By Michael Walzer
Summary:
Why is Dirty Hands so Popular?
• The decision to indulge in "dirty hands" happens whenever someone is forced to choose between upholding an important moral principle and avoiding some looming disaster.
• It is impossible to govern innocently, innocent people govern. But this does not mean that it isn’t possible to do the right thing while governing.
• If the politician chooses to remain innocent he not only fails to do the right thing (in utilitarian terms), he may also fail to measure up to the duties of his office.
• The notion of dirty hands derives from an effort to refuse "absolutism" without denying the reality of the moral dilemma.
• It is suggested that the dilemma of dirty hands arises not merely as an occasional crisis in the career of this or that unlucky politician but systematically and frequently.
• The politician is different than other entrepreneurs for three reasons.
- He doesn’t merely cater to our interests; he acts on our behalf, even in our name.
- He has purposed in mind, causes and projects that require the support and redound to the benefit, not of each of us individually, but of all of us, together.
- He hustles, lies and intrigues for us – or so he claims.
• He cannot serve us without serving himself, for success brings him power and glory, the greatest rewards that men can win from their fellows. The competition for these two is fierce; the risks are often great, but the temptations are greater.
• The men who act for us and in our name are often killers, or seem to become killers too quickly and too easily.
The Teachings of Machiavelli
• Good and decent people still enter political life, however, they are required to learn the lesson Machiavelli first set out to teach: "how not to be good."
• These decent people will not succeed unless they learn, for they have joined the terrible competition for power and glory; they have chosen to work and struggle as Machiavelli say, among "so many who are not good."
• They can do no good themselves unless they win the struggle, which they are unlikely to do unless they are willing and able to use the necessary means.
• How can it be wrong to do what is right? Or, how can we get our hands dirty by doing what we ought to do?
• His willingness to acknowledge and bear (and perhaps to repent and do penance for) his guilt is evidence, and it is the only evidence he can offer us, both that he is not too good for politics and that he is good enough.
• It is easy to get one’s hands dirty in politics and it is often right to do so.
Some Definitions
Moral Principle: The principles of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual or a social group. (The set of principles that conclude that the act in question which is used to further a political agenda, is indeed immoral, thus making it an act of dirty hands politics.)
Absolutism: An absolute doctrine, principle, or standard. No form of compromise. (If the politician decides to follow the absolutist side, he does not use dirty hands politics.)
Dirty Hands: Having the conscience that one has preformed immoral acts while in power. (Sometimes a necessary to further a political agenda through "dirty" acts. It should not be put into effect lightly, but as a means of a last option.)
Machiavelli: Italian political theorist whose book The Prince (1513) describes the achievement and maintenance of power by a determined ruler indifferent to moral considerations. (The basic foundation for dirty hands politics.)
Necessary Means: According to Machiavelli, the means one must pursue in order to attain the wanted outcome. "The ends justify the means."
Support: To Provide for or maintain backing for a politician by the countries electorate. (The feedback that is received by the politician often affects the decision to resort to dirty hands political measures.)
Scruples: An uneasy feeling arising from conscience or principle that tends to hinder action. (The moral conscience of the politician may restrict him from using "dirty hands".)
Campaign: An operation or series of operations energetically pursued to accomplish a purpose. (Because the politician must win at all costs, "dirty hands" is often present in such campaigns.)
Examples of Dirty Hands in Politics
-The FLQ Crisis in which Prime Minister Trudeau enacted the War Measures Act, which took democratic liberties away from Canadian civilians.
-In the wake of Sept. 11th, in order to boost appearances of cracking down on terrorism, Western governments weakened their democratic liberties.
-Countries within the United Nations are siding with
-The Decision to deny support to Kosovo, while the United Nations and NATO knew of the ethnic cleansing taking place.
-Would Hitler's attempt to gain power in
-Perhaps putting sanctions on
-Getting rid of/Exterminating Saddam Hussein will yield a stable Iraqi democratic state.
-What about the Japanese concentration camps, I'm sure in that day, that action would have been viewed as a form of dirty hands.
Interactive Questioning
1. Is there a place in politics for "dirty hands"?
2. Should the politician be totally accountable to the electorate?
3. Is Machiavelli’s philosophy, "the ends justify the means" a moral one?
4. When does the usage of "dirty hands" politics go to far?
5. If the outcome is good then the means are waved, however, if the outcome is bad, then how can we judge the politician who may of embarked on the decision to use dirty hands?
6. Can we stop and rid "dirty hands" from politics? Should we?
7. Does the fact that the public can only view certain situations in a present way, give the politician the right to use dirty hands to achieve an outcome that will suffice the bigger picture?
8. If
0 comments:
Post a Comment