To the Nobility and Political Class of the Regalian Empire,
It is with great honour that I address you, to present this treatise on political leadership. I write not out of despair for our current time, but in the hope that we will continue to strive for the betterment of our society and philosophy. We are humble servants of natural order, decisive yet partial variables in a world of indecision and obscurity. History teaches us many things and it is thus vital that we as a collective polity exploit our history to guide us toward further betterment. We must strive to break from toxic regularity and aim to reignite the moral and ethical behaviours of those that have walked before us, that have paved the way to our current state of affairs.
Inspired in part by the recent resignation of Consul Redulf Ruyter, I was moved to collate a short treatise on the topic of der Politiker; the inward and outward character required to be a political leader in our time. Politics is an ethical, yet grey vocation, and thus it is with great care that I have highlighted some useful considerations for our political aspirants and veterans alike.
I am honoured to dedicate this short piece to you, our ruling class, with faith that your esteemed selves will foresee betterment and development for Humanum in my words and use them to motivate and inspire the future leadership of the Regalian Empire.
With gratitude, by the Spirit,
Mikarich Ravenstad
Mikarich Ravenstad
The quality of a leader can be witnessed in his passion to carry out his duty to his state and to his office to any and all end. The legacy of a good politician will be witnessed when in the face of adversity and under the weight of guilt, he remains true to that duty with conviction, until he is torn from it by the will of his god or by death itself.
What is Politics?
Politics (Politik) is not easy to define, nor is it a concept best understood by any deductive-nomological model. Politics is a broad term, used frequently in reference to governance, opinion, belief or action of an association or individual within a state, but for the sake of this thesis I shall simplify politics to its purest form. Politics is leading; to conduct oneself as a doer of politics one must and should always be considered a leader of both men and of movements. Politics is therefore 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.
Politics takes shape in our state and public offices, within our assemblies and councils, throughout our militaries and servants' quarters, for each of these structures hold their institution by means of leadership; the existence of the ruler and the ruled is clear.
Politics (Politik) is not easy to define, nor is it a concept best understood by any deductive-nomological model. Politics is a broad term, used frequently in reference to governance, opinion, belief or action of an association or individual within a state, but for the sake of this thesis I shall simplify politics to its purest form. Politics is leading; to conduct oneself as a doer of politics one must and should always be considered a leader of both men and of movements. Politics is therefore 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.
Politics takes shape in our state and public offices, within our assemblies and councils, throughout our militaries and servants' quarters, for each of these structures hold their institution by means of leadership; the existence of the ruler and the ruled is clear.
Chapter II: On Who is der Politiker?
On Who is der Politiker?
There are times when every man becomes the politician (der Politiker) when he engages with and propagates opinion and direction. With the mere discussion of politics and affairs, one embodies the political and exercises temporary, occasional politics, yet these are nothing more than the activities of the political amateur. No skill is required in an opinion, nor is wisdom necessary to decipher the affairs of the contemporary by means of thought or belief.
It is first necessary to note what conduct it is that defines a politician, what behavior exhibited in the appropriate circumstance enables a man to face the affairs of our world and to match them. Anyone engaging in true and proper politics is striving for power, either power as a means to attain other goals, or power for its own sake through the reward of honour or glory. The true politician is a caretaker of men, as a farmer is a caretaker of animals, and he must stand watch and secure that which he cares for through what is necessary to ensure their survival. For without those that are ruled, the ability to rule them is null, and thus the citizen to the state is as important as the dog to the kennel; without the agent, the structure fails to serve its purpose of existence.
Power is exercised in two forms, that is direct and indirect power, each subscribed to respective of the position of its agent. Direct power is performed by he who holds the authority to act by statute and law, he who is granted right to power by means of an institution or association. General Leonard Reindewic exemplifies a true politician exercising direct power by means of the authority of the General over the Officer, through which he leads his subordinates on order and demand. Indirect power is often shielded, which is to say direct power is often true to the eye, observed and expected through a title or position to which authority is publically granted. Indirect power manifests itself in the form of influence, although it is wise to note that indirect power can still be exercised by those with titles, but in areas or circles that they are not publically granted authority. Revainate Percival Ravenstad was granted the honorific title of King of Brissiaud, a title from which the late Ravenstad gained no direct authority. However as a Crown familiaris and as an esteemed member of Nobility, the late King exercised power by means of influence over political spheres where he publically held no power to do so. The success of direct power is its inability to be contested and its failure in the knowledge that he possesses pre-prescribed authority to act, enabling men to predict or prepare for his action. In contrast, indirect power can be rejected or ignored, but it carries weight wherein persuasive action can bring about unforeseen changes away from public prediction.
