by Adib Rashad ~
Noted Philosopher, Dr. Karl Jaspers, wrote a book in 1961 titled, "The Future of Mankind." In that book he eloquently postulated the comparative difference(s) between statesmen and politicians.
The difference(s) is/are from a contemporary standpoint predicated on deception, imagery, manipulation, media promoted hype, contrived issue perception, and obnoxious behavior.
The politician utilizes all of the above to his advantage. The politician tends to manipulate the citizenry or the masses for the purpose of obedience. He invariably makes use of patriotism as a means to accomplish this objective.
The statesman, on the other hand, is guided by moral, citizen, oriented ideas and needs. The statesman does not need or require obedience of any kind. He does not exploit the use of patriotism for his own egotism or personal economic objectives.
Contrarily, the politician relishes power--he worships it--and enjoys its appearance. The politician will readily accommodate any situation that he deems appropriate for masking his quest for political and economic power.
The statesman, however, wants power only for the purpose of service. He is sensitive to the fluctuations of power, so as to meet any present or impending danger, but he cares nothing for the pomp and panoply of his presumed power; he would rather conceal it.
The statesman views his position of power not as a claim on others, but on himself--as an opportunity to work, not to swagger. He feels a responsibility to uplift and advance others.
Professor Jaspers enhanced this aspect of the statesman by saying: "The individual cannot become human by himself. Self-Being is only real in communication with another Self-Being. Alone I sink into gloomy isolation. Only in community with and in service to others can I be revealed in the act of mutual discovery."
I paraphrased Jaspers with regard to the benevolent nature or ethical philosophy of which he ascribes to statesmen Jaspers maintains that the statesman is a person who knows that the saving political course is bound up with a change in the human being and the human spirit.
The statesman is more than ready to demonstrate that he is undergoing this change.
His aims are stated, his reasons communicated, and his steps are carefully taken on that basis. He will not allow his principles to perish because of thoughtless evasion of the issues. He will be manifest his thoughts and beliefs based on his political experiences of the historic situation, and from his awareness of the human task.
Moreover, he will not cease drawing the citizens attention to the essentials, and to the hierarchy of values.
The statesman will find the words that touch the inner-core of citizens, and that enlighten and awaken them and he will create a public consciousness that will implant crucial issues in their minds and hearts.
It is worth noting that statesmen are not produced by schools of political science, nor do they necessarily come from families who were/are lawyers or corporate executives. They do not consider themselves political pundits or specialists of any kind. They are only interested in representing the ethos of the citizenry. They believe they are called to serve the common cause.
To the rational and pragmatic statesman, politics is, can also be, an ethos. The rational statesman exits by the people's reason to which the lasting loyalty of the community of reasonable men enables him to give effect.
Therefore, to the rational and pragmatic statesman, the unity of politics and ethos are necessary and fundamental.
Contrary to certain aspects of the above, politicians and statesmen must appeal to forces that will get them votes. Both groups analyze what is stirring or agitating the electorate and decide weather it can or will become public opinion.
The politician regards public opinion as a fact that must be acted upon. However, the statesman tends to create public opinion through discussion, ethos and the will which he tries to awaken within the electorate.
Undoubtedly, in the world of politics, public opinion holds sway. Also, elections, for the most part, reflect public opinion as the final authority.
However, public opinion is neither unified nor fixed. It is both manageable and suggestible.
On the other hand, public opinion can also be the true expression of original insight, and at times, unpredictable, and wise. The statesman fully understands the mercurial nature of public opinion. He does not deceive himself about public opinion or the volatility of the citizenry.
He knows to what extent stupidity, deceit, passions, illusions, empty promises, and emotional patriotism can motivate the citizenry. He also knows that these feelings and actions are never final.
Usually, the electorate succumbs to the lures, snares, and machinations of professional politicians simply because anti-reason and unreason are constantly at work in every human being. Nevertheless, the statesman can stimulate counterforces in the very same electorate.
To the statesman, the struggle for votes is a process of popular education. This is an education which is indispensable to the self-preservation of political or so-called democratic freedom itself.
Professor Jaspers, with regard to the above, stated the following: "The statesman's ethos is part of the ethos that bears a people and the individuals in it. We are evading the issue if we separate politics and ethics and shift the making of great decisions away from the common ethos into just politics, for which others are held responsible--if we despise these others, perhaps, because politics is crooked."
In essence, the statesman, unlike the politician, cannot and does not relinquish the significance of his moral, political task. He will reject whatever would destroy this unity of ethos and self-preservation even if situations and mere politicians suggest such.
Jaspers points out that to be a statesman today, one must rise by means of politics and elections, and over disheartening and debilitating obstacles. The statesman must seize power as it exits in his particular situation, in time, and in his respective country. Furthermore, once the statesman has assumed political power, he then becomes one with the electorate. He does not ask for, or request unconditional trust.
Unlike the professional politician, the statesman presents his political agenda, his motives, his objectives, and asks for criticism. He is the people's representative, teacher, and student at the same time. He does not want, need, or ask for unbridled loyalty.
In conclusion, as stated earlier, politics for the politician is synonymous to and power. Thus, trust, respect, hope, justice, and concern for the citizenry are lost or willfully disregarded.
When these noble attributes are crushed, politics become nothing more than a brutal series of actions and transactions--national and international--in which fraud, force, fear, hopelessness, helplessness, and outright lies dominate the lives of the citizenry and society.
Marcus Raskin, social philosopher, in his book, "The Common Good," argues that politics in the strict or practical sense of the word should, or must denote the common good and that means organizing the citizens' feelings and passions for purposes which are decided upon with others.
In other words, politics should be the means by which people create relationships to live by and corporate. These feelings, according to Raskin, venture beyond the realm of power politics, and the power crazed politician because they include characteristics sometimes viewed as irrational, and inexplicable, like generosity, love, or empathy.
Raskin, as does Jaspers, believe that democratic politics under the guidance of a statesman is the most likely form or manner to obtain the "common good."
This process should be recognized as bonding of such feelings to other people for a particular series of beneficial ends.
Harold Lasswell, noted political scientist, asserted that politics was useless and dirty; that it was better to forge policy practices which are measurable, technocratically precise, and included apolitical interests.
Lastly, Lasswell believed that corrupt politics and politicians would eventually suppress or eliminate rival political either by monopolization of legality in one political party, or by the abolition of all citizen oriented political parties--the nonexistence of third parties in the United States is an excellent example.
The ruling groups (corporate politicians) will exercise a monopoly of opinion in public, and on the citizenry; thereby, abolishing the free communication of interpreting fact from opinion.
In light of the above, a pivotal question must be raised, and that is who rules or governs the United States and most of the world--statesmen or politicians?"
Adib Rashad RashadM@AOL.COM is an Education Consultant,
historian, author, and Education Program Director.
This article was previously published by theMarcusGarveyBBS (an entity of TheBlackList)
and TheBlackList at http://lists.topica.com/lists/TheBlackList/read
https://theblacklist.net/
Comments