Politics without Ethics is a Disaster

Editorial Note: Many aspirants preparing for competitive exams struggle with writing a comprehensive essay, particularly in creating a proper outline and thesis statement. To address these challenges, ‘The Spine Times’ has initiated a series of essays that apply various discourses, tailored to meet the requirements of the FPSC. Argumentative essays, in particular, tend to be challenging, as dividing the essay into three key sections—thesis, antithesis, and synthesis—can be difficult. However, in this essay, ‘Politics without Ethics is a Disaster’ the author effectively resolves these issues by giving equal attention to all three parts while maintaining cohesion and coherence, throughout.

Outline

1. Introduction
   Both individuals and society suffer when political values alienate from state affairs. Pragmatists, however, support the annulment of morality from politics, which results in the proliferation of myriad troubles.
2. Understanding different schools of thought: Realism and Idealism
3. Politics without ethics brings disasters
   I. The abatement of moral restraints leads to wars and conflicts.
   II. Serious threats to the enactment of the rule of law.
   III. Democratic ideals become more vulnerable.
   IV. Suffering of vulnerable classes: minorities and women.
   V. Autocratic decision-making augments economic doldrums.
   VI. Inward-looking policies brew global crises like climate change.
4. Rationality is inevitable in state affairs, which unleashes morality from politics
   I. Morality is highly subjective and varies from state to state.
   II. A pragmatic approach becomes inevitable to protect self-interests.
   III. State institutions are obliged to fulfill basic needs: food, shelter, and clothing.
   IV. Idealism is a mere dystopia.
5. The myopic approach of realists does more harm than protecting states and their citizens
   I. The notion of subjectivity becomes a token for psychopaths to kill innocent souls.
   II. Self-interest and abstract ideas differ for different groups within society.
   III. Authorities are also responsible for providing non-material needs like morality and ethics.
   IV. A responsible and accountable system can transform the dream of an ideal world into reality.
6. Conclusion

Essay

The fundamental trait that distinguishes human beings from other species is consciousness and the ability to differentiate, what is right and what is wrong. These instincts control not only individuals but also the social institutions they operate within their domains, keeping them accountable. If one attempts to remove norms and values from state affairs, such as politics, society faces serious consequences, including the triumph of war, economic recessions, and the violation of basic fundamental rights. The marginalization of already marginalized classes and the retreat of modern liberal democracy are also akin to politics devoid of ethics. Realists, notwithstanding believe that rationality is the pivot of political decision-making, and often overlook the role of morality and emotions. Unfortunately, the prevalence of such minds in political spheres has become a key reason behind social catastrophes, like the world wars. Thus, both individuals and society suffer when political values alienate from state affairs. Pragmatists, however, support the annulment of morality from politics, which results in the proliferation of myriad troubles.

Political philosophers and social critics are divided on the question of whether political decisions are ethically driven or not. The liberal or idealist school of thought holds that state decisions must be grounded in morality to achieve desirable outcomes. Positive outcomes like goodwill, peace, harmony, and a rule-based order can be attained at the state level, as well as globally if policies are embedded with fundamental values and norms. John Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau are among the forerunners of liberalism who ardently propagated the notions of liberty, equality, and the rule of law. On the flip side, realists strongly believe in the separation of politics and ethics. They argue that states must make rational decisions without allowing emotions or sentiments to interfere. Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and Morgenthau are deemed the pioneers of realism. Hobbes justifies power politics by comparing it with the “nasty, brutish, and short” nature of individuals. Thus, liberals and realists completely disagree on the relationship between politics and ethics.

Artifical Intelligence: The Death of Creativity

Socio-political realities illustrate that politics without ethics leads to disaster. Wars, for example, are the aftermath of amoral political decision-making. Authorities do not prioritize self-introspection or self-restraint, as they believe these could make them irrational. For instance, Machiavelli, one of the torchbearers of realism, advises the rulers in his famous work, ‘The Prince, that “it is good to be bad.” For Machiavelli, as for many of his followers, nothing is inherently good or bad unless it helps one achieve one’s goals. Such ideas embolden despots to carry out wars and undermine the rule of law.

