POLITICS IS THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE
Or
PRAGMATIC POLITICS
Or
THE ART OF COMPROMISE
Or
EMBRACING PRAGMATISM
Or
POLITICS: REALISM VS. IDEALISM
Outline:
1. Introduction:
Otto
Von Bismarck viewed politics as pragmatic rather than ideal,
emphasizing
the art of compromise.
2. Why do
politicians often fail to achieve ideal solutions?
I.
Due to imperfect cost-benefit analysis.
II.
Influenced by emotional and cognitive biases.
3. Why is it
wise to embrace pragmatic solutions?
I.
Partial success is preferable to no progress.
II.
A rigid stance is prone to failure.
III.
Promotes peaceful coexistence.
4. Which
contemporary issues demand this pragmatic approach?
I.
Addressing urgent humanitarian crises.
II.
Resolving territorial disputes.
5. The pragmatic
approach - potential drawbacks:
I.
Compromises driven by self-interest.
II.
Sacrifices made on the altar of ideologies and moral
values.
6. Strategies
for promoting pragmatic decision-making:
I.
International organizations should take the lead.
II.
Political parties must fulfill their obligations.
III.
The media plays a crucial role.
IV.
Increased involvement of women in politics.
7. Conclusion
Politics is the art of achieving the best possible solution,
we need to learn this art to solve grave humanitarian issues in the world.
If a scientist wants to match the theoretical results of an
experiment with the practical results, he might have to wait for his whole
life. The same is true for politics It is always near to impossible to achieve
the ideal in the business of politics. Shrewd and experienced politicians
always know this fact. Otto Von Bismarck, the German Chancellor, referred to
the same fact when he said that politics is the art of the possible. He is
known in the world of politics for his diplomatic skills and flexible attitude.
Bismarck also said about politics:
“Politics is the art of the next best."
This brings us to the idea that politics is pragmatic, rather
than ideal. One has to be an expert in getting things done. It is sheer madness
to wait for the ideal things to happen. But how one can achieve the next best?
Perhaps, the answer is to employ the skill of negotiation and make necessary
compromises to achieve the good for the society.
But not all the deals made in politics are good for the
society. There is a downside to it. Sometimes, compromises are made which are
in the self-interest of the individual. On some other occasions, they are
devoid of principles and morals. Such compromises are a bane for society and a
source of most of the evil happenings in this world.
At the outset, we have established that politics is a
practical profession that breeds on the grounds of diplomacy and discussion to
strive for the near to the best solution. Next, we will analyze why politicians
usually reach an ideal solution. Some light will be shed on the question of why
the practicality of politics should be accepted. What we can gain from it? Then
we will mention some grave issues where we need this art direly. The
penultimate section will explain the downside of this art which was also
briefly touched on in the introduction In the end, some suggestions will be
furnished to make good political compromises a reality.
We have talked much about politics and its practical nature
in the opening section of the essay Now. we have to examine why it is almost
impossible to achieve the best scenario in politics. Why do politicians always
end up giving ideal solutions to the problems of this world? Some arguments are
needed to be provided to prove the point. The next section will be just the
same.
An important task of politicians is to select the best policy and implement it using the available resources. They mostly perform cost-benefit analyses to select the best policies. However, this method is not free from errors and shortcomings. There are always some hidden factors that make the policy, not the best one. Still, the policy can be altered a little bit to extract the next best. This is the real job of a politician. To extract the possible best is the testimony to the experience of the politician.
Emotional and cognitive biases also play their part in making
a politician think ideally. If a representative from the government puts
forward a solution to solve some issue, he will consider it as the best option
available. In reaching the decision, his personality has played an important
role. He has analyzed the scenario from his narrow perspective which might be
wrong. He has not probably considered it from the eyes of a representative of
the opposite gender. So, we have reached a deadlock. We need to build a
consensus to move forward. This gain boils down to the fact that achieving the
ideal is not possible in politics. We have to make compromises here and there
to reach the next best solution.