There are times when every man becomes the politician (der Politiker) when he engages with and propagates opinion and direction. With the mere discussion of politics and affairs, one embodies the political and exercises temporary, occasional politics, yet these are nothing more than the activities of the political amateur. No skill is required in an opinion, nor is wisdom necessary to decipher the affairs of the contemporary by means of thought or belief.
It is first necessary to note what conduct it is that defines a politician, what behavior exhibited in the appropriate circumstance enables a man to face the affairs of our world and to match them. Anyone engaging in true and proper politics is striving for power, either power as a means to attain other goals, or power for its own sake through the reward of honour or glory. The true politician is a caretaker of men, as a farmer is a caretaker of animals, and he must stand watch and secure that which he cares for through what is necessary to ensure their survival. For without those that are ruled, the ability to rule them is null, and thus the citizen to the state is as important as the dog to the kennel; without the agent, the structure fails to serve its purpose of existence.
Power is exercised in two forms, that is direct and indirect power, each subscribed to respective of the position of its agent. Direct power is performed by he who holds the authority to act by statute and law, he who is granted right to power by means of an institution or association. General Leonard Reindewic exemplifies a true politician exercising direct power by means of the authority of the General over the Officer, through which he leads his subordinates on order and demand. Indirect power is often shielded, which is to say direct power is often true to the eye, observed and expected through a title or position to which authority is publically granted. Indirect power manifests itself in the form of influence, although it is wise to note that indirect power can still be exercised by those with titles, but in areas or circles that they are not publically granted authority. Revainate Percival Ravenstad was granted the honorific title of King of Brissiaud, a title from which the late Ravenstad gained no direct authority. However as a Crown familiaris and as an esteemed member of Nobility, the late King exercised power by means of influence over political spheres where he publically held no power to do so. The success of direct power is its inability to be contested and its failure in the knowledge that he possesses pre-prescribed authority to act, enabling men to predict or prepare for his action. In contrast, indirect power can be rejected or ignored, but it carries weight wherein persuasive action can bring about unforeseen changes away from public prediction.
Chapter III: On the Types of Rulership
On the Types of Rulership
If politics is therefore the rule of humanum over humani through the means of the exercise of power, it is thus possible to define and distinguish the three types of rulership a man or an association may maintain. For a ruler to exist, for a leader to exercise power, the ruled must submit to his authority and for this authority to survive the fickle, selfish and base nature of man, this authority must be founded on one of three legitimate grounds.
The first of these principal grounds is traditional rule wherein the ruler finds his authority preserved by custom and tradition, a mutual contract upheld by both the ruler and the ruled. His Holiness the Emperor maintains this type of rule; the historical and hereditary contract of rulership the Crown-family exhibits is evidence of such. The second of these types is rule by legality, that is rulership over subjects by the virtue of their belief in the validity of legal statute and the competence of rule and law. This form of rule is exercised best by the Sancella of Union, by which obligatory obedience of the ruled is maintained through faith in the structure of its teachings. The third of these types is best owed to the true politician and it is a type of legitimate rule that every politician should hope to establish in order to exercise legitimate power. Charismatic rule is defined by the authority of the exceptional individual, maintaining the submission of his subjects through their personal devotion to, trust and faith in, and honest acknowledgement of his qualities and attributes. Whilst rulers through traditional and legal legitimacy can also rule by means of their charisma, the character of a leader is essential in affirming the devotion of his following. For a politician who is neither guaranteed the security of hereditary rulership nor the structure of permanent legal institution, he must strive to inspire and maintain the faith, trust, belief and support of his subjects in order to exercise power over them.
