A fellow peer of mine and intellectual published a treatise recently which left me wanting to formulate an anti-thesis of heterodox views on the matter of politics. This in no way means I stand to oppose what was written in the Treatise on Leadership And Der Politiker, more so a thrive to better common knowledge and discussion through providing a critique and alternative.
While I do not profess that all men and women in Aloria are corrupt to the core, the nihilistic approach to the construction of any hypothesis, system or theory is to work with as few assumptions as possible and to maintain these as strong as possible. I refuse to accept idealism as a postulate since it has proved itself futile in the past (most recently during the Regalian Pessimism). Assuming the worst, as they say, leaves one with little surprises.
With respect and devotion,
Sirio d'Ortonnaise
Capital I. - To define Politics
To quote the paper in question, the Lord Ravenstad referred to politics as "(...) The leadership, or the exercise of influence on the leadership, of a political association or state, produced in the relationship of rule by humanum of humani."
Though correct in the simplistic terms, to understand the more nihilistic perception of politics a different definition has to be lifted. Highlighting the phrase "exercise of influence" must be the first step, for politics is nothing more than the exertion of one's will over others through influence. My critique will, however, strip the layers of politics mentioned: I believe politics does not regulate itself to governance or structures of power, but to any interaction between two or more entities of free will.
In the following, a "subject" will refer to anyone influenced whereas "liege" will refer to those influencing. Naturally, these build an inter-connected system similar to feudalism.
Thus, politics is the act of exerting one's will over another.
Though correct in the simplistic terms, to understand the more nihilistic perception of politics a different definition has to be lifted. Highlighting the phrase "exercise of influence" must be the first step, for politics is nothing more than the exertion of one's will over others through influence. My critique will, however, strip the layers of politics mentioned: I believe politics does not regulate itself to governance or structures of power, but to any interaction between two or more entities of free will.
In the following, a "subject" will refer to anyone influenced whereas "liege" will refer to those influencing. Naturally, these build an inter-connected system similar to feudalism.
Thus, politics is the act of exerting one's will over another.
Capital II. - To define the Politician
The definition of a politician is much clear from the previous premise: one who aims to exert their will over another.
With this definition, a simple analytic construction can create us the politician from two single postulates:
Postulate 1:
Since the interpretation of the Creeds is an ongoing discourse and their extent does not encompass the whole spectrum of morality, no two actors will hold the same ethics and mirror each other's judgements on moral questions.
Postulate 2:
There is an innate pride of differing levels above one's own morality in each actor.
Conclusion 1:
Those with a greater sense of pride will seek to sway the morality of others towards their own.
Conclusion 2:
The tool of this sway is (political) power. The one swaying the other is the politician.
Conclusion 3:
Those who hold immense power but no pride will become the "safeguards" of politics. Safeguards are special exception and only applicable to the Emperor and His direct system of power, including the Sancella and other Unionist denominations. Safeguards counter-balance the threat of revolutionaries and maintain stability.
Conclusion 4:
Those who hold pride but no power will become the "revolutionaries" of politics. They have no power base and thus nothing to lose in order to impose their ideals.
Conclusion 5:
Those with greater pride than power are the "progressives" of politics. They have some degree of power base to lose but their subjects hold a higher sense of pride similarly to them which can only be sated through a thrive for change.
Conclusion 6:
Those with greater power than pride are the "conservatives" of politics. Conservatives have a larger power base than pride which leads them to be risk-averse against losing their power base.
Conclusion 7:
There will be a large portion of the population lacking both power & pride. These are the "masses" of politics.
With this definition, a simple analytic construction can create us the politician from two single postulates:
Postulate 1:
Since the interpretation of the Creeds is an ongoing discourse and their extent does not encompass the whole spectrum of morality, no two actors will hold the same ethics and mirror each other's judgements on moral questions.
Postulate 2:
There is an innate pride of differing levels above one's own morality in each actor.
Conclusion 1:
Those with a greater sense of pride will seek to sway the morality of others towards their own.
Conclusion 2:
The tool of this sway is (political) power. The one swaying the other is the politician.
Conclusion 3:
Those who hold immense power but no pride will become the "safeguards" of politics. Safeguards are special exception and only applicable to the Emperor and His direct system of power, including the Sancella and other Unionist denominations. Safeguards counter-balance the threat of revolutionaries and maintain stability.
Conclusion 4:
Those who hold pride but no power will become the "revolutionaries" of politics. They have no power base and thus nothing to lose in order to impose their ideals.
Conclusion 5:
Those with greater pride than power are the "progressives" of politics. They have some degree of power base to lose but their subjects hold a higher sense of pride similarly to them which can only be sated through a thrive for change.
Conclusion 6:
Those with greater power than pride are the "conservatives" of politics. Conservatives have a larger power base than pride which leads them to be risk-averse against losing their power base.
Conclusion 7:
There will be a large portion of the population lacking both power & pride. These are the "masses" of politics.
Capital III. - Doctors or Barbers?