We have seen above how ideal decisions are difficult to
implement in politics as they are deprived of practicality. It means that we
can either strive for the best or accept whatever is being offered. It is
advisable to go for the latter in politics because the business of politics is
not to make the world a utopia but a practical place for human society. This
brings us to an important question as to why we accept the pragmatic nature of
politics and accept the solution it has to offer. The next section deals with
this question.
It is an intelligent decision to accept something rather than
wait for everything. If you want which apple but are unable to get hold of it,
it will be the next best to get at least a part of it. This part will also be
of the same apple for which you were striking. The same goes for politics. A
sharp politician will always accept the part rather than the whole. He will
try, to get something out of the political deal he wishes to make. Some might
dislike it, but it is the way politics is played. For instance, at the start of
the 19th century, Napoleon was busy in his European conquest. France had
control of Louisiana territory then adjacent to the new born United States. In a
tactical move, he sold the whole territory to the US for just $ 15 million. He
knew that it would be difficult to maintain control over that territory because
of the English presence there. He got the much-needed finances to carry on his
expeditions. Maintaining hold temporarily and winning the war would have been
the ideal scenario. But he compromised the former to achieve the latter. One
thing is clear in the game of politics i.e. rigid stance is a recipe for
failure. One cannot win the game by remaining inflexible in attitude and
thought. Hopelessness and despair are for the one waiting for something magical
to happen in politics. Whether it was the rigid stance of the Bush
administration not to reassess their decision to bomb Iraq or the stubbornness
of Bashar al-Assad not to step down amid the humanitarian crisis, the results
are more than obvious. Whenever you have to do politics, you ought to give
others a chance; otherwise, you are digging your own grave.
Peaceful co-existence is possible in this globalized world
only if the game of politics is played by rules decided by nature. If the
parties to a conflict are unable to solve the stalemate, war becomes
inevitable. The same happened when the two World Wars broke out. But history is
replete with instances where political compromises have led to the
establishment of peace. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 delayed the start of
the civil war in the US. The diplomatic skills of Kennedy and Khrushchev during
the Cuban missile crisis made the nuclear war a mere dream. Both parties agreed
to their wrongdoings and reached a great compromise in the history of world
politics.
In the above paragraphs, we have seen the efficacy of
political compromises. They have to ability to give you the monetary benefits
and can provide the much-needed peace in our society. There are still grave
issues in this world that are calling for international leaders to come to the
dialogue table and strive for an attainable solution. What are these issues
then? The following paragraphs will try to elaborate on this aspect.
Today, we have so many humanitarian crises which we have not
dreamed of in the past. The list is rather long but some of the grave ones are
terrorism, climate change, refugees, and nuclear disarmament. The politicians
do not have a clear policy to fight these challenges. Terrorism is adopting new
shapes with each passing day. Planet Earth is getting hotter day by day.
Helpless refugees are rendering the nations helpless. Race to acquire nuclear
arms in abundance is still going on What a place this world has become! Still,
we are unable to lessen their effect not to eradicate them. We need to make
necessary compromises again at this critical juncture, or else this world will
not remain a living place in the centuries to come.
Apart from the above challenges, we have some of the oldest
territorial disputes lingering on for decades. The notable ones are the issues
of the states of Kashmir and Palestine. Pakistan and India have fought four
wars on the disputed territory of Kashmir. Both states have faced huge economic
and humanitarian losses. But still, they are happy with the situation at the
expense of Kashmiri people The same goes for the statehood of Palestine. The
rigid stance of Israel has made the two-state solution a dream despite the
resolutions of the United Nations The parties to both of the above disputes
should immediately find a negotiating table and try to achieve the practical
solution to these problems. Only in this lies the salvation of the people of
these areas.
Up this instant, we have seen why politics is practical: why
we should accept it; and what the issues of the modern world are calling this
art for a solution. It is worth mentioning that in the above discussion, we
have portrayed political compromises as a good omen for this world. But this is
not always the case. Sometimes, cunning politicians and countries utilize it to
fulfill their ulterior motives. This makes politics a dirty game; one envisaged
by Machiavelli. The following section will try to elucidate the dirty nature of
pragmatic politics.