If politics is therefore the rule of humanum over humani through the means of the exercise of power, it is thus possible to define and distinguish the three types of rulership a man or an association may maintain. For a ruler to exist, for a leader to exercise power, the ruled must submit to his authority and for this authority to survive the fickle, selfish and base nature of man, this authority must be founded on one of three legitimate grounds.
The first of these principal grounds is traditional rule wherein the ruler finds his authority preserved by custom and tradition, a mutual contract upheld by both the ruler and the ruled. His Holiness the Emperor maintains this type of rule; the historical and hereditary contract of rulership the Crown-family exhibits is evidence of such. The second of these types is rule by legality, that is rulership over subjects by the virtue of their belief in the validity of legal statute and the competence of rule and law. This form of rule is exercised best by the Sancella of Union, by which obligatory obedience of the ruled is maintained through faith in the structure of its teachings. The third of these types is best owed to the true politician and it is a type of legitimate rule that every politician should hope to establish in order to exercise legitimate power. Charismatic rule is defined by the authority of the exceptional individual, maintaining the submission of his subjects through their personal devotion to, trust and faith in, and honest acknowledgement of his qualities and attributes. Whilst rulers through traditional and legal legitimacy can also rule by means of their charisma, the character of a leader is essential in affirming the devotion of his following. For a politician who is neither guaranteed the security of hereditary rulership nor the structure of permanent legal institution, he must strive to inspire and maintain the faith, trust, belief and support of his subjects in order to exercise power over them.
Chapter IV: On the Role of der Politiker
On the Role of der Politiker
Politics would survive without politicians, I can assure you of such a truth, but institutions, structures, processes, and power relations would serve no purpose than to be the subject of an anarchic system in which there exists no distinction between the ruled and ruler, no man to stand above the rest to care for them. In order to assess the functions and responsibilities of a politician, the role can be best assessed through the use of an analogy. A politician should be seen to be a Doctor or physician of politics, that is to say, a Doctor is an expert of the anatomy, disease and well being of the body, thus a politician should be an expert of the political, crisis and survival of the state. A Doctor will assess his patient, addressing his concerns, locating the illness, prescribing a medicine and giving insight on how to prevent said illness in order to ensure the longevity of his patient's life. A politician should assess the condition of his state, address its issues and shortcomings, locate a problem, prescribe a solution and propose and enforce laws and rules that prevent a repeat of this issue.
It is with reason that I use the Doctor analogy for I believe a Doctor best represents the judgment necessary to perform the duties of the state. To be a politician one must act within his place as dutifully as is possible, that is to say, acting within the best interests, not of himself, but of the people and the Empire. Duty is soon married with necessity in this context and thus it is the role of the politician to distance himself from subjective assumptions and his own personal moral code in order to sit above politics and the state, to gaze down upon the affairs of his people and asses, like the Doctor, what is necessary both in treatment and prevention of its issues. When in Bou Gasagou, Lieutenant-General Vasily Ostrovsky called for the execution of all male Songaskia, accompanied by the order that women and children of the race be made to witness such violence before being forced into slavery; this intent of power was self-serving. The Lieutenant-General was striving for power over the Songaskia without attempting to detach himself from the task in hand, leading to it becoming a matter of purely personal self-intoxication under the glittering resemblance of personal victory and prestige. This wrongly motivated intention was halted by Emperor Cedromar before it could be ordered; the 'cause' of Imperial power was to win a war, not to incite devastating terror and thus the action was discouraged in light of the Emperor's more dutiful judgement.
It is however the Doctor's responsibility to serve his patient through any means necessary, for if the patient's arm is torn and infected, it is the duty of the Doctor to amputate the limb to save the body. It is not often easy to do what is necessary but the morality of an action is defined by the consequence it serves, rather than the intention with which it was made. For a Doctor to do right by his patient where the infection on his arm may kill him, it is necessary for the Doctor to take a blade to the arm. A politician must be ready to make a judgment on the nature of his actions, for sometimes it is necessary to inflict evil to bring about good. The late Undercrown Charles Montagaard took Imperial force to Drixagh and inflicted what was deemed great evil upon them, a reign of terror not dissimilar from the intentions of Lieutenant-General Ostrovsky in Bou Gasagou. However it was not the intention that the Undercrown acknowledged, it was the consequence which bore a better fate than allowing the Northerne Rebellion to continue. Thinking only on his duty to his Empire, the Undercrown besieged Drixagh with a greatness of force and in doing so obliterated the insurgency and lively resilience of the Empire's enemy. If evil action must be inflicted, as was done so in Drixagh, it must be inflicted swiftly and in one single blow, for a single slight is easily forgotten. Prolonging suffering and pain will only incite outrage and hatred from one's opponent which rallies a force more violently than its own duty. The Undercrown prescribed a harsh but effective cure to the problems Northward, and in cutting the arm, allowed the body of his state to live longer.
