I was exhausted today from my trip to Kraków so I decided to post a Synthesis paper I had to write regarding the gaining and maintaining of power. I plan on writing relatively soon about Kraków, Saint Maria's Basicila, Zakopane, and much more. If anyone wishes to see the sources used in my paper, please do ask.
Building and Maintaining a House of Cards
Political figures’ run or maintenance of power is reminiscent of the construction of a house of cards. To ensure it isn't toppled, one must not allow other people to contribute and play with their cards. Same may be said when a politician is pursuing or building on their power. It is a natural condition for human beings to extend their power as much as possible, even if it means harassing a ruled minority. This desire to extend, however, may be fueled by excessive insecurity which may lead to detrimental effects on one’s power.
Present in a politician’s run/maintaining of power are three fundamental weapons which are intrinsic to ensuring power: religion, propaganda, fear. In many political climates, such as the Middle East, religion is fundamental. Simply put, a leader stands no chance at obtaining power if they do not practice the major religion (Andrew) and they stand a better chance at lasting longer if they practice the beliefs of said religion. This is quite applicable to Poland. Recently in 2015 the Law and Justice (PiS) party won an electoral victory and became the strongest party in parliament. Law and Justice is a right-wing, national-conservative, and Catholic Democratic party in Poland (Mulders). The party’s stance on religion and tradition helped ensure a victory in the parliament, exemplifying the significance in a Political leader’s rule. The religious climate in Poland has also allowed for the parliament to pass measures enforcing anti-abortion laws, such as heavily restricting the access to contraceptives and more (Persio). All of this was possible due to the party’s and population’s religious affiliation. You wouldn’t be able to see the same religious measures being taken in an immensely different religious climate.
The second fundamental weapon to protect/gain power is propaganda. Propaganda enables politicians to provide a politically charged statement which is blanketed with such obscurity that you can’t disagree otherwise with. Slogans like “Make America Great Again” or “Just do it” encompass messages that you can’t disagree with. This allows politicians to pull people towards rallying with the politician, not against (Propaganda, Anon). These obscure statements encompass promises and beliefs that have to be followed through with, however.
In the case of Angela Merkel, this means not changing beliefs over night and being honest. Angela Merkel has changed her views on certain situations numerous times to appeal to many demographics in Germany (Bickerton). Only, this works against her. People are sick of hearing Merkel say one thing but then work against what she previously said. One example of this is the refugee crisis. Merkel has been relatively open arms regarding fulfilling the EU quota for accepting migrants. This openness has been countered, however by actions which work against the migrants, such as wanting to pay refugees to leave. Merkel does this to appeal to both sides of the political spectrum in Germany, only it doesn’t work. In changing her stances, Merkel betrays those who supported her initial decisions and leaves those who are in favor of her new ones doubtful on her authenticity. This leaves Merkel’s position of power vulnerable. Being persistent in your promises fortifies a leader’s legitimacy, and frightens those who oppose said leader as well. Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine philosopher, wrote in his essay The Prince that “fear involves dread of punishment, from which they can never escape” (226). That is why, in face of opposition in what a leader promises, it is best to follow through with promises made in office. It scares the people and solidifies a leader’s legitimacy.
The final weapon is fear. Specifically, the leader may ensure power if they were to rally their people against a common enemy or scare. This fear must be something that can be physically manifested and dealt with that the general majority can rally against with. In rallying a majority of a country’s people, a leader creates a ground for everyone to grow closer together and, in effect, props himself as a crucial and intricate component in addressing this fear. A very well known and successful example of a leader unifying his people against a common enemy was Adolf Hitler. Hitler was able to utilize anti-Semitism to rally Germany against the Jews and rally the people with himself (The Jews).
This usage of fear to rally people together is even more effective when utilized to approach a problem with no solution. The trick is to deceive the populace into believing in this irrational fear. This is demonstrated in William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. The novel is about a group of British boys stranded on a remote island that has to govern themselves. Fear is utilized as a weapon to ensure power through the monster on the island. The little children on the island believe there is a monster that can hurt them. Jack confronts the little children’s fear of a monster and promises to “protect [them] from the beast” (Golding 134). The reader knows there is no monster, but the children on the island believe there is one. Jack’s promise to protect the children from the beasts ensures his position for as long as the belief in a beast on the island is not disrupted. This is how Jack managed to win general favor over Ralph. A leader, ultimately, cannot allow their self to buy into the fear or else this would lead to insecurity and destabilization of one’s rule.
With these three weapons, someone seeking to gain or maintain power will stand a much better chance. There is, however, a philosophy one must follow in order to ensure leadership. One who rules must be motivated by the love of their people and country. Motivation asides that corrupts what it means to be a leader of a nation and in effect works against someone’s rule. To utilize every weapon, one must rule in a system which allows for all three to be effectively used. In this situation, an authoritative state is optimal to ensure the maintenance of power (Andrew). To allow for power to be continued in your name, however, a Monarchy would perhaps be preferable.
It is important to address how these methods of gaining and maintaining power may be ultimately detrimental to the effort. Often times, leaders who operate in a similar manner (Mussolini, Caesar, Louis the XVI) end up being resented by their subjects. There is a threshold in which a controlled people become upset by their ruler instead of fearful. While preventable in such a system, once an idea of mutiny is sparked in the people, it becomes bullet proof and manifests into something greater. Such was the case in Italy, Rome, and France. It is ultimately important to recognize the people's well-being, or else this method of ruling is doomed to fail. That is why it is pivotal to have a leader be someone of the people for their rule to be successful.
To help avoid mutiny and satisfy the masses, democracy may be a preferable alternative. Democracy ensures the happiness and wellbeing of a nation’s people by a providing system where the government works for the people (Andrew). This system allows for citizens to express their thoughts and elect a body of statesmen who represent their beliefs. This lowers the chances of an upset people, yet also leaves the leader vulnerable to losing power by means inherent in the system. Ultimately, a politician in this system is bound to be dismissed after serving for a set time.
Being able to utilize all of these “weapons” and strategies while not allowing anyone else to tamper with your rule ensures ones rule in their lifetime and well beyond. Albeit, it is important to acknowledge that to satisfy all of these conditions and have all of these opportunities is almost impossible. At the end of the day, one’s house of cards is bound to fall. A leader may live to see their house stand tall until death, but once they're gone they lost all control. Their cards are unprotected and may be taken or toppled by anyone. There is a sonnet which demonstrates the expiration of power titled Ozymandias. Written by English Romantic poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, the sonnet explores the fate of history and power. Ultimately, even the greatest leaders and civilizations are impermanent, due to be forgotten. "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair! Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away”. This is in reference to a king who happened to be the most powerful man in the world at the time. Although his house of cards might have been grand and sublime, it’s fair to assume many don’t know who the sonnet is in reference to. This demonstrates the impermanent state of power, it is bound to be lost. To try to maintain power is ultimately a futile cause.
