious, and that to appear to have them is useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite.”
—Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince
“The measure of a man is what he does with power.” —Plato We begin the discussion on power with definitions of a few important terms. The term ‘political’ refers to all those practices and institutions which are concerned with government.
Power is the ability to get others to do what you want. Power can take many forms, from brute
force to subtle persuasion. The term regime means any government. Authority refers to the ability of the government to exercise power without resorting to violence. A government which
enjoys legitimacy tends to have a high level of authority. Its citizens usually obey the law because they think it is right to do so not because they are afraid of punishment. If people generally accept the political decisions taken by government, it is said to have legitimacy. A government is regarded as legitimate if the citizens think that it is right, lawful and proper for government to hold power. Loss of legitimacy seriously undermines the power of government.
In one way, the whole of political science can be said to be about political power. Bertrand Russell considers power as the fundamental concept of all social science. However, we need not concern ourselves with the whole subject of power. For our purposes, we need to briefly consider the relation between power and morality. Power takes many forms such as political, economic, social and religious. Most of political and economic power in modern nations is concentrated in governments. Governments are headed by political leaders who wield power and determine policies in various spheres.
The problem connected with political power is how to deploy or limit it to prevent or minimize oppression of people, how to secure the minimum individual rights of people, and how to ensure their welfare. The exercise of arbitrary power by rulers against people has always troubled political thinkers and philosophers from ancient times. They advocated that kings or rulers should be virtuous, kind and considerate to people. But their pleas usually fell on deaf ears.
Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero were all political idealists who believed that there are some universal moralvaluesonwhichpoliticallifecouldbe based.ThisviewreceivedsupportlaterfromChristianity. Till Machiavelli’s times, political thinkers generally believed that politics, including the relations among states, should be grounded in morality, and that the methods of warfare should remain subordinated to ethical standards. Notwithstanding such advocacy from political thinkers, the actual conduct of rulers was generally immoral.
Later, Niccolo Machiavelli discarded political idealism in favour of political realism. Machiavelli has acquired an unsavory reputation as a cynical theorist of realpolitik who believes that the end always justifies the means. His ideas are to be found in The Prince, which is an advice to rulers on acquiring and retaining power. Machiavelli is the first modern political thinker. The medieval scholars tried to consider how politics and the State can be fitted into the divine scheme of things. Machiavelli examined the manner of organizing and preserving power.
Machiavelli is in fact a patriot and republican. He says: “It cannot be called virtue to kill one’s fellow citizens, betray one’s friends, be without faith, without pity, and without religion; by these methods one may indeed gain power, but not glory.” He adds that “it isnecessary for a prince topossess the friendship of the people.” As regards power, he says that it is “more proper togo to the real truth of the matterthan to itsimagination;and many have imagined republics and principalities which have never been seen or known to exist in reality;for how we live issofarremovedfromhowwe ought tolive,that he whoabandonswhat is doneforwhatought tobe done,will rather learn to bring about his own ruin than his preservation.” He cautions against blind and imprudent pursuit of unrealistic ideals. Machiavelli mentions that good men will perish in a society full of evil doers. Later the German statesman Bismarck expressed similar sentiments: “It is the destiny of the weak to be devoured by the strong.” Some things which seem virtues, if followed, will lead to one’s ruin; and some things which seem vices, if followed, result in one’s greater security and well–being. Machiavelli also says that princes need not necessarilykeep theirpromises.
Such views ran counter to common moral prescriptions. Divergent views always prevailed on the question of acquiring and retaining power. Many thinkers believe that it is difficult to access and retain power without sacrificing moral principles. There are also other leaders like Gandhi, Lincoln and Nelson Mandela who emphasise that exercise of power has to be regulated by idealism. Going back to ancient Indian history, we may note that Kautilya’s Arthasastra contains many prescriptions that sound Machiavellian. As a counter–example, we may recall that under the influence of the Buddhist concept of dharma, Asoka attempted moralization of political power.
Political theorists arguedthat kings or other rulers cannot exercise unchecked or absolute powers over people. Rulers should not become despotic and oppress people since their powers are derived from people. Hobbes, Rousseau and Locke developed the theory of social contract. These writers, ignoring the differences between their theories, mention that men lived in a state of nature before the emergence of government. In this state, they lacked security, civic facilities and means of developing trade and commerce. To secure these benefits, they seceded part of their rights and powers to the rulersthrough a social contract. Incidentally, social contract is one of the theories of origin of the State. Although social contract is an imaginary concept and a legal fiction, it became a strong argument for limiting State power and securing the rights of people.