Politics would survive without politicians, I can assure you of such a truth, but institutions, structures, processes, and power relations would serve no purpose than to be the subject of an anarchic system in which there exists no distinction between the ruled and ruler, no man to stand above the rest to care for them. In order to assess the functions and responsibilities of a politician, the role can be best assessed through the use of an analogy. A politician should be seen to be a Doctor or physician of politics, that is to say, a Doctor is an expert of the anatomy, disease and well being of the body, thus a politician should be an expert of the political, crisis and survival of the state. A Doctor will assess his patient, addressing his concerns, locating the illness, prescribing a medicine and giving insight on how to prevent said illness in order to ensure the longevity of his patient's life. A politician should assess the condition of his state, address its issues and shortcomings, locate a problem, prescribe a solution and propose and enforce laws and rules that prevent a repeat of this issue.
It is with reason that I use the Doctor analogy for I believe a Doctor best represents the judgment necessary to perform the duties of the state. To be a politician one must act within his place as dutifully as is possible, that is to say, acting within the best interests, not of himself, but of the people and the Empire. Duty is soon married with necessity in this context and thus it is the role of the politician to distance himself from subjective assumptions and his own personal moral code in order to sit above politics and the state, to gaze down upon the affairs of his people and asses, like the Doctor, what is necessary both in treatment and prevention of its issues. When in Bou Gasagou, Lieutenant-General Vasily Ostrovsky called for the execution of all male Songaskia, accompanied by the order that women and children of the race be made to witness such violence before being forced into slavery; this intent of power was self-serving. The Lieutenant-General was striving for power over the Songaskia without attempting to detach himself from the task in hand, leading to it becoming a matter of purely personal self-intoxication under the glittering resemblance of personal victory and prestige. This wrongly motivated intention was halted by Emperor Cedromar before it could be ordered; the 'cause' of Imperial power was to win a war, not to incite devastating terror and thus the action was discouraged in light of the Emperor's more dutiful judgement.
It is however the Doctor's responsibility to serve his patient through any means necessary, for if the patient's arm is torn and infected, it is the duty of the Doctor to amputate the limb to save the body. It is not often easy to do what is necessary but the morality of an action is defined by the consequence it serves, rather than the intention with which it was made. For a Doctor to do right by his patient where the infection on his arm may kill him, it is necessary for the Doctor to take a blade to the arm. A politician must be ready to make a judgment on the nature of his actions, for sometimes it is necessary to inflict evil to bring about good. The late Undercrown Charles Montagaard took Imperial force to Drixagh and inflicted what was deemed great evil upon them, a reign of terror not dissimilar from the intentions of Lieutenant-General Ostrovsky in Bou Gasagou. However it was not the intention that the Undercrown acknowledged, it was the consequence which bore a better fate than allowing the Northerne Rebellion to continue. Thinking only on his duty to his Empire, the Undercrown besieged Drixagh with a greatness of force and in doing so obliterated the insurgency and lively resilience of the Empire's enemy. If evil action must be inflicted, as was done so in Drixagh, it must be inflicted swiftly and in one single blow, for a single slight is easily forgotten. Prolonging suffering and pain will only incite outrage and hatred from one's opponent which rallies a force more violently than its own duty. The Undercrown prescribed a harsh but effective cure to the problems Northward, and in cutting the arm, allowed the body of his state to live longer.