Some politicians do politics to secure the national interest
of the nation whenever they get the chance. Others play this game to further
only their interests, in such cases, politics becomes the dirty game. They try
to achieve their self interests without caring for the nation. Today, we see
the rule of military dictators in many parts of the world. They are supported
by none other than political parties founded on the very principles of
democracy. If we take a cursory look at the history of Pakistan, we will be
sure of the fact that the military rule is strengthened by power-hungry
political leaders. They compromise the welfare of their nation for petty
benefits.
It often happens that while making political compromises, the
parties forget their ideologies and moral values. The best example that can be
quoted here comes from the politics of the cold war between the US and the USSR.
The US considers itself the champion of democracy and human rights. But during
the Cold War, it tried to bring down the rise of communism in their nations.
They made the game of politics nothing less than a joke. They sacrificed their
ideology based on democratic principles and provision of human rights just to
satisfy their interest i.e. to not allow communism to spread in the world.
We have obtained a holistic view of the very nature of
politics in the above sections We are now in a better position to argue that
politics is indeed the art of the possible, or one must say that it should be
played in such a way to make the happening of good things possible despite
compromises. This art is needed to be learned and the world must do it on an emergency
basis as we are engulfed in multi faceted challenges. The section below will
highlight some of the major stakeholders that can make the achieving of the
possible even more possible.
First, to achieve political solutions to international issues, the onus of responsibility lies on the international organizations; which we have in huge numbers. United Nations needs to take the lead and try to achieve political solutions to the grave issues we are facing today. It should adopt a mechanism whereby the unbridled use of veto is avoided at least for the solutions of the challenges mentioned above. The OIC should assume responsibility for the deteriorating condition of the Muslim world. It is the responsibility of OIC to bridge the differences among Muslim nations to eradicate extremism and intolerance from our society. In the same way, SAARC can help to settle the differences among the South Asian nations.
Second, for the solution of domestic issues, the political
parties have to show some maturity. Consider the case of Pakistan. Most of the
issues that we are facing today can be solved by negotiations and discussions.
Our political parties have to think beyond their selves to achieve the possible
best solutions to our key problems like militancy, extremism, FATA reforms,
energy crisis, etc. The failure to do compromise has brought us the
dismemberment of our nation in 1971. If we continue to feather our own nest, we
might see another debacle like that of East Pakistan.
Third, the media is emerging as an important national
institution. They frame the voice of the public. They should encourage
political parties to leave their interests aside and work to achieve “the
possible" using politics. If a consensus on any issue is becoming
difficult to reach, they can come forward and use the power of their
editorials, opinion pages, and talk shows to help the nation out of the
quagmire. Media is increasingly becoming a modem weapon of diplomacy in the
modern world. It provides a platform for political parties to openly debate on
any issue and reach a consensus.
Fourth, women should be encouraged to participate in
politics. At present, there are very few women who are occupying prime
positions in the governments of various nations. The participation of women in
politics will help to achieve not only the possible solutions but the best
possible solutions. This is because we will get an extra lens to evaluate the
solutions available to solve an issue. The accommodating nature of women will
help in reaching a political solution easier and less time-consuming.
To conclude, it can be rightly argued that politics is closer
to pragmatism than idealism. The spirit of politics is to achieve not the ideal
solutions but the best among the available practical scenarios Politics can be
viewed from the perspective of Utilitarianism which seeks the greatest amount
of good for the greatest amount of people. To do politics, one should be
willing to make bargains and compromises. A shrewd politician knows how to achieve
something out of nothing. The political atmosphere of the world at present is
ripe with tensions and deadlocks on many important issues. The doomsday is
nearing midnight. We need to come out of our slumber to achieve the solutions to
our problems through the faculty of politics. In case of our failure, the
destructions of the two World Wars are still fresh in our minds. It is
inevitable for the leaders of the world to take a seat at the negotiating table
and strive to learn the art of politics to make peace a possibility in this
world. It is never too late because:
“The time is always right to do what is right" - Martin
Luther King Jr.