The idea of equality before the law also seems an impracticable myth if moral and ethical values are separated from politics. The rule of law entails that everyone is equal before the law. However, when special privileges are bestowed to the authorities, considering rational decision-making, the entire system becomes imbalanced. Thucydides, an ancient Greek historian, and philosopher, refutes the supremacy of law in his masterpiece, ‘The History of the Peloponnesian War’. He propagates, “the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must,” meaning that powerful actors have powers that are inaccessible to the poor. The validation of such mindsets and norms, which are fostered by amoral politics, not only threatens the rule of law but also jeopardizes democracy.

Democracy, the best system ever produced by humankind, cannot prevail in an environment where the basic social principles are overlooked. Democracy has been established to keep policymakers in check, to proclaim the supremacy of the polity, and to ensure universal equality. If authorities have the power to usurp these ideals, the enactment of democracy will remain a mere dream. The recession of democracy in the contemporary world, as highlighted by the Global Democracy Index 2023, is a result of the alienation of ethics and values in policymaking. Therefore, ethics in politics not only strengthens democracy but also guarantees the protection of the rights of marginalized classes.

The poor and vulnerable class of society are always in trouble when politics are headed by unchecked and unrestrained power. Such power allows authorities to punish and abuse minorities and women to gain fame and popularity from their supporters. These actions push democratic societies toward populism. The rise of Hindu nationalism under Modi, the Prime Minister of India, exacerbates the agonies and plights of Muslims and other minorities. The majority support Modi’s oppressive regime, which gives him more courage and reinforcement. This reflects that moral restrictions are indispensable to curbing political deterioration. Otherwise, the poor, along with the national economy, will reap the troubles.

A robust economy demands fair dealings and the enactment of the rule of law, prerequisites for a morally sound political culture. If a state fails to establish such a system, its economy inevitably suffers. Investors, industrialists, and producers place their trust in a system when they are assured that they will be protected by laws and regulations. In their seminal work ‘Why Nations Fail, Robinson and his co-author argue that the economic failures of third-world nations are primarily rooted in the exclusive nature of their political institutions. They claim that the political culture of the developing world lacks moral and legal foundations, which hinders their social and economic development. Hence, politics without ethics hampers economic prosperity.

Lastly, self-centered policymaking exacerbates global crises. The development of mistrust among global powers due to the overlooking of the common goals disintegrates the international community. States are unwilling to give up their interests even when humanity is on the brink of disaster. For instance, the United Nations urges its members to take substantial measures to mitigate climate change. Though these states make ambitious claims at conferences, they fail to align their policies and regulations with the findings of climate watchdogs. Governments, acting as so-called rational actors, refuse to sacrifice their economic and social interests, subsequently causing soaring international catastrophes.

Realists, on the other hand, argue that the abatement of ethics from the political system becomes inevitable for the state and its people, rather than a disaster. Firstly, the notion of ethics and values is highly subjective, making their inclusion in politics highly skeptical. Various norms and customs that are paramount in one society may become less significant in another. Democratic values such as freedom of speech, political participation, and other civic values are the backbone of Western political culture. However, China does not give ample importance to these principles. In one of his speeches, President Xi stated that China has its own type of democracy—democratic communism. Therefore, the subtlety of political ethics gives enough room for policymakers to drive their political system according to their understanding and beliefs.

Moreover, state decisions need to be rational and pragmatic rather than emotional and utopian. Politicians always give prime importance to state interests, and their basic responsibility is to protect them. The economy and the security of the state are always deemed as the priority for statesmen. Russia justifies its ongoing invasion of Ukraine due to insecurities created by NATO expansion. John Mearsheimer, the forefather of structural realism, also reiterates that states always react in the case of insecurities, as Russia did in February 2022. Hence, for policymakers, state interests and the fulfillment of basic needs for the people are supreme, rather than abstract norms and values.