Chapter V: On the Ethical Requirements of der Politiker
On the Ethical Requirements of der Politiker
Consequences are thus the focus of der Politiker, for he who is a doer of politics must first consider the results of his action before the intention of the action itself. A politician should be concerned only with the consequences and results of his actions and should justify the means by which he achieves his goals through the consequence they bring about. This should be considered the ethic of responsibility, whereby the politician must consider the implications of his actions and stand by them. Consequences are a complex reality of this world, no one action will result in only a single consequence, for the natural world has laws that are sinister in their complexity and evade the deduction of cause and effect.
Commitment to the responsibility of one's actions is a fundamental foundation of a true and honest leader. Only he who takes responsibility for the consequences of his behaviour should be considered a man for the people. When Hamelin d'Vaud chose to dig in at Is'laë against a barrage of Elven insurgents, his initial plan to face this wave was scrapped and his forces were made to turn in retreat to the shore. Whilst a dishonourable withdrawal was made after successes on the North-East front of Precaëlle, d'Vaud stood by his decision to withdraw and cited it as the relief necessary for his troops to reshape and return on the offensive some weeks later. The ethic of responsibility often waves a sharp dagger of dishonour at the very pride of its subject, but this must be faced with admission, only then will the dagger rest and forgiveness be offered. When Jannik Sinclair once similarly withdrew an army in the North away from pending conflict in Nordskag, he raised not his hands in his Court Martial hearing but his voice, pleading excuse after excuse as to why he attempted to tear away an entire defensive line, causing mutiny amongst his former soldiers. When he blames the world, the irrational consequences of reality and others for his own demise, he has dismissed the ethic of responsibility and deserves punishment for this fact.
The weight of consequences sits heavy on any man's soldiers, however it must be acknowledged that a politician can only and should only be brought to punishment for consequences that are foreseen. It is the responsibility of the leader to predict what consequences will come of each and every move he plays, however there are some that one cannot foresee and for these a leader must not feel guilty, nor be reprimanded. General Redulf Ruyter saw his army captured by Elven Prince Läefel and whilst his scouts failed in any bid to spot the advancing Elven force, the resulting slaughter of his army in the city's Hippodrome cannot be accredited to failure of either the army or its Generals. Such a consequence was caused by an unpredictable variable that no scout nor any foresight could prevent. For this dishonorable loss, the General deserves no personal insult. The ethic of responsibility thus hinges on foreseeable consequence, not those that all worldly force is blind to.
Consequences are thus the focus of der Politiker, for he who is a doer of politics must first consider the results of his action before the intention of the action itself. A politician should be concerned only with the consequences and results of his actions and should justify the means by which he achieves his goals through the consequence they bring about. This should be considered the ethic of responsibility, whereby the politician must consider the implications of his actions and stand by them. Consequences are a complex reality of this world, no one action will result in only a single consequence, for the natural world has laws that are sinister in their complexity and evade the deduction of cause and effect.
Commitment to the responsibility of one's actions is a fundamental foundation of a true and honest leader. Only he who takes responsibility for the consequences of his behaviour should be considered a man for the people. When Hamelin d'Vaud chose to dig in at Is'laë against a barrage of Elven insurgents, his initial plan to face this wave was scrapped and his forces were made to turn in retreat to the shore. Whilst a dishonourable withdrawal was made after successes on the North-East front of Precaëlle, d'Vaud stood by his decision to withdraw and cited it as the relief necessary for his troops to reshape and return on the offensive some weeks later. The ethic of responsibility often waves a sharp dagger of dishonour at the very pride of its subject, but this must be faced with admission, only then will the dagger rest and forgiveness be offered. When Jannik Sinclair once similarly withdrew an army in the North away from pending conflict in Nordskag, he raised not his hands in his Court Martial hearing but his voice, pleading excuse after excuse as to why he attempted to tear away an entire defensive line, causing mutiny amongst his former soldiers. When he blames the world, the irrational consequences of reality and others for his own demise, he has dismissed the ethic of responsibility and deserves punishment for this fact.
The weight of consequences sits heavy on any man's soldiers, however it must be acknowledged that a politician can only and should only be brought to punishment for consequences that are foreseen. It is the responsibility of the leader to predict what consequences will come of each and every move he plays, however there are some that one cannot foresee and for these a leader must not feel guilty, nor be reprimanded. General Redulf Ruyter saw his army captured by Elven Prince Läefel and whilst his scouts failed in any bid to spot the advancing Elven force, the resulting slaughter of his army in the city's Hippodrome cannot be accredited to failure of either the army or its Generals. Such a consequence was caused by an unpredictable variable that no scout nor any foresight could prevent. For this dishonorable loss, the General deserves no personal insult. The ethic of responsibility thus hinges on foreseeable consequence, not those that all worldly force is blind to.
Chapter VI: On Discerning Evil from Evil
On Discerning Evil from Evil
If then it is morally right for a Doctor to remove the infected arm of a patient to save his body, despite the protests of the patient, it is then necessary to consider when it is right for a politician to draw blood in the name of his state. There will be a time when every politician will face a moral dilemma, one which will demand him to subvert all moral principle and teaching, a dilemma that will offer him only evil. Let us consider such a circumstance. A military General is fresh to battle, faced with holding a difficult defensive line across a jungle covered plane. He receives scout information that an enormous enemy force is amassed in one part of the jungle and is preparing two assaults, one on a large civilian territory to the West, the second on a small province to the East. The intelligence is strong and carries with it the crucial detail that the leader of the enemy army will accompany his forces but only on this second assault. Divided on defensive positions, the General's forces match their opponents man-to-man to his West and to his East but if he was to draw his army together, they would overwhelm their opponent. Thus the dilemma stands. If the General was to keep the army divided they would repel the first attack comfortably but would put off the second assault and thus lose the opportunity to capture or kill the leader of the enemy that would bring about a certain end to the battle at hand. If the General draws his armies together to ready for the second assault to the East, he would face certain victory but at the cost of every life in the civilian territory to the West. Does he then repel the first assault, saving the lives of the civilians and miss out on the chance to end the war in the East, or does he surrender the lives of the civilians with the knowledge that victory in the East will end the war?
These dilemmas are no choice of right and wrong, or good and evil. These dilemmas are a choice between evil and evil. If the General chooses to repel the enemy to his West, he saves the lives of civilians but keeps his state at war. If the General chooses to collect his forces in the East, he sacrifices the lives of the civilians to certain death but ends the war with the capture of the opposition leader. It is in this circumstance that the politician must be prepared to choose the lesser evil. It is the responsibility of the General to grit his teeth and move his forces East to end the war, for that is his duty to his state. He will bare the guilt of the lives he left undefended to the West, all of which were claimed by a rampant enemy force, but in ending the war at the second assault, he will save the lives of many more by bringing about peace in the region, the lesser evil.
If then it is morally right for a Doctor to remove the infected arm of a patient to save his body, despite the protests of the patient, it is then necessary to consider when it is right for a politician to draw blood in the name of his state. There will be a time when every politician will face a moral dilemma, one which will demand him to subvert all moral principle and teaching, a dilemma that will offer him only evil. Let us consider such a circumstance. A military General is fresh to battle, faced with holding a difficult defensive line across a jungle covered plane. He receives scout information that an enormous enemy force is amassed in one part of the jungle and is preparing two assaults, one on a large civilian territory to the West, the second on a small province to the East. The intelligence is strong and carries with it the crucial detail that the leader of the enemy army will accompany his forces but only on this second assault. Divided on defensive positions, the General's forces match their opponents man-to-man to his West and to his East but if he was to draw his army together, they would overwhelm their opponent. Thus the dilemma stands. If the General was to keep the army divided they would repel the first attack comfortably but would put off the second assault and thus lose the opportunity to capture or kill the leader of the enemy that would bring about a certain end to the battle at hand. If the General draws his armies together to ready for the second assault to the East, he would face certain victory but at the cost of every life in the civilian territory to the West. Does he then repel the first assault, saving the lives of the civilians and miss out on the chance to end the war in the East, or does he surrender the lives of the civilians with the knowledge that victory in the East will end the war?
These dilemmas are no choice of right and wrong, or good and evil. These dilemmas are a choice between evil and evil. If the General chooses to repel the enemy to his West, he saves the lives of civilians but keeps his state at war. If the General chooses to collect his forces in the East, he sacrifices the lives of the civilians to certain death but ends the war with the capture of the opposition leader. It is in this circumstance that the politician must be prepared to choose the lesser evil. It is the responsibility of the General to grit his teeth and move his forces East to end the war, for that is his duty to his state. He will bare the guilt of the lives he left undefended to the West, all of which were claimed by a rampant enemy force, but in ending the war at the second assault, he will save the lives of many more by bringing about peace in the region, the lesser evil.
Chapter VII: On Discerning Will from Want
On Discerning Will from Want
It is these necessary decisions on moral dilemmas that will define the politician. If a politician is not willing to sever the arm of the patient or to sacrifice the civilian knowing it will result in victory, then he should not be a politician. A strong and principled politician will thus be willing to make these decisions, to serve the people as is necessary with no concern for popularity or praise, only for duty and loyalty to his state. The good politician has the will and the stomach to settle these dilemmas and to face them with measure and reflection, he should be willing to bare the responsibility for the consequence and willing to bare guilt despite victory.
The Court and the people must however be wary of the politician who is not driven by the will to act when necessary, but the desire to act. He who wants to face the evils of a moral dilemma is a dangerous politician, one who strives only for power and will disregard duty where necessity calls upon it. The moral dilemmas faced by leaders is not a position to covet, and thus he who openly expresses his hunger to face these challenges of moral proportion should be corralled and collared for they thirst only for blood and will treat non-necessary decisions with extreme measures. Many innocent lives will be lost and these wanting politicians will hide under the shadowy guile of tainted necessity.
It is these necessary decisions on moral dilemmas that will define the politician. If a politician is not willing to sever the arm of the patient or to sacrifice the civilian knowing it will result in victory, then he should not be a politician. A strong and principled politician will thus be willing to make these decisions, to serve the people as is necessary with no concern for popularity or praise, only for duty and loyalty to his state. The good politician has the will and the stomach to settle these dilemmas and to face them with measure and reflection, he should be willing to bare the responsibility for the consequence and willing to bare guilt despite victory.
The Court and the people must however be wary of the politician who is not driven by the will to act when necessary, but the desire to act. He who wants to face the evils of a moral dilemma is a dangerous politician, one who strives only for power and will disregard duty where necessity calls upon it. The moral dilemmas faced by leaders is not a position to covet, and thus he who openly expresses his hunger to face these challenges of moral proportion should be corralled and collared for they thirst only for blood and will treat non-necessary decisions with extreme measures. Many innocent lives will be lost and these wanting politicians will hide under the shadowy guile of tainted necessity.
Chapter VIII: The Confession of the Real Politician
The Confession of the Real Politician
I finally address der Politiker directly. Those who believe themselves to be politicians of this Empire pay close attention to this final word.
We know a real politician by his dirty hands, by his willingness to admit his mistakes, by his ability to take the weight of his guilt and yet to maintain his duty. Do not deny the consequences of your actions, but do not wallow in them, for all real politicians have dirty hands, it is after all a bloody business. The acknowledgement of guilt is the price you must pay, for responsible politicians will suffer, but they should suffer in silence. The real test of politics is whether you can cope with the knowledge that you are not as good as you would like to be.
I finally address der Politiker directly. Those who believe themselves to be politicians of this Empire pay close attention to this final word.
We know a real politician by his dirty hands, by his willingness to admit his mistakes, by his ability to take the weight of his guilt and yet to maintain his duty. Do not deny the consequences of your actions, but do not wallow in them, for all real politicians have dirty hands, it is after all a bloody business. The acknowledgement of guilt is the price you must pay, for responsible politicians will suffer, but they should suffer in silence. The real test of politics is whether you can cope with the knowledge that you are not as good as you would like to be.
People who might give a monkeys...
Some of your characters are mentioned in the above.
@Tiber_ @Muffins_ @AntonVoron @FireFan96 @TyrolleanEagle @Arendan @Aespair @Suicidium @HydraLana @Jonificus @Theoderic @Kalthof @Film_Noir @SpunSugar @StarkFromAway @Dekuras @Channing_Tantrum @Nudibronch @TutiDias
