Both the group or the individual may have access to resources that help; they can buy influence or arms, resources can be offered as rewards or withheld as punishments. As soon as we start to think about using power we come up against one of the classic issues in philosophy – the relationship of ends and means.
Ethics and choices
There is a long-standing debate about whether ends justify the means. If a universally accepted good result is to be produced (e.g. health) then if the means to it involved making a number of people ill (e.g. to prove a vaccine) then a case can be made to justify it. This could include considerations of whether or not the subjects of the vaccine tests were volunteers. This article from Spiegel shows this is a real-life issue, it is about drug company Pfizer “When word got out about the study five years later, a controversy erupted over fundamental questions, for which the Nigerian lawyer and the US drug company have totally different answers: Is it permissible to test a drug during a deadly epidemic? Is it acceptable to test drugs in the developing world that will benefit the industrialized world, using people who will never be able to afford this treatment?” See Der Spiegel - Reporting on Pfizer
In the testing of driverless cars there is a debate about the programming of the computer systems that will control them. If the vehicle as about to crash into a bus queue but could avoid it at the cost of the vehicle’s occupant researchers have found that most people would agree that the life of the occupant was worth sacrificing. This is a simple example of the lesser of two evils – if several people would die the loss of the life of one is the lesser of two evils.
Sometimes the ethical questions are just ignored; it may be wrong to kill but once the war is underway the debate about ends and means quickly becomes a minority issue. In WWI it was standard for the tribunals reviewing conscientious objectors to demand evidence that the they views expressed were long held, the presumption being that (without this) the individual was either a shirker or a coward. Being a shirker or a coward justified treating the objector with contempt and legitimised harsh treatment. The pressure on manpower was such that questions about who is fighting the war, and for what purposes were ignored: how could it be otherwise? Assuming you are on side with the war effort (the tribunals were local worthies) then your duty was to get as many men to the front as possible, the obvious approach therefore is to subject the conscientious objector to a short inquisition using questions that only a rare few would be able to evidence in any way, brand the hesitant as shirking, dismiss their appeal and move to the next case than it is to engage everyone with the political argument about the morality of the war. Conscientious Objection Tribunals in WW1
The difference between the lesser of 2 evils and the end justifying the means is illustrated by an extreme (but real) example. If the ends are good then (it is argued) strong means are defendable. The better the eventual good the stronger the means that can be used. What better end can there be than stopping a war? What more extreme means can there be than using atomic bombs? When exercising power extreme situations don’t arise immediately usually there has been a long process of action and reaction. The USA had been imposing trade sanctions on Japan in the 1930’s, by 1945, in the light of Pearl Harbour and the ferocity of the Pacific campaign, the time for lesser measures had passed, both in the minds of the key decision makers and the public. Dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been justified by referring to the saving of allied soldiers’ lives that resulted because Japan surrendered, and a costly invasion was avoided. By this end stage of the war the qualms about civilian bombing had long been overcome; if 1 plane could deliver what it took 1000 to achieve over several days that was a gain in productivity, a very big one but not a new category of weapon or war making. It can be argued that Japan was probably on the verge of surrender and that the use of the bomb was a good way of deterring the Russians as the cold war was starting. It is easier to justify the lesser of two evils than it is to justify the killing of the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as demonstration of power to deter the Russians Note: Using the Atomic Bomb
So, the point at issue here is that whatever the end is, we have a choice of means. What means can we choose for the exercise of power. In western democracies we have evolved piecemeal, painfully and over considerable time, to a form of parliamentary democracy where power can be transferred without violence. That is undoubtedly progress Churchill But that does not mean we cannot do better and specifically as described in Part 2 Assess - Vision, if you advocate collaboration and cooperation but do not practice it you will be seen as a hypocrite. One of the reasons people are disengaged with politics is those who claim to want a better society act in competitive and destructive ways.
Time, Reaction and Utility
It is necessary to balance ends with means. A simple test of action is utility; will the chosen means deliver the desired end? A pragmatic approach. This applies to whatever way of using power on the continuum we chose (from Influence through to Terror). If all we measure is the immediate outcome – someone or some group did what we wanted – result. It is just not that simple.
A systems approach helps us think this through, when we conceptualise an action as part of a system we can see that there is always a re-action. We often represent the re-action as feedback especially when we want to be able to learn from experience. However even then we ca be misled. Feedback is conventionally drawn as a loop back to the beginning, and that can be a problem. What starts life as a shorthand gets used as a mental model - we see one iteration, and one result, given our cultural predisposition to look at things in the short term we mis what should be obvious; because time has elapsed feedback is not going back to the beginning at all, rather it is going back to another instance in time of whatever the starting process is. The diagram below should makes this clear. At the top is the simple system with a feedback loop, at the bottom is a schematic of what is actually happening. It is obvious when it comes to designing a process for planning meetings, we conventionally have the minutes of the previous meeting.