The concept of rights which political writers developed acts as a check on unfettered exercise of powers. It was believed that men had certain natural and inalienable (which cannot be taken away) rights. The right to life, liberty and property were considered as such rights. Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man is written in this vein. The French revolutionaries issued the Declaration of the Rightsof Man and the Citizen. The American constitution also enumerates the rights of the citizen. It may seem that individual, political and other rights cannot be linked to morality. However, by incorporating such rights, national leaders impart a moral dimension to the framework of political governance. With the emergence of democracy, the processes of gaining and retaining power have become more orderly and peaceful; they have acquired legitimacy. We will discuss political power in democracies a little later.
Uptil now, we have discussed the means that prevent governments from exercising powers dictatorially. Political thinkers and historians have noted a universal problem with power. The saying from Greek mythology from the story of Circe seems to apply to power: “Those who drink of my cup become swine”. James Madison observes: “The essence of government is power, and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse”. Ronald Regan expresses the same idea more crudely: “Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realise that it bears a very close resemblance to the first [prostitution].” Frank Herbert states: “Power attracts the corruptible. Suspect any who seek it.” He adds: “All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities.” “Power-lust”, says Ayn Rand “is aweed that grows only in the vacant lots of an abandonedmind.”
Power invariably leads to corruption, abuse and oppression. Anyone who acquires or is vested with power undergoes a psychological transformation. To use a familiar expression, power (like alcohol) quickly goes to one’s head. People get drunk on power, and abandon the path of virtue and moderation. Unregulated power confers on an individual opportunities for money making, for heaping abuses on others and for subverting public interest. In the famous words of Lord Acton, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
Many writersargue,without going to the extremes of moderntotalitarianideologies,that politics regrettably but inevitably involve sacrifice of moral principles. They affirm this as a matter of fact. According to Bismarck, “The great questions of the day willnot be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions ... butby ironand blood.” He also says that politics is the art of the possible. Echoing Lord Acton’s idea that great men are always bad men, a character in the novel I, Claudius of Robert Graves says, “I have done many impious things–no great ruler can do otherwise. I have put the good of the Empire before all human considerations. To keep the Empire free from factions I have had to commit many crimes.”
The above discussion on power and morality is based on the situation which prevails in a nation at normal times. In other words, there are no extraordinary circumstances like war, general turbulence, insurrection or revolution. In extraordinary times, the normal tenor of political life gets disturbed. The political system undergoes a sudden, drastic and violent change. Examples of such political contingencies include the French revolution, theRussian revolution of 1917, Nazi takeover in Germany and Communist revolution in China. In these instances, revolutionary groups overthrow government and seize power. Such seizure of power is invariably violent and bloody. Fascism and communism represent the two completely totalitarian ideologies of modern times. In such periods, the ordinary decencies of life are totally forgotten.
Both communists and fascists disregard traditional morals. Soviet communists created a new kind of “morality” in order to do things which common people abhor as immoral. According to Lenin, violence is essential for overthrowing capitalism. Both Lenin and Stalin considered that morality should be subordinated to the ideology of proletarian revolution. They rejected the morality based on traditional religions. For them, acts that advanced revolution are moral, and acts that hindered revolution are immoral. Party members were brainwashed into accepting this view which regards morality as a weapon in class struggle.
Communists justified their position on the ground that the world is full of injustice and immorality andtheywant to replace it by a just social structure in the form of communism. By thislogic,whatever they did became right by definition. USSR denounced slave labour and killings in German camps (during Nazi regime) as immoral, but remained silent on slave labour and killings in Soviet Gulag camps. Stalin justified the gulag camps on the ground that they served the interests of revolution. (Based on Communist Morality, Ludwik Kowalski PhD)
Communist revolutions are violent. Communists believe that workers have to take up arms to destroy the capitalist state. Communists openly scoff at peaceful means of bringing about social change. They describe such views as “class collaboration”. This is the view of the Naxal movement in India. Mao Tse-tung expressed these ideas with frank brutality: “A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery. It cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another”. In another famous statement he says, “Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political powergrows out of the barrel of a gun”.
Like communists, Fascists have also discarded traditional morality. We need not get into the spurious arguments they used in justification. Both fascism and communism caused untold suffering and misery. In the holocaust, six million European Jews were killed. Many million people died in the war. Stalin’s programme of collectivization of soviet agriculture led to death of millions of Kulaks
or Russian peasants. The horrors of the Soviet regime are described in several books of dissidents, the most notable being Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago.
Both communism and fascism are totalitarian systems which are marked by concentration of power in a single or few persons. Totalitarianism leads to control of all aspects of human life. No genuine participation of people or operation of rule of law is allowed. People are deprived of their fundamental and democratic rights. There is no free press. These circumstances create situations which permit governments to take violent and harsh measures against people. Such measures are justified in the name of historical necessity, revolutionary violence, proletarian justice, communist morality, need to fashion new type of human beings or exigencies of war and struggle. All these excuses repudiate conventional morality – which is mockingly called “bourgeois morality” – and lead to great violence.
