Skip to main content

Autotelic Politics


    I came across an interesting blog today which is mainly dedicated to posting videos of fights in parliaments. These fights - as in fist fights- that erupted in European, Middle Eastern and African parliaments, not only revealed the hidden barbaric aspect of suit-masked gentlemen, but also drew attention to their very poor fighting skills. I mean, if you are going to throw a fist every now and then, you might at least try to improve what little kung-fu skills you have. Maybe start up a fund with member contribution? New taxes perhaps?

      In all cases, this was not what most drew my attention in the blog; after all, the diversity in the ideological background of MPs in some parliaments and the wide spectrum of political orientations of its representatives may have added coal to the fiery politician. At some point, and according to the political scholar Khaleel Al Hajjaj, differences between Jordanian partisans led to exchange of fire, inside and outside the parliament. Extreme right populist parties must not tolerate any of the ideals presented by far left socialist parties; a communist party member may never see eye to eye with an Islamic party; and a neo-liberal may never understand a Marxist. Policies drawn in such parliaments need to follow the rule of compromise and disappointing consensus. Even when dealing with majority systems (such as the UK), policies drawn by governments do not tend to greatly differ from what the opposition bloc would be willing to accept. Policies have to pay the price of conciliation.

     What does however draw my attention is the question of “the autotelic nature” of politics. Politics is not considered autonomously valuable or an end in itself. It is considered as a mere mean in deliberation to reach an end. As Guido Parietti explains, many reject the idea that politics could be an end in itself; defence of democracy and political participation stop just short of recognising politics as ends in themselves. What is the root of rejecting the autotelic nature of politics? Is it the fault of those who defend democracy heatedly? Is it a result of considering that any decision taken that does not take into account the opinions of others should be considered void of any meaning or purpose? Do politics and political activity always need a result to justify their use?

     Personally, I believe that politics is a need; expressing one’s opinions, fighting for ideals, lobbying for selfish purposes, compromising for the good of all are all aspects of our modern intellectual selves. Even if the result is not convenient to some sometimes, even if there are no results at all, political deliberations are a must in any civilized society. To teach our children how to argue, how to debate and how to manoeuvre is building up political consciousness whose importance goes way beyond democratic achievement of results. However, focusing on moderation and compromise in any political activity confirms the notion of “useless politics if not agreement is reached”. As Berber said: !It is the self-governing people who most need moderation, for they have nothing but moderation to remind them of the weakness and infirmities on which their self- government relies, and by which it is justified”. Moderation is indeed a necessity in drawing polices and making decisions, but it is not what defines a political activity or its purpose. Difference of opinion, strong commitment to ideals, ability to explain one’s political beliefs also do count, even if they do not yield the aspire results. Should our politicians remind themselves that politics is autotelic, and is praised as a procedure in itself, more civilization in the chambers of political deliberations would be achieved.

    To conclude, Winston Churchill famously testified in the House of Commons in 1947: ‘Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.’ Democracy has its faults, compromise has its faults, but politics – in itself - does not.




References
·         Barber, B. (1984) Storng Democracy
http://books.google.es/books?id=2YbevnCXAhgC&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=It+is+the+self-governing+people+who+most+need+moderation,+for+they+have+nothing+but+moderation+to+remind+them+of+the+weakness+and+in%EF%AC%81rmities+on+which+their+self-+government+relies,+and+by+which+it+is+justi%EF%AC%81ed&source=bl&ots=kNnuojDgSq&sig=EGu9dhOuWeJz8OjAXVBx2zqRefs&hl=es&sa=X&ei=9TJuU8mmCIWd0AW9l4DIBQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=It%20is%20the%20self-governing%20people%20who%20most%20need%20moderation%2C%20for%20they%20have%20nothing%20but%20moderation%20to%20remind%20them%20of%20the%20weakness%20and%20in%EF%AC%81rmities%20on%20which%20their%20self-%20government%20relies%2C%20and%20by%20which%20it%20is%20justi%EF%AC%81ed&f=false
·         Al Hajjaj, K. (2001) The History of Political Parties in Jordan, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
·         Parietti, G. (2011) On the autotelic character of politics, Journal of Political Theory

URL: http://ept.sagepub.com/content/11/1/59 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Just as Orwell Said

         George Orwell said in his famous book 1984 that “first they steal the words, then they steal the meaning”, accurately foreseeing the political actions of world leaders and their manipulation of public opinion. His words are ever so precise once one examines the vocabulary applied by a number of world leaders when describing the policies and regimes of troubling countries: axis of evil, war on terror, terrorist killers, harbourers of fundamentalism etc. Ironic it is to see how those who were once described to have been allies with Satan himself seem to show good will in a matter of very few years. Iran is one very good example of this. The Persian nation has come out as a winner in the Geneva talks that were held in October, where not only did it get applauded for the concessions it offered, but it also ensured the west’s acceptance of its regional weight. Everyone seems to be more relaxed after the negotiations and ...

Kaftar

Muaawiya Bin Abi Sufyan was the first Umayyad Caliph, who ruled as a just and jovial leader until his death in 683 AD. Known for his sense of humour and his love for women, Abi Sufyan was famous for a story that took place in his own harem. While escorting a woman for the Khorasan region in modern day Iran, a beautiful woman entered the harem and mesmerised the Leader of All Believers. With his pride in his manhood and prowess in the bed arena, Abi Sufyan did not hesitate to engage in a brazen and manly sexual act in front of the Khorasani woman, who was patiently waiting for her turn. After he was done, he turned victoriously to his first concubine and asked her how to say ‘lion' in Persian - in a direct analogy to his sexual performance.  The Khorasani woman, unamused, told him slyly, that lion is kaftar in Persian. The Caliph went back to his Court ever so jubilant and told his subjects – repeatedly – that he was one lucky kaftar. His...

Pan-Arabism vs. Middle Easternism?

             A rab Nationalism, a romantic concept that moved poets to write ballads, intellectuals to preach volumes, activists to passionately organize and the masses to cheer freedom. A concept introduced by students at the American University of Beirut in the last phases of the ageing Ottoman Empire and studied in secret societies. This concept developed and led, under western planning, to the Great Arab Revolt in 1916. The slogans of Arab revival and freedom from Ottoman tyranny swept the Arab nations, where hopes of independence and self-rule were promised by the restoration of Arab control over the area. Then problems arose. Who are Arabs? What is an Aran nation? How does it extend geographically? Is it an area that encompasses people who speak the same language and share the same history? If so, why did the Lebanese Maronites reject the concept of Arab nationalism and insist on a Lebanese identity? Why did the Egyptians hesitate be...