My peer in his Treatise compared politicians to doctors, identifying illnesses and infections to treat them. While this paints a positive picture of contemporary politics, one important distinction has to be made in order to differentiate between the politician and the noble.
The doctor comparison assumes external threats to an internal structure treated by a third party. This does not, however, hold itself anymore with the change in the definition of politics. The Elven Empire's resurgence could be considered an external threat, where the internal structure is the Regalian Empire under threat and the Regalian Army treating the infection. There is no politics in this: the definition requires two free-willed actors, whereas an external threat like this can easily arise with only one man involved.
Instead, the politics happen within the internal structures of all these involved: the question whether the Regalian Empire should answer the threat or not, the question whether the Elven Resurgents should invade or not, and the question of how to deal with the Elven Empire on the army's side. These are questions of morality that are debated within their respective structures by political systems: politicians.
A more applicable comparison is the barber: the politician's power largely hinges on their power base (the barber's wage), which is earned from their supporters (customers). Thus, the barber has to project his power (advertisement, fine handiwork, etc) to gather more support. To certain external threats, the differences between barbers are irrelevant: during the plague's onset, it did not matter whether one was bald or had long locks of hair. Contrary, if the taxes on barber stores are increased different barbers may have opposing opinions on how to handle it and they may gather in a guild to debate these.
The doctor comparison assumes external threats to an internal structure treated by a third party. This does not, however, hold itself anymore with the change in the definition of politics. The Elven Empire's resurgence could be considered an external threat, where the internal structure is the Regalian Empire under threat and the Regalian Army treating the infection. There is no politics in this: the definition requires two free-willed actors, whereas an external threat like this can easily arise with only one man involved.
Instead, the politics happen within the internal structures of all these involved: the question whether the Regalian Empire should answer the threat or not, the question whether the Elven Resurgents should invade or not, and the question of how to deal with the Elven Empire on the army's side. These are questions of morality that are debated within their respective structures by political systems: politicians.
A more applicable comparison is the barber: the politician's power largely hinges on their power base (the barber's wage), which is earned from their supporters (customers). Thus, the barber has to project his power (advertisement, fine handiwork, etc) to gather more support. To certain external threats, the differences between barbers are irrelevant: during the plague's onset, it did not matter whether one was bald or had long locks of hair. Contrary, if the taxes on barber stores are increased different barbers may have opposing opinions on how to handle it and they may gather in a guild to debate these.
Capital IV. - Power
The Treatise on Leadership and Der Politiker defined a set of varying leadership positions that could assume the mantle of the politician, though once again the string of thought is incompatible with the updated definition.
The nihilist refuses to differentiate between the leaders and only concerns their toolsets. The way to sway one's morality or political views to align with another's can be done through two means:
The parent raising a hand at their child when they are sent to bed exercises political power through averted disadvantage: if the child did not accept the imposed views, they would be physically hurt.
Conversely, subjects have the same relation to their rulers and a subject's worth is measured by the sum of their advantages and the disadvantages they avert. A political shift in power occurs when a sub-vassal of a vassal displays higher advantages and disadvantage aversion than the mid-vassal.
The nihilist refuses to differentiate between the leaders and only concerns their toolsets. The way to sway one's morality or political views to align with another's can be done through two means:
- Advantages provided
- Disadvantages averted
The parent raising a hand at their child when they are sent to bed exercises political power through averted disadvantage: if the child did not accept the imposed views, they would be physically hurt.
Conversely, subjects have the same relation to their rulers and a subject's worth is measured by the sum of their advantages and the disadvantages they avert. A political shift in power occurs when a sub-vassal of a vassal displays higher advantages and disadvantage aversion than the mid-vassal.
Capital IV. - Structures of Leadership, revised
My critique here meets the list of leadership roles provided by my peer. Through means of deconstruction, one can easily see the provided advantages or disadvantages of each while not limiting "political leadership" to actual leadership positions.
Traditional rule is based on the advantage of stability. Both a contract and a firm line of succession ensure that the power structure is kept intact after the passing of the politician in power, which brings a sense of stability to their subjects. Traditional rule breaks down when the disadvantages of the rule itself overweight the stability of succession in the eyes of the majority.
Legal rule is very similar to the traditional rule, supposedly separated by my peer simply to differentiate the Sancella from the Imperial Throne.
Charismatic rule is non-existent, which may be my most prominent disagreement with my peer in his paper. A charismatic ruler is more complex than a silver tongue: they are able to communicate their advantages and aversion of disadvantages in a far better manner to their subjects and lieges. This notion is somewhat reverberated by my peer as a re-consideration by the end of his 3rd chapter.
Though the approach of advantages and disadvantages also gives explanation to the more exotic styles of rule perceived in other parts of Aloria: orcish rule by strength, Ithanian rule by beauty and intelligence or Alt-Regalian rule by superiority in military command. These systems are generated by how the subjects rank what advantages and disadvantages they seek: in a sub-realm driven by culture and art like Ithania, rulers will be patron of arts not because they continue their realm traditions but because that is the way they provide the strongest advantages to their subjects. Similarly, a realm with active participation in war like the greater Regalian Empire will value military leadership, while a more tribal society will prefer strength and survivability.
