by Simon
•Simon is a young Bahamian with things on his mind who wishes to remain anonymous. His column 'Front Porch' is published every Tuesday in the Nassau Guardian. He can be reached at frontporchguardian@gmail.com
Crow-barring a well-known quote out of its original context is akin to isolating a verse from a famous poem. You may get some of the flavour, but not the full taste, of what the author fully intended.
Think of prooftexting, which drains Biblical texts of their originality and vitality, by severing them from their historical and literary contexts. There are also misquoted texts.
Money is not the root of all evil, according to Timothy 6:10. Rather, “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
It’s telling that the qualifying verb, love, has often been discarded in this moralism regarding the relationship between man/woman and moolah.
Perhaps the oversight is less a mistake, and more a theological bias which views the physical world as inherently corrupt or evil. This was not St. Paul’s original insight, which was primarily concerned with our moral attitude towards the world’s goods.
Unfortunately, his writings -- and those of the Pauline Tradition -- have often been fundamentally and religiously misappropriated.
St. Paul may serve as counsel for others who have also had famous thoughts mangled, including the historian, writer and moralist, John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton.
Lord Acton did not originally say “power corrupts”. He said power tends to corrupt. And even this has been taken out of context ever since he wrote it in an 1877 letter to a Roman Catholic Bishop.
By savouring the wider historical and textual context, within which Acton crafted one of history’s more famous observations, we can relish the deeper and broader flavour of what he originally intended.
Acton, a faithful Roman Catholic, writing in opposition to Pope Pius IX’s promulgation of the doctrine of papal infallibility -- another usually misunderstood concept -- pressed:
“I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases.
“Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Within this context, Lord Acton was referring primarily to religious power. Curiously, the dictum got lodged in individual minds and our collective memory as, “politics corrupts.”
Acton, who also served for many years in Parliament, would probably find such a sentiment as ridiculous as the statements -- “business corrupts” or “religion corrupts”.
Instead, he was an equal opportunity sceptic, weary about the concentration of power, wherever it was amassed, including in commerce.
To wit: “The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks.”
In these last four words we find one of the preoccupying questions of Acton’s lifework: how to achieve a balance of power within and between various centres of power.
Unchecked religious power has led to crusades, inquisitions, fanaticism and all manner of clerical abuse. Unchecked commercial greed has also wreaked havoc on the body politic and the body economic.
The promiscuous commingling of unchecked political, economic and religious power has sanctioned or permitted some of the worse crises in human civilization, including colonialism, the Atlantic Slave Trade and genocide.
A lack of checks and balances, on the often incestuous relationship between political and commercial power, can lead to subprime mortgage crises, anemic health and safety standards for labour and abuse of consumers.
But the potential abuse of power implies the potential for good use of that same power. Politics, like commerce and religion, is a noble and necessary creation of human civilization.
Clausewitz’s cynically stated “War is a continuation of politics with other means” inverts a potentially positive reality: the refinement of the political art has often replaced the devastation of war.
Politics is not inherently corrupt, but tends to become corrupt when internal mechanisms, such as the separation of powers and good governance are not entrenched in the rule of law, democratic traditions and the hearts and minds of citizens.
But it also tends towards corruption, when unchecked by the ethical reflection of the religious community, the intellectual rigor of academia, the investigative prowess of the mass media, the advocacy of civil society and the legitimate interests of business.
And it tends towards corruption when well-meaning people absent themselves from the political arena.
Some are self-righteously complacent, content to have others do the business of politics, reaping the rewards, while offering little public service.
Others are naïve, believing that politics should be more like a debating society. Principled fights and the necessary political compromise to achieve majority rule, universal suffrage and independence required civil discourse and civil disobedience.
It’s amazing that politicians are virtuous when they pursue my self-interests, but demons when they pursue the interests of others. Then, when they attempt to balance competing interests, they are labelled sell-outs by all sides.
Those who sit on the sidelines, reflexively condemning politics and politicians, might consider the complex issues with which political leaders are confronted. They might consider the sacrifices made and the intense scrutiny endured by politicians.
How many of us can withstand the checks and balances of public disclosure and integrity laws, constant press coverage, political opposition and vigilant advocacy groups? Then just about every day and more dramatically, every five years, you get reviewed again and again.
The political arena is often filled with calumny, cut-throat intrigues and cowardice. But the only way for it to become less calumnous and cut-throat and more heroic, is for ordinary citizens to realize that politics is generally as corrupt or uncorrupt as we allow.
The ultimate balance of power in a democracy is the eternal vigilance of a responsible and active citizenry.
"Those who sit on the sidelines, reflexively condemning politics and politicians, might consider the complex issues with which political leaders are confronted. They might consider the sacrifices made and the intense scrutiny endured by politicians".
Complex issues created by those who would rule the hoards, made, dependent on their benevolence and handouts, funded by those who do not, but who produce.
Without their misfeasance and malfeasance, the issues are quite simple, but unacknowledged, and unsolvable by them.
As for their sacrifice, it must be easy to sacrifice your people, while making millions for oneself.
"It’s amazing that politicians are virtuous when they pursue my self-interests, but demons when they pursue the interests of others. Then, when they attempt to balance competing interests, they are labelled sell-outs by all sides"
Politicians should persue no interests other than protecting the rights of citizens to persue happiness, and protect our freedom to trade.
Defence of the realm is also their responsibility to its citizens, but to persue the interests of one group over another is to advance the interests of some at the expense of others.
They are sellouts, sellouts of ideals, morals, and people.
They have sold out our value as thinking people, and have robbed us of our initiative.
"The ultimate balance of power in a democracy is the eternal vigilance of a responsible and active citizenry".
I agree but we, the above mentioned have given up our "rights" in subservience to those we elect.
How will we re-claim it?
They will not give it up willingly, and have no wish to answer to us, the people or the law of the land.
Posted by: C.Lowe | May 13, 2008 at 07:54 PM
To the author,
I am not holding a pity party for any politician. Do your job!
But, the article does have merit on some issues. The quote by Acton was put in greater context. Also, the democratic influences of other non government structures- ie. media, church and academia, is something we are struggling with.
More importantly however, and this is for the ending part of the article; the truth is always the truth. We don't need people, running to the rescue of any politician, because they can't bear to hear the criticism, harsh or constructive, from their people.
Politricks, is politricks!
Bill.
Posted by: Bill | May 17, 2008 at 02:06 PM