We can hope as much as we can for a perfect government, a flawless administration, a fair political system that punishes the guilty and protects the oppressed, and end up with having what we didn’t really desire, or worse, having what we didn’t hope for at all. Another instance, which also happens to be a fact, is that all good outcomes come from well-prepared plans and strategies. This introduction might not seem very appealing, but, whatever.
Here, we are going to discuss about the intricate relationship between two creations of man, and how they oppose and complement one another. Of course there are points that might prove to be disagreeable, but then again, I’m simply expressing my insights about a topic that popped out of my mind. Please do scroll down to read more, if you don’t mind.
The Nature of Politics and Idealism
Politics, like pure science, requires precise answers and solutions, considering every angle of the situation in question, and the benefits and consequences of each step. Its purpose started from merely protecting one’s territory in prehistoric times, and eventually evolved to preserving the security and economical betterment of the society under its control using its available resources. Then again, there are times where that vision is blurred by the sight of earthly riches, and incapability of leading. In summary, we can safely assume that politics has an objective aim, and objective conflicts as well, in a sense that they exist in visible reality.
Idealism, meanwhile, is spontaneous, flexible, and is practically limitless. Basically, its aim is to satisfy one’s ego and to stimulate or intensify passion. It is a human characteristic to envision things as we want it to be, and while this helps us widen our imagination, and at times compels us to make a move in an attempt to make it true, this also makes us susceptible to prejudice, and later, dogmatism. It is quite inevitable that we will at times persist to believe things as we think they are and refuse to consider other perceptions that will go against ours. Long story short, idealism inspires and corrupts as well.
Now that I have expressed my opinion about the two things in question, let us proceed to typical scenarios in our current state in life where these two intertwine, and let us discuss what might happen as they mix with one another.
Scenario 1: Achieving the Established Goal
As what was mentioned earlier, all good outcomes come from well-prepared plans, which implies that a good politician must first picture a definite goal and pursue it to attain it in due course. Complexities about this natural action of the mind include the possibility of establishing a goal which is too much for a person’s capabilities. This, in turn, damages the self-esteem of the individual in question, impairing him further. Another possible problem that might occur is the existence of a capable politician but is deprived of the necessary resources, or lacks inspiration. This will, of course, lead to stagnation of progress and loss of interest from the officials.
What I’m trying to imply here is the gap between idealism and politics, together with its constituents. This gap is composed of the fact that ideas can be perfect or near-perfect, but the visible and tangible materials that will be associated with your goal can never be perfect. There’ll always be faults and erroneous actions, because nobody’s perfect. Just like what Thomas More implied, utopia is synonymous with nowhere.
Then again, the concept of utopia is not entirely worthless. Although we know that we can never be perfect, at least it inspires us to pursue for best which is achievable to at least contend with the ideal paradise which describes that u-word. To think that our limitations do serve as a portent of inspiration, ah, the magic of philosophy.
Current Relationship: A “love” relationship. Even with the knowledge of the ever-unattainable utopia, I believe it sill keeps us inspired to improve. With balance, political ideals and methods will work together quite well. With the recognition of limitations, we will be able to avoid needless expectations and work for the best attainable. You can, of course, notice that this can be applied to daily life, and it indeed can, because, after all, politics is a part of daily life.
Scenario 2: The Pursuit of Justice
The Law is the cornerstone of any government, and the sole reference to determine guilt and innocence; hence, it is used to bring justice. While the Law plays an important role in preserving peace and order, the fact still remains that it is rigid and does not tackle the immaterial. It does rule out the influence of ego-involvement, but at the same time, it can be bent to suit one’s purpose to overturn the momentum; to turn the innocent guilty, and the guilty innocent, for, as I mentioned earlier, it does not tackle the spiritual aspects of a person.
Another downfall is that one must be armed with money to provide oneself with necessary defenses, to the point that some actually use it to manipulate the situation (bribery, conspiracy, etc.) in their favor. Justice in a political sense isn’t actually blind, but considerably limited, in a sense that not everyone can attain it, and it is also susceptible to manipulation, for it relies on the visible and tangible only. This, in turn, opens the possibility of provocation from people “deprived of justice.” This brings us to the other link of the scenario; the human emotion and ideals.
One might envision a scene where justice is perfectly served, where the guilty is punished. A possible result of this way of thinking is for one to desire to be a lawyer or a defender of justice to suppress the pain of others, which is truly heroic. However, the usual fruit of this vision is for one to obtain justice for himself, a thing that cannot be given by the Law, or rather by its administrators. Fuelled by intense hatred, one might go to the point of seeing murder or theft as justice, which, at the same time, transgresses the Law. Who knows why one will do it? Is it because of vengeance? To satisfy himself of getting back at the people who double-crossed him? No matter what the reason is, the pragmatic Law does not recognize this, and bases its verdict on what is visible, on what is obvious. These circumstances played a primary role in the formation of the so-called “crimes.”