Now think of a simple example of military action that many people would support, a drone strike on a taxi carrying a known terrorist leader. I will ignore the due process issue that this is an executive action taking a life which we would (if it were on home soil) take through the courts. We have an intelligence systems with feedback, it tells us the terrorists movements and we have the technology to track them. We can order the strike and by having the drone circle round can ascertain the success of the kill. We can use feedback to make such strikes are more precise. Now if the taxi driver who was also killed, was not a terrorist but pressed into service members of his family may become radicalised and the successful action (viewed as one case) may lead to the need for many more actions in the future, at some point the number of these and their expense may call into question how sucessfull the action of drone strikes is. When it comes to the use of military power (i.e. force) the effort needed to maintain the desired outcome can be considerable.
In business similar logic applies. People have learned that the comparing the purchase price and selecting the cheapest often does not result give the best result - if the item purchased is poor and it is difficult to repair then over time costs mount up. In business it is common (but not always done) to require the analysis of the total lifetime cost. In politics simply arguing over outsourcing and privatisation vs. bringing services back in house misses this point - good governance requires diligence and constant oversight, something politicians, apparently, need to learn Note: An Experience of Outsourcing
Where this takes us is to a redefinition of power, we can no longer just be simplistic about it, we need to alter the definition as follows;
“the ability of a person or group to make another person or group carry out their wishes and keep on doing it”
This is not just semantics, it is fundamental. Because all action brings about a reaction, if we want to make long lasting change the test of utility (pragmatism) becomes a very stringent one and hard to pass. That test is now not just will it work but will it work over time, will it work in the long run. If, when we exercise political power, we use anything other than persuasion we have to factor the reaction into our thinking and the degree of power that needs to be exerted through time “to keep on doing it”. If we have to keep exercising that power anew we’ll never stop, we’ll be locked in a constant battle and have to use lots of resources.
If we want to succeed long term we need to adopt tactics that work long term. That means we cannot indulge in politics that elicit an adverse reaction that will undermine the end we seek. If we claim to want a batter society with co-operation and collaboration to the fore but we use top down techniques enforced through an elected dictatorship then we are not going to succeed. If dealing with the reaction leads to escalation the next time we have to exercise power we need to use more of it or stronger tactics, which often means moving along the continuum from persuasion to force. Unless we change the political agenda to move towards the quest for good governance then the parliamentary path of big change by one party, leads to the parliamentary path of big change in the other direction by another party and not to the transformation of society.
When we make the test one of utility and take time and reactions fully into account we can show that ends do not justify the means - lets unpack this and explore it.
The means need to be chosen deliberately to avoid reactions that make the achievement of the end more difficult or less likely. If the end is supposed to be permanent then it becomes necessary to win hearts and minds – when the ends involve bombing and/or invasion this become a high hurdle indeed, the intervening force causes a reaction, it can become the object of hatred just for using force and not being from here Note: Difficulty of Anti-Guerilla Tactics .
Now consider - there are many historical examples where time alone results in the passing of an obnoxious regime, in recent times the velvet revolutions of 1989-91, or the ending Apartheid.
So what we get down to is the need for some very hard thinking about ends and means. To put it bluntly what is the balance of death caused by fighting a war to bring about regime change, compared to leaving it to collapse over time? It will either collapse over time, or reach an equilibrium that will remain unstable, it may evolve, but it will change. Nothing made by coercion is permanent - fighting a war will result in many people dying, waiting for it to collapse may take longer and many people may die. It seems to come down to the question of who gets to decide, who fights and who dies. If the war stops an evil regime killing its own people it can be framed as an ethical intervention. The war of intervention will certainly result in deaths so the question is this; by what right does the intervening power take responsibility for saying who will die and who will be saved. Without intervention it is obviously the regime that is at fault. Many regimes act against their own populations or segments of them, from a historical perspective this is, sadly, entirely normal. When the intervening power claims the moral high ground, when it says that it acts for the benefit of others it is incumbent on them to show that it is more than grandstanding or hubris but will actually work, over time. It has to do this because it is directly or indirectly, with apology or not, and despite being careful, taking on the responsibility of killing people. This set of people who will die (no doubt unfortunately and regrettably) are still deaths. They just happen to be a different (probably overlapping) set of people to those who would die anyway. Even if the initial calculation of the balance of deaths it favourable (a gruesome form of utilitarianism) the act of intervention will cause a reaction which can easily jeopardise the achievement of the original end. Note: Wars of Intervention
Dangers and difficulties
There are a many dangers associated with the wielding of power. Here I want to explore three; personal wellbeing, adverse reactions, and keeping it going.
Personal wellbeing
Most people educated in the UK will have heard the saying that “All power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” Acton
The implication here is that it is addictive or that by ignoring consent the user becomes more and more worn down by the dangers from others. Both Robert Harris and Armando Iannucci paint a vivid picture of Stalin, afraid to go to bed keeping his henchmen up all night lest they use the time to plot against him Note: Portraits of Stalin .
