GP Exam essay by Peggy Pao Pei Yu (2A01B) RJC 2001

'Politics has nothing to do with idealism; it is all about hard-headed decisions, money and power.' Do you agree? (Prelim 2001)

Politicians have not always been associated with diplomatic chicanery, amoral pragmatism and self-aggrandization, the way they tend to be now. There was a time when leaders like Abraham Lincoln sounded the clarion call for democracy, and pleaded as Woodrow Wilson did in his Fourteen Points for world peace and mutual respect. Since the twin horrors of World War I and World War II, as well as various crises like Vietnam, however, the masses have become increasingly disillusioned. Eurostat surveys found that when asked whose interests European governments were serving, an overwhelming majority replied they were serving their own. Voter turnout throughout the democratic world has reached an all-time low, reflecting a sense that politics is increasingly characterized by self-serving amorality. Indeed, the term "politics" can be discussed on many levels, including the domestic as well as international. To take an objective view with regards to the question of whether politics is about noble aspirations or pragmatic self-interest, we must bear in mind that it is not easy to generalize because of the plethora of situations that exist today. Furthermore, we have to question: has politics been burdened with an unfair responsibility too heavy to bear?

On the international level, we still see a whole range of idealistic concepts being sounded and propounded. If anything, the level of idealism in international politics seems to have increased. From the signing of the International Declaration of Human Rights at the San Francisco Conference in 1945, a welter of protocols and conventions regarding any issue from genocide to women's rights have been created. With the United Nations at the forefront of this "humanitarian revolution", the issue of fundamental human rights cannot be avoided in politics today. This idealism in international politics has an inevitable effect on the domestic arena, as politicians increasingly support such ideals as democratization which offers equal rights to all. Indeed, in the past three decades, two thirds of countries which were non-democratic thirty years ago have held democratic elections. Thus we see that on the ideological level, democracy as the new Holy Grail has imbued politics with a noble hope.

Increasingly, the ideal is not just to build a better world for one's own country, but to cooperate globally to raise living standards and end oppression for all states. Conferences like the Millennium Summit call for "Freedom from Fear" and "Freedom for Want", firmly supported by the leaders of countries ranging from America to Nigeria. As such, it is difficult to claim that politics has absolutely nothing to do with idealism.

However, paradoxically, the most noble-sounding of politicians may also be the most self-serving. Indeed, precisely because of the embracing of humanitarianism and democracy as the new order of international politics, leaders find it in their interests to gain political currency by fervently espousing ideals on one hand, and using them to cover up various political abuses on the other. In the first place, declarations are rarely fully abided by. With a tedious process of signing, ratification, implementation and enforcement, countries can give token support to treaties without real action to implement them. Consequently, domestic politics in many Third World countries are often plagued by cronyism and power hunger, as shown by Indonesia under Suharto and Philippines under Marcos. It is difficult to argue that politics is about ideals when its main agents, the politicians themselves, have sent millions of dollars to Swiss accounts while 80 per cent of their country's population survives on less than one dollar a day. By keeping a host of military personnel and elite technocrats on their payroll, politicians may entrench their personal interests, gaining money and political security, but this hardly seems to lift the populace out of their abject poverty. The ideal of making the world a better one to live in is thus sorely compromised.

Indeed, politicians aiming to fill their coffers with ill-gained wealth are not exclusive to developing nations. Witness Germany's former Chancellor Helmut Kohl's illegal party funds, which though resulted in his dismissal, belies a corruption at the very heart of modern polity. Democracy has ironically contributed to this corruