Very recently, I was reviewing a story that I like, it is a science fiction narrative published periodically on the web, but I often find interesting views from the authors on several occasions, in this case I saw something that called me a lot Attention:
Politics is the art of commitment, and power comes from obedience. Even if a civilized leader wants to consolidate his position, he still needs to gain the support of several factions and cultivate an unconditional confidant, to add value to his power.
Source of the quotation - Own translation
In the original it was:
政治是妥协的艺术，权力来自于服从，即便是文明领袖，想要巩固位置，也依然需要争取各个派系的拥护、培养铁杆心腹，这样才能让手里的权势增值。
It certainly gave me plenty to think about. It is interesting that the author, being of Chinese origin and used to a single-party political system and government of "Agents Formed by the Party", makes clear an important point of what is implied by the coexistence of the different political factions within a complex social system. Well, certainly they have a single party, but that does not imply that their internal unity is monolithic, in short, what I want to highlight is that what is said in that paragraph is quite applicable to all the government systems that I know, from representative democracies, monarchical systems, multicultural governments and other more variations of government systems that can be found in large human groups that eventually develop certain forms of complexity in their internal organization in order to function.
It also led me to think about the problem of the role of the leader or the guide, because although it is said that the top of the pyramid of power is solitary, you cannot be or reach it without having a whole large group of people who sustain such a position, thus, although a leader is above or in front of a group and must lead it, he always has the reminder that it was the agreement between the people that placed him there, in the uncivilized cases in which we have to Addressing a de facto government or one imposed by force... well, I just need to recall a phrase that I think was from Napoleon saying that bayonets could make a throne, but it was not possible to remain seated on it for long.
In those cases in which the "Throne" was made with weapons, since there is always the problem that such a leader depends on the blind obedience of his followers, he may have to use a lot of rhetoric, give many benefits, watch with unhealthy constancy, and Even so, he is not going to be able to free himself from the eternal shadow of a possible uprising, either from the people who get tired of maintaining an imposed government and end up choosing to fight to the death to undo everything, or either from an uprising by one of their subordinates. who wants to imitate its leader and see that "if he could take power by force, why couldn't I do the same?"
I suspect that is enough to constantly get on my nerves, so I do not understand those who do the madness to seize a government by force, they certainly have the will for power and the desire to dominate, but I am surprised that their brain is so short-term that they don't notice that they are putting themselves in a difficult position. Well, there are cases in different continents that can show historical examples that a power imposed by force can be preserved until the death of the leader, but I prefer not to delve into the subject at this time to avoid hurting sensibilities.
Much more than a browser. Enjoy private, secure and fast browsing with Brave