Understanding the politics of the Indian Ocean

The fundamental responsibility of the government is to provide the basic necessities of life. By doing so, authorities earn the right to control various social norms. The state can limit the freedom of assembly or freedom of speech if it creates hurdles in socioeconomic activities and other state affairs. For example, Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 gives everyone the freedom of expression; however, the article also empowers the state to take strict action against those who try to malign state institutions and religion. For states, the parameter to gauge their legitimacy is the provision of basic needs like food, shelter, clothes, and security, while the rest are secondary. Thus, politicians have the right to overlook ethics while addressing the essential demands of society.

Last but not least, realists believe that moral liberal values are mere dystopia, which cannot be enacted in the real world. The notion of universal equality, friendly relations among different states, and the implementation of the rule of law look inspiring. However, social inequality and the power struggle among different actors make their practical application a daydream. Thomas Hobbes, an eminent classical philosopher, remarks in his book ‘Leviathan’ that people have to give up their natural rights, like liberty, to live in a peaceful society. People can’t enjoy both liberal rights and state rights as both are antagonistic. Therefore, moral liberal values never remain in harmony with power politics.

The arguments proposed by the realist school of thought are not profound enough to alienate ethics from politics. Autocrats and ambitious leaders use the subjectiveness of moral values to carry out their aspirations of war. They concoct their own moral and legal grounds, which differentiate them from the rest, particularly from their enemies. The exploitation of Nazi Germans in the 1930s by Hitler, proclaiming the superiority of Nazis, became the main reason behind the prelude of the Second World War. For Germans, fighting for their cause and attaining the Rimland gave them moral justification, while the world deemed it madness. This episode elucidates that the open interpretation of moral and political values surges political and security unrest.

Despite ethics, the idea of national interest, the core of realism, also creates ambiguities. Different groups within the state have their interests motivating them to achieve it. Moreover, another confusion regarding national or state interest is who has the legitimate right to define it—either the government has the power to set the stakes of the state or the people, own sovereign rights, to define the nation’s endeavors. Alexander Wendt, a contemporary political philosopher, vehemently refutes the concrete nature of state interest, power, and other political concepts. If the idea of the interest of a nation is itself so relative, then how can an actor use it to undermine the ethical values of politics? Therefore, authorities do not have the right to vitiate morality from the state’s affairs by using the abstruse notion of self-interest.

Apart from that, being the “roof and the crown of all creatures,” according to Tennyson, a prominent Victorian poet, humankind needs various non-material essentials along with material requirements. If a human needs food to satisfy their appetite, they also seek emotional and sentimental values to fulfill their soul. Trust, goodwill, equality, and justice have remained indispensable parts of human society since its inception. Discarding these values from politics can surely put the existence of human culture at bay. Ishrat Hussain, a seasoned diplomat, and policymaker, argues in his book ‘Governing the Ungovernable‘ that the basic causes behind the deterioration of political and civil institutions are systemic flaws, but the moral depravity of society at large also exacerbates their decline. This means the state has failed to impart moral and ethical values in society, and this is not only Pakistan’s problem; the entire international community is facing a moral abyss. Rather than alienating ethics from politics, authorities need to strengthen these values and promulgate them among the people as well.

Finally, a reliable and friendly environment is achievable rather than an illusion, if governments behave responsibly. Robust coordination and the development of trust among states have proven that the idea of a rules-based order and the supremacy of law can be upheld on multiple occasions. For example, the unification of global powers to control nuclear proliferation and the joint efforts put forward by the international community to tackle COVID-19 prove that states can set aside their own interests for the sake of global challenges. Therefore, ethics and values can prevail in international politics, despite being the epicenter of power politics.

In short, the alienation of ethics from politics brings socio-political and economic distress. However, the supporters of power politics argue that norms and values have no place in real politics, and authorities are bound to make rational decisions. This justification leads to social disintegration, resulting in economic and political recessions. Even the world has witnessed innumerable wars due to unethical and myopic decision-makers. However, the realist school of thought argues that wars become inevitable for states to protect their self-interest, and they are obliged to take logical and pragmatic measures. But the question remains: are these justifications lucid enough to legitimize wars and conflicts? Every person with a spine agrees that no one has the right to wage wars and conflicts or reserve the basic rights of the people by using the skeptical notion of state interest and rationality, proving that politics without ethics is a disaster.