In these collectivist systems, ends or the goals of State policy are seen as justifying means. As the end is supposedly noble, use of any means – good or bad – is seen as justified. The worth of the individual and sanctity of his life are totally ignored. People are seen as instruments of state policy instead of as its intended beneficiaries. Collectivist State rejects the humanist belief that no ideal however high can justify sacrifice of human beings.
Totalitariansystemsaim at total andradical transformationof society.They seek to overturnthe existing social arrangements and radically restructure society. Conservative thinkers and humanitarians have always argued that societies are bound by traditions and change slowly. Revolutionaries are in a hurry and want to bring about change instantaneously. In this process, they unleash forces of great violence. Many writers (for example Karl Popper and F.A. Hayek) have pointed out that measures which seek to radically and rapidly restructure societies are inherently dangerous. Societies have evolved gradually over centuries and embody wisdom accumulated over time. Social change should be allowed to occur spontaneously at its own pace and with the general consent of people. But totalitarian systems force the pace of change and attempt total social reengineering with disastrous consequences. ( We may mention that students will benefit greatly from a study of two books: Karl Popper’s The OpenSociety andits Enemiesand Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom. The former in particular is a source of invaluable insights for anyone who wants to study political and social problems.)
Gandhi strenuously opposed all forms of violence. Under his guidance, even the movement for national independence remained generally peaceful. However, the communal holocaust preceding Indian partitionresulted in massacres on unprecedentedscale. But it does not detract from the high moral ideals which Gandhi upheld. He always swore by truth, non–violence and dharma. This is his way of expressing the view that politics and power should be based on moral means. Gandhi’s emphasis on non-violence reflects his commitment to morality in the exercise of power.
The following quotations from Gandhi’s writings illustrate this point.
“Whatdifference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wroughtunder the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?”
“Iobject toviolencebecausewhenit appearsto do good,the good is only temporary;theevil it does is permanent.” “However much I may sympathisewith and admire worthy motives, I am an uncompromising opponent of violent methods even to serve the noblest of causes.”
“Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.”
“Non-violence is not a garment to be put on andoff at will. Its seat isin the heart, and it must be aninseparable part of our being.”
“The pursuit of truth does not permit violence on one’s opponent.”
“Experience convinces me that permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence.” “Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is.”
“Power is of twokinds.One isobtained by thefear of punishment andthe other by actsof love. Powerbasedonlove is a thousand times more effective and permanent than the one derived from fear of punishment.”
Gandhi asserts that religion cannot be separated from politics. This does not imply that Gandhi repudiates the secular character of modern States. By religion Gandhi here means morality in a broad sense. Gandhi asserts the need to bind power and morality. Gandhi discounts the value of victory gained through violence. In fact, he equates it with defeat. Although his belief is rooted in morality, he also gives the rationale of his belief. Victory won through violence is temporary because the vanquished are unreconciled to their lot and will try to restore status quo ante. Gandhi believesthat reformers shouldwinthehearts andminds of people.Fromthisperspective, no attempt should be made to impose views on people through force. Gandhi denies that worthy motives or noble causes justify violence. In this regard, his views are in sharp contrast to many other political and revolutionary leaders. On the relation between power and morality, Gandhi represents one extreme pole. The other pole is represented by those who argue that considerations of morality and the exigencies of power are irreconcilable. Thus, Adolf Hitler says: “The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence.”
Gandhi is not alone in advocating morality in politics. There are many thinkers who emphasise that political power has to be exercised morally and responsibly. James Madison comments that “There is no powerwithoutjustice.”In the words of the US author James Baldwin, “…the relationshipof morality and power is a very subtle one. Because ultimately power without morality is no longer power.” The great Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky holds that “the greater the power, the more terrible its responsibility.”
Over the long course of human history, democratic forms of governments slowly emerged. Even today, many regimes in the world are non–democratic. However, democracy is the most preferred form of government. It has a mechanism for periodically changing governments peacefully through elections. It divides powers between legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. In this way, the chances of anyone exercising absolute or dictatorial powers and hanging on indefinitely to power are greatly reduced. Democracies protect the liberties and freedoms of people by enshrining them as rights in constitutions, and conferring power on an independent judiciary to guard against violation of such rights. Many mechanisms are now used to ensure that citizens are not harassed by officialdom. These include right to information, speedy provision of services through citizens charters and fight against corruption.
Misuse of power is not something that happens only at the higher echelons of power. Modern bureaucracies are full of petty officials who act as petty and troublesome tyrants. This explains the enormousinterest nowbeingshowninadministrativeethics, in codesofconduct forpublicservants, in measures for checking corruption, and in the mechanisms for creating responsive and honest public service systems.
It is noteworthy that democracies control the likely dangers of misuse of power through institutional arrangements. It is hoped that politicians will become enlightened and pursue public interest. However, few people believe that such change of heart will remove the tension between exercise of power and practice of morality. The answer has to be found in distributing power and placing checks on it.