Current Relationship: A “hate” relationship. The occasional shortcomings of political justice provokes the emotions, and the ideas that root from it frequently go against the Law in turn. There are conflicts in almost all angles. The Law knows no feeling, and I won’t blame it, while the human emotion, when provoked greatly, knows no boundaries. Another thing is that prejudice and bias tend to attach themselves to idealism, while the Law can stand by itself, although bendable, and constantly dirtied by one-sided regulations enforced by our “traditional politicians.”
Scenario 3: The Pursuit of Order
Etiquette is always involved in the discussion about how the government works to preserve order. In our country, works of Bayani Fernando are always criticized and regarded as unethical and inhumane, where he drove off illegal vendors and demolished houses in the squatters’ area. However, what he aims for is to preserve order in Manila. But then again, in a pragmatic sense, what he did was more convenient than to repeatedly convince stubborn citizens; it gives a guarantee of riddance of violators, although it proved to be temporary in several cases, and the execution of the method consumes a small amount of time. As they say, the end justifies the means.
However, some conflicts rise which have something to do with such steps of the government, as what I have implied earlier. Basically, such actions are correct in a governmental sense, but might be regarded as ethically incorrect by some people whose views usually depict a society where violence is obliterated. A good example where this idea is easily recognized is the EDSA Revolution I, where Ferdinand Marcos was overthrown due to people’s disagreement with his methods, although what he did was to suppress the increase in crime rates.
From this point, I would like to emphasize the importance of balance. Too much harshness will brew hatred and rebellion. At the same time, too much kindness and generosity inevitably entices abusive intentions. Anything extreme will certainly cause chaos. Anyway, going back to the topic in question, we can see the logical and pragmatic procedures of the government, and how idealism can either agree or disagree with its methods.
Current Relationship: Undecided. Ideals of the citizens and politicians can influence each other unto how to preserve peace and order among the people, and can either produce a mutual, commensal or a parasitic relationship. All of this can be done leaving the Law untouched, for we are under a democratic government. Long story short, the odds of having a conflict and agreement are equally balanced.
Having these said, I believe that politics and idealism share a truly complex relationship.
P.S: If, in any case, this article has similarities with the others, this is completely unintentional.
P.S.S: All points about the discussion will be taken, as long as they’re sensible.
Here, we are going to discuss about the intricate relationship between two creations of man, and how they oppose and complement one another. Of course there are points that might prove to be disagreeable, but then again, I’m simply expressing my insights about a topic that popped out of my mind. Please do scroll down to read more, if you don’t mind.
The Nature of Politics and Idealism
Politics, like pure science, requires precise answers and solutions, considering every angle of the situation in question, and the benefits and consequences of each step. Its purpose started from merely protecting one’s territory in prehistoric times, and eventually evolved to preserving the security and economical betterment of the society under its control using its available resources. Then again, there are times where that vision is blurred by the sight of earthly riches, and incapability of leading. In summary, we can safely assume that politics has an objective aim, and objective conflicts as well, in a sense that they exist in visible reality.
Idealism, meanwhile, is spontaneous, flexible, and is practically limitless. Basically, its aim is to satisfy one’s ego and to stimulate or intensify passion. It is a human characteristic to envision things as we want it to be, and while this helps us widen our imagination, and at times compels us to make a move in an attempt to make it true, this also makes us susceptible to prejudice, and later, dogmatism. It is quite inevitable that we will at times persist to believe things as we think they are and refuse to consider other perceptions that will go against ours. Long story short, idealism inspires and corrupts as well.
Now that I have expressed my opinion about the two things in question, let us proceed to typical scenarios in our current state in life where these two intertwine, and let us discuss what might happen as they mix with one another.
Scenario 1: Achieving the Established Goal
As what was mentioned earlier, all good outcomes come from well-prepared plans, which implies that a good politician must first picture a definite goal and pursue it to attain it in due course. Complexities about this natural action of the mind include the possibility of establishing a goal which is too much for a person’s capabilities. This, in turn, damages the self-esteem of the individual in question, impairing him further. Another possible problem that might occur is the existence of a capable politician but is deprived of the necessary resources, or lacks inspiration. This will, of course, lead to stagnation of progress and loss of interest from the officials.
What I’m trying to imply here is the gap between idealism and politics, together with its constituents. This gap is composed of the fact that ideas can be perfect or near-perfect, but the visible and tangible materials that will be associated with your goal can never be perfect. There’ll always be faults and erroneous actions, because nobody’s perfect. Just like what Thomas More implied, utopia is synonymous with nowhere.
Then again, the concept of utopia is not entirely worthless. Although we know that we can never be perfect, at least it inspires us to pursue for best which is achievable to at least contend with the ideal paradise which describes that u-word. To think that our limitations do serve as a portent of inspiration, ah, the magic of philosophy.
Current Relationship: A “love” relationship. Even with the knowledge of the ever-unattainable utopia, I believe it sill keeps us inspired to improve. With balance, political ideals and methods will work together quite well. With the recognition of limitations, we will be able to avoid needless expectations and work for the best attainable. You can, of course, notice that this can be applied to daily life, and it indeed can, because, after all, politics is a part of daily life.
Scenario 2: The Pursuit of Justice
The Law is the cornerstone of any government, and the sole reference to determine guilt and innocence; hence, it is used to bring justice. While the Law plays an important role in preserving peace and order, the fact still remains that it is rigid and does not tackle the immaterial. It does rule out the influence of ego-involvement, but at the same time, it can be bent to suit one’s purpose to overturn the momentum; to turn the innocent guilty, and the guilty innocent, for, as I mentioned earlier, it does not tackle the spiritual aspects of a person.
Another downfall is that one must be armed with money to provide oneself with necessary defenses, to the point that some actually use it to manipulate the situation (bribery, conspiracy, etc.) in their favor. Justice in a political sense isn’t actually blind, but considerably limited, in a sense that not everyone can attain it, and it is also susceptible to manipulation, for it relies on the visible and tangible only. This, in turn, opens the possibility of provocation from people “deprived of justice.” This brings us to the other link of the scenario; the human emotion and ideals.
One might envision a scene where justice is perfectly served, where the guilty is punished. A possible result of this way of thinking is for one to desire to be a lawyer or a defender of justice to suppress the pain of others, which is truly heroic. However, the usual fruit of this vision is for one to obtain justice for himself, a thing that cannot be given by the Law, or rather by its administrators. Fuelled by intense hatred, one might go to the point of seeing murder or theft as justice, which, at the same time, transgresses the Law. Who knows why one will do it? Is it because of vengeance? To satisfy himself of getting back at the people who double-crossed him? No matter what the reason is, the pragmatic Law does not recognize this, and bases its verdict on what is visible, on what is obvious. These circumstances played a primary role in the formation of the so-called “crimes.”
Current Relationship: A “hate” relationship. The occasional shortcomings of political justice provokes the emotions, and the ideas that root from it frequently go against the Law in turn. There are conflicts in almost all angles. The Law knows no feeling, and I won’t blame it, while the human emotion, when provoked greatly, knows no boundaries. Another thing is that prejudice and bias tend to attach themselves to idealism, while the Law can stand by itself, although bendable, and constantly dirtied by one-sided regulations enforced by our “traditional politicians.”
Scenario 3: The Pursuit of Order
Etiquette is always involved in the discussion about how the government works to preserve order. In our country, works of Bayani Fernando are always criticized and regarded as unethical and inhumane, where he drove off illegal vendors and demolished houses in the squatters’ area. However, what he aims for is to preserve order in Manila. But then again, in a pragmatic sense, what he did was more convenient than to repeatedly convince stubborn citizens; it gives a guarantee of riddance of violators, although it proved to be temporary in several cases, and the execution of the method consumes a small amount of time. As they say, the end justifies the means.
However, some conflicts rise which have something to do with such steps of the government, as what I have implied earlier. Basically, such actions are correct in a governmental sense, but might be regarded as ethically incorrect by some people whose views usually depict a society where violence is obliterated. A good example where this idea is easily recognized is the EDSA Revolution I, where Ferdinand Marcos was overthrown due to people’s disagreement with his methods, although what he did was to suppress the increase in crime rates.
From this point, I would like to emphasize the importance of balance. Too much harshness will brew hatred and rebellion. At the same time, too much kindness and generosity inevitably entices abusive intentions. Anything extreme will certainly cause chaos. Anyway, going back to the topic in question, we can see the logical and pragmatic procedures of the government, and how idealism can either agree or disagree with its methods.
Current Relationship: Undecided. Ideals of the citizens and politicians can influence each other unto how to preserve peace and order among the people, and can either produce a mutual, commensal or a parasitic relationship. All of this can be done leaving the Law untouched, for we are under a democratic government. Long story short, the odds of having a conflict and agreement are equally balanced.
Having these said, I believe that politics and idealism share a truly complex relationship.
P.S: If, in any case, this article has similarities with the others, this is completely unintentional.
P.S.S: All points about the discussion will be taken, as long as they’re sensible.
0 comments:
Post a Comment