In 2009 David Owen and Jonathan Davidson published Hubris syndrome: An acquired personality disorder? After making a study of US Presidents and UK Prime Ministers over the last 100 years try conclude;
“We believe that extreme hubristic behaviour is a syndrome, constituting a cluster of features (‘symptoms’) evoked by a specific trigger (power), and usually remitting when power fades” Owen and Davidson
Actions cause reactions
An action will cause a reaction. The utility of power is reduced by the adoption of tactics that elicit (opposed) reactions. Those exercising power have to calibrate it by anticipating the reaction. Get compliance where commitment was needed and in due course when power changes policies will be reversed. Get the calibration wrong and it can lead to a deadlock or escalation.
By relying on parliamentary majorities that are not backed up by majorities within the electorate the current political system has a source of illegitimacy built into it. Add to this the institutional notion that the (loyal) oppositions job is to oppose and it is easy to see how we can never settle any issue Note: Elected Dictatorship
It may not work, or may not work for long
Every one of the ways of exerting power can come unstuck;
- Lies and deception can be discovered
- Social constraints will not hold the contrarians and dissidents
- Coercion may be resisted resulting in the need to escalate
- Force and terror can be met with the same
Because maintaining compliance against an unwilling subject requires constant attention it either gets expensive in either time or effort (an authoritarian regime has to maintain power) or is domed to be reversed when power changes hands. In either case it cannot be said to be efficient or a recipe for good governance.
Nothing is more difficult than using military power. The discussion above on ends and means advocated a more honest assessment of the likely reaction. Military practitioners, understand this (they know the reality). A very famous practitioner and theorist was Carl von Clausewitz. He served in the Prussian army during the Napoleonic Wars and used his experiences to develop the theory of war. His most famous saying is (often abbreviated) is “we maintain…that War is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse, with the admixture of other means” Clausewitz p402 . In other words the use of force to gain a political objective.
Two of his other insights are I think equally worth consideration here. He recognised that war was risky and put this down to two factors, the role of chance and the idea of friction. On chance has says "war is the province of chance" Clausewitz p140 because it leads to uncertainty and hesitation and because the emery is actively seeking to thwart you, because of this embarking on war means entering into the realm of chance. Friction is akin to saying if it can go wrong it will but because the stakes are so high it is much worse "activity in war is movement in a resistant medium" Clausewitz p165 , there are myriads of small things that can be disrupted and fail, the simplest things become difficult.
So war in particular will almost certainly not be over by Christmas, it will most likely cost a lot more of blood and treasure than we think. Not something to be entered into lightly.
Political parties – part of the problem
Lastly in a consideration of ends and means let’s look at political parties. The use of a political party is based on the idea that politics is a competition for control of the state, thus;
- We have to fight
- We need to band together
- We will then win a majority and be able to have our way
If we unpick this in terms of the arguments presented in this book, rather than being a sound way forward it is in fact unlikely to work in the way those who embrace our limited representative democracy and party politics imagine;
- Firstly, it is combative and not collaborative and so it is constantly reinforcing the behaviours we want to constrain and stopping the development and practice of ones that we wish to promote Note: Cross Party Cooperation
- It represents an approach to ends and means that is out of kilter and lacks utility. The means may involve dirty tactics to verbal abuse, arm twisting, thinly disguised forms of bribery (offers of or threats to withhold support, preferment and promotion), character assassination, and all the other aspects of s but since these are non-lethal and exercised as part of the democratic process that is seen as ok. If the end is collaboration these ends a peculiar choice. Firstly (by the law of action/reaction) it does not have utility and will not work. Secondly there will (or should) be cognitive dissonance in both the perpetrator and onlooker; if we advocate good behaviour and practice something else we are plain, old fashioned hypocrites.
- The use of the whip removes the elected representative’s incentive and ability to think through an issue or take their constituents wishes into account: the party line is conflated with electoral mandate in the hope that no one notices
- It is top down, once elected we have it done to us not with us. None of it will stick – the changes that have become deep rooted in our culture are the ones that at the time seemed like add-ons, equality of gender and sexual orientation. These were in fact the ones that people wanted so the top down change was matched by an appetite to take it up.
The existing political parties may or may not be able to respond to some of this but if they are they are still bound by the iron logic of first past the post. This is no longer fit for purpose. it delivers majority government to a minority of voters, reinforced by the whip and driven by focus groups it is certainly is not delivering good governance.
- Labour’s tradition is that it is the parliamentary arm of the labour movement – almost guaranteeing that it starts from a class position is acts competitively
- The conservatives are traditionally seen as the party of business
- The Lib-Dems have failed to break through
- The Greens don’t seem to be taking off
- The Nationalists of various stripes have specific agendas with limited appeal outside their areas
So ends and means have to be balanced, the means must be in keeping with the ends to have long term utility. This means that practical politics to bring about change has to be conducted differently if it is to have any chance of success.
We may assume that those who seek power are being honest, they surely want power to do stuff which they think will help. But based on their choice of tactics when subject to the test of utility, they most certainly do not seem likely to lead to more democracy, decentralisation of power, cooperation and collaboration. I credit them with not being stupid. So, the question at issue is this; if we do want those things how can the practice of holistic political economy’s alternative politics be designed in such as was as to introduced it bit by bit from where we are now?