Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of content)
Power, an instrument with two faces
[Last Update: 31st October 2018]
Power can be interpreted as an instrument for the common good or as an instrument for the preservation of egocentric fire in one respectively i.e. the ego which seeks to preserve its own interests.
[It can sometimes make sense to be clear about terminology before going into depth. Because terminology sometimes can create space for interpretations that the author may or may not want to have. The associations which is not intended by the author can cause damage. This is for general and not only for this post]
The word power can be interpreted in different ways. One can equate power e.g. with money and wealth, knowledge can be power or the combination of this and that. It becomes dangerous with power, if it is the combination or the union of many or all, that the interests of one or a limited number of people of this world should serve. Here the instrument “power” misses the welfare of all, that is, the common good.
An interesting example from the current time is e.g. the Brexit topic or the elections in the United States of America. I can take more recent examples from (world) politics, but we will limit to these two issues, not to lose the track.
Was and will the people be sufficiently informed about the consequences of their decision? I am well aware that the complexity of (world) politics cannot be summed up in a few sentences – for that reason, the parties choose topics or election promises that can sometimes be polarizing, with which they attract their voters, although the topics later in the real politics may only be one of many or only a side topic. Also, the fact that the voters’ sympathy for a politician or a particular party or the combinations of this can blind the voter without his or her noticing.
Of course, the politicians know this and make use of it. This usage can, as suggested in my headline, come from two motives: the common good, or it should only serve a handful of people.
If I had to properly discuss the two topics, I would not come around without exposing an individual or a small group of individuals behind it – above all, I do not want it if I feel that the individual is unaware about the consequences of its action (Brexit).
The fact of the Brexit issue is that British law does not require or be binding on the vote, as this would limit the sovereignty of the parliament, which, however, must be guaranteed under British law – in simple words, one do not have to implement the vote, the parliament can also ignore it.
[A German proverb says: Whoever says “A” must also say “B” – I say that this does not necessarily have to be. This should be an allusion to my chosen topics that I do not really want to deepen, not out of laziness, but primarily out of didactic reasons]