Traditional rule is based on the advantage of stability. Both a contract and a firm line of succession ensure that the power structure is kept intact after the passing of the politician in power, which brings a sense of stability to their subjects. Traditional rule breaks down when the disadvantages of the rule itself overweight the stability of succession in the eyes of the majority.
Legal rule is very similar to the traditional rule, supposedly separated by my peer simply to differentiate the Sancella from the Imperial Throne.
Charismatic rule is non-existent, which may be my most prominent disagreement with my peer in his paper. A charismatic ruler is more complex than a silver tongue: they are able to communicate their advantages and aversion of disadvantages in a far better manner to their subjects and lieges. This notion is somewhat reverberated by my peer as a re-consideration by the end of his 3rd chapter.
Though the approach of advantages and disadvantages also gives explanation to the more exotic styles of rule perceived in other parts of Aloria: orcish rule by strength, Ithanian rule by beauty and intelligence or Alt-Regalian rule by superiority in military command. These systems are generated by how the subjects rank what advantages and disadvantages they seek: in a sub-realm driven by culture and art like Ithania, rulers will be patron of arts not because they continue their realm traditions but because that is the way they provide the strongest advantages to their subjects. Similarly, a realm with active participation in war like the greater Regalian Empire will value military leadership, while a more tribal society will prefer strength and survivability.
Capital V. - The Ethics of a Politician
From the previous capital, one can deduce that a politician will thrive to maximise their efficiency. This means that the good politician will thrive to increase their provided advantages and the disadvantages they help avert as much as they can.
Maintaining stable ethics brings stability and is an advantage of its own, since subjects are generally averse of arbitrary rulers. At the same time, a ruler has to mould their ethics to the subjects they rule over and the lieges above them in order to:
Maintaining stable ethics brings stability and is an advantage of its own, since subjects are generally averse of arbitrary rulers. At the same time, a ruler has to mould their ethics to the subjects they rule over and the lieges above them in order to:
- Maintain or increase the balance with their subjects.
- Be advantageous over other less-integrated subjects towards their liege.
Capital V. - Good & evil
Because of the previous thrive of all rulers in their ethics, there are four different decisions to consider and differentiate in politics:
Immoral - A decision incompatible with the morals of both one's direct subjects and lieges.
Amoral (loyalist) - A decision compatible with the morals of one's direct lieges, but not the subjects.
Amoral (independent) - A decision compatible with the morals of one's direct subjects, but not the direct lieges.
Moral - A decision compatible with the morals of both one's direct subjects and lieges.
Back-referencing the conclusions of our two postulates, we will clearly see that where pride is greater than power there will be a general preference for independent amoral decisions, whereas the inverse will result in loyalist amoral decisions. Compare the cases of Dragenthal and Ithania versus the cases of Anglia and Calemberg.
Immoral - A decision incompatible with the morals of both one's direct subjects and lieges.
Amoral (loyalist) - A decision compatible with the morals of one's direct lieges, but not the subjects.
Amoral (independent) - A decision compatible with the morals of one's direct subjects, but not the direct lieges.
Moral - A decision compatible with the morals of both one's direct subjects and lieges.
Back-referencing the conclusions of our two postulates, we will clearly see that where pride is greater than power there will be a general preference for independent amoral decisions, whereas the inverse will result in loyalist amoral decisions. Compare the cases of Dragenthal and Ithania versus the cases of Anglia and Calemberg.
Capital VI. - A practical address to politicians
I respect my peer's confessions, though the intellectual classes of the Empire have been criticised far too much for a lack of practicality. The acknowledgement of guilt does not make a good politician, neither does the assumption of responsibility. For these are both highly subjective of one's subjects and lieges and a ruler found benevolent and legendary in Ithania may quickly evoke a series of riots in Calemberg through one single decision. One patient may prefer their infected arm amputated, while another may give their life before they lose a sword arm.
My advice is simpler though more abstract: count the advantages you provide and the disadvantages you can avert. Never impose unnecessary disadvantages on your subjects or provide them towards your liege, and never avert advantages that you could have provided to either. And also remember that the ladder of politics in the Empire is neither vertical nor horizontal, but an interwoven system of relationships.
My advice is simpler though more abstract: count the advantages you provide and the disadvantages you can avert. Never impose unnecessary disadvantages on your subjects or provide them towards your liege, and never avert advantages that you could have provided to either. And also remember that the ladder of politics in the Empire is neither vertical nor horizontal, but an interwoven system of relationships.
A good politician is defined by satisfaction in regards to their decisions from all those they influence and all those whom they are influenced by.
People who might be interested:
@Tiber_ @Muffins_ @AntonVoron @FireFan96 @TyrolleanEagle @Arendan @Aespair @Suicidium @HydraLana @Jonificus @Theoderic @Kalthof @Film_Noir @SpunSugar @StarkFromAway @Dekuras @Nudibronch @TutiDias
And of course,
@YLMadness
also has credit for instigating this discourse and creating a kind-of format to follow.
