Firstly, in the principle regarding the uncertainty of
motives and consequences of the actions that political leaders take, Morgenthau
used the example of Robespierre. Having previously studied the French
Revolution in detail, this was a new way of looking at the rule of Robespierre.
Morgenthau explained that even though Robespierre was considered to be one of
the most virtuous men at the time, his actions resulted in a bloody ‘Reign of
Terror’. I found this example interesting because it meant that the rule of a
seemingly virtuous leader does not necessarily have to result in progress and
harmony. It provided food for thought specifically in the context of Pakistan.
Secondly, perhaps I have failed to fully comprehend the idea
Morgenthau is presenting, but I seemed to find two points, regarding realism, contradictory.
At one point the author defines power as such: ‘Power
may comprise anything that establishes and maintains the control of man over
man. Thus power covers all social relationships which serve that end, from
physical violence to the most subtle psychological ties by which one mind
controls another. Power covers the
domination of man by man.’ But at other another point he highlights that a
political realist ‘parts company with other schools when they impose standards
of thought appropriate to other spheres upon the political sphere’. Here, other
schools of thought can include fields like economics, law, science, philosophy,
etc. If power is really defined as ‘domination of man by man’ then surely,
domination can take legal, economic, intellectual or military form. In that
case, standards of other schools will certainly have to be applied if such
forms of domination are affecting the politics of a nation. Here, I feel that
there may be a contradiction within the political realist school of thought as
it does not make sense for them to take offence if standards of other thoughts
are applied in the political sphere since they define domination to mean control
in literally any form.
Interesting point, I also think that writer does not distinguish between resources that
ReplyDeletegive states power (economic, military) and the act of one state exerting power over
another.
Good point highlighting how the Robespierre example could be interpreted in a contemporary Pakistani context. With so many people putting hopes in messianic leaders to save Pakistan from its troubles, effective leadership is considerably more complex. As the saying goes, "The path to hell is paved in good intentions."
ReplyDeleteAlso, power for Morgenthau is related to "hard" power instruments - i.e. thing like the military and other coercive mechanisms used to achieve particular ends.