Q-pol

How may we define politics and how do politics work ?

DEFINING POLITICS

Politics concern the use of POWER. Politics concern people having influence even control over other people, be that at the level of a social network of friends, through to the global level of power play between nations or corporate interests.

My definition of “politics” is “the management of power”.

Let’s examine those 3 words:

• politics
• power
• management

The Oxford English Dictionary [OED] informs us that  politics concern “activities associated with governance” and can also be “a particular set of political beliefs or principles”. How do we reconcile those varied aspects. Bear with me and read on.

Plato and Aristotle provide insights regarding the mechanics and the purpose of politics – holding the purpose of politics to be moral. And yet the practice of politics is so often immoral; politicians often exploit morality – and indeed the truth – for their own purposes.

What about the word ‘power’ ? The Concise OED speaks about “the capacity to influence the behaviour of others, the emotions, or the course of events.” The 1993 OED also indicates that such “influence” can be as strong as “control” or “dominance” or “command” over people and events. Helpful.

What about ‘management’ ? The 1993 OED provides this explanation:

“the application of skill or care in the manipulation, use, treatment, or control of things or persons, or in the conduct of an enterprise or operation …”

So, politics are how influence or control over people and events is handled

The way in which power is exercised is the very heart of what politics are. This is evident in the use of Constitutions. Constitutions are agreements about the framework by which everyone agrees to manage political debate and decision making.

Constitutions for countries and for organisations provide a set of ground rules by which the actors or protagonists in the use of power are allowed to behave and act. They constrain behaviour within bounds which everyone is required to treat as necessary and binding. Constitutions work because people agree that basic procedures for the use of power are necessary. We all agree to abide by the results of a General Election, for example.

Constitutions create organs which possess Authority. Authority is the moral right to exercise power over others. To do that, such organs must have the means to enforce their Authority. The State apparatus in each country therefore maintains and deploys organs such as police for internal security and armies to secure their existence against external threats.

Constitutions work because people generally accept such ground rules as necessary. But of course Constitutions reflect Principles and Philosophies about how Power should be exercised and to what purpose. Republics like France or the United States of America have very different Constitutions from that of the United Kingdom, for example. Yet in all 3 countries there is adherence to a common philosophy of how Democracy and its institutions should work. Each of these 3 countries arrived at the practice of the modern representative form of democracy via different historical ideas and events.

In other words, the technical procedural, legal frameworks also manifest the dominant thinking and philosophy at work in any given political entity at any given time in that entity’s history. They are therefore subject to change or modification.

Constitutions can be changed, of course, but the requirements for obtaining agreement for amendment are more extensive than a simple majority for passing an ordinary law. It is also true historically that exceptionally capable and so powerful Persons can change the Rules of Play because all opposition is put in awe of the powerful individual. Putin in Russia, Xi in China, and Erdogan in Turkey are examples of authoritarian figures who have changed the Constitution of their country in order to enhance their own constitutional office or position. To Western eyes such individuals are Dictators or tyrants; but to Putin or Xi or Erdogan – and indeed to many of their compatriots – such individuals are necessary, paternalistic, Leaders.

Which brings us to the word , politician – the person who engages in politics. Clearly a politician must endeavour to exercise skill in order to influence people and events. A successful politician is a person who can do that, and can be seen to make a difference by the way they intervene to influence opinion or events.  A successful politician is a person who sets out to get their way and gets it ! The leaders of political parties are successful politicians by virtue of the fact that they have achieved leadership of their party in preference to all other contenders.

HOW DO POLITICS WORK ?

What must we see and understand in order to make sense of the bewildering world of politics ? What mental model might we use to make sense of politics and political activity ? To put it another way, What are the politics of politics ? What are the factors in play which influence or govern the practice of politics ?

I suggest a framework of four fundamental factors.

I suggest that a helpful model for understanding Politics is Quadrupolar – that there are 4 poles engaged, and that each plays a strategic role. The capable politician [ or government] will understand and work with all 4,  and with their interaction. The 4 primary, strategic poles are:

1. protagonist – the influences and constraints of, for example, their own mentality and abilities
2. principles – the influences and constraints of ideas and beliefs
3. position – the influences and constraints of a person’s or a country’s own location in the scheme of things historically, geographically, economically and politically
4. practice – both the purpose sought and the process involved

Politics is also as much about knowing what you cannot – or should not – do, as it is about knowing what to do, how and when. The adept politician must first manage themselves and their situation if they are to have a hope of managing others and the course of events. Ditto governments for nations. Today, we are threatened with a descent into world conflict by wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and by the clash between China and America [USA] in the South China seas.  That descent will happen if the governments engaged do not fully master themselves and their perception of the 4 poles outlined above, namely

• protagonist
• principles
• position
• practice

PROTAGONIST

The protagonist [person or government] who engages in politics is human with both strengths and weaknesses: the wise politician is aware of this, and takes appropriate action to ensure that their strengths count, and that their weaknesses are not exposed. Famous, successful political figures in history clearly understood both themselves and the other ‘pole’ factors I have identified above. When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he understood its insurrectionary significance – he understood the risk in his Position, but he also understood the power of his own Position. Believing in himself and his general position as a successful Commander, and in what needed to happen in Rome for Rome, he pushed on to success. Historically, we can see that his authoritarian intervention set the Roman Republic on the road to an Imperial form of government.

PRINCIPLES

All politicians and governments espouse Principle – belief in some form of moral superiority which drives, or at least justifies, their actions. Certainly, some cause is invariably at stake. We can see that today, for example, in the clash between globalist humanism on one side and nationalist, religious identity on the other. Beliefs count, be they philosophical, religious, political or otherwise. They matter.

But it is also true that beliefs are used by politicians – the individual politician may be entirely principled, or on the other hand entirely un-principled, yet espousing principle. In reality, most politicians are probably somewhere between these two distinct positions: principled and [in reality] unprincipled.

Beliefs matter in the mix of politics. Politicians fight for their beliefs, and seek to get them implemented. I would say that a Primary Principle usually lies behind the particular philosophy and specific policies of a political party. One obvious example is the clash between Conservative and Progressive. In the USA, for example, the debate around induced abortion is a classic example of a specific policy position which reflects a general philosophy [conservative or progressive] arising from a fundamental principle [in this example, transcendental and material respectively]

POSITION

Position is an extremely important ‘pole’ – it can either assist or else undermine the Protagonist and their Principles. Whatever a Protagonist’s capabilities or the moral strength of their Principle, Position can make it either difficult or else easy to achieve what they want.

Mr Zelensky as President of Ukraine at war with Russia has proven to be a man of considerable courage, totally convinced of the merit of his country’s independence. But his geopolitical Position as a small power on the border of a large power was always inherently weak. He underestimated the power of Russian belief in their own national story, and the strength of their hostility to US hegemony. The refusal to appreciate Russian willingness to resort to war has cost Ukraine very dearly. Ukraine’s Position geographically has not changed but the pro western Policy adopted by Zelensky has reinforced Russian hostility: Ukraine’s position is now much weaker than in 2021 when the Russians were explicitly offering to accept by International Treaty to guarantee Ukraine’s independence against their own – but also against western – influence.

Zelensky demonstrates limited strength as Protagonist and adherent of Principle , but his appreciation of his Position and his Practice of politics are weak. The 4 poles are out of balance. The upshot is that he expects unqualified support from the West, failing to appreciate their limited Position militarily and globally. He even expects the West to commit to commit ground troops and expose their own countries to direct Russian [nuclear] counter attack.  Populations in the western democracies, however, cannot be relied upon to back up the grand words and gestures of their politicians towards Ukraine !

PRACTICE

Practice is the sharp end. The reality of trying to move the agenda and get what you want. Both individuals and governments must master this skill which the Shorter OED qualifies as “proficiency, expertness, dexterity, ; an ability to do something, acquired through practice or learning” .

The poles of Protagonist, Principle and Position are all givens which must be properly assessed and taken into account. But Practice means taking the initiative, actually engaging, and pushing through until you win – or fail. There are 2 primary all embracing aspects of the Practice of Politics:

(i) Purpose and (ii) Process.

(i) Purpose.

A person engaging in politics – a politician – must have a STRATEGIC AIM – one overall goal to which all their intermediary efforts will build. Every successful step along the way to that strategic aim may seem minor but is nevertheless a vital TACTICAL OBJECTIVE.

21st century China has a strategic aim to displace the United States as hegemonic world power. Taking back Hong Kong from all western influence in the early 2020s was but a tactical objective – as will be the taking of Taiwan. In the Chinese view, all trace of former western imperialism must be removed from her sphere of influence before she can then move on to replace that influence around the world. China has already achieved several tactical objectives toward her strategic aim, such as engineering contracts and loans in Africa and the construction of military bases beyond Asia.

(ii) Process

Process concerns the means and mechanisms by which a politician or government gets what they want toward their STRATEGIC AIM. I would charactise the Process of Politics as PERSUASION.

War is persuasion by violent means: to enforce physically your will on others. Carl von Clausewitz was right.

Today, we westerners are more familiar with the peaceful form of persuasion via Political discourse through systems of government and diplomacy. But the peaceful version of persuasion scarcely hides the underlying reality that such mechanisms are actually a substitute for direct physical conflict and domination. We vote out the governing party – we no longer resort to chopping off the king’s head !

Actual violent physical war provides a helpful parallel for the means deployed for persuasion. In war you oblige others to obey you, but in peace you must persuade them to come over to your side. In the peaceful version of Persuasion, the weapons are words. In the peaceful version you do not kill or physically overwhelm your opponent, or not, but the 3 outcomes are the same:

• capitulation – you fail to persuade your opponent, and they win
• concession and compromise – you gain your opponents help, but you concede something in return [cf a peace Treaty in War]
• control – you win the argument – you gain the ideological and influential battle

In the peaceful version, the contact of combat takes place via argument and message manipulation [propaganda]. The conflict is characteristically resolved by a vote, be that by agreeing a statement or decision during a meeting or by the selection of candidates for office.

To do this, the skilful politician also understands the

• Protagonist
• Principles
• Position
• Practices

of their opponents.

The successful politician – or government – manifests appreciation of Q-pol !

Or, to put this more simply and colloquially, know thyself and know thine enemy !

NOTE

What I write above is based on my own observations, experience and reading of historical literature. I have made no study of books by academic experts who research and teach politics today.

My references to the Oxford English Dictionary are either to the 2 volume 1993 New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary or to the 2011 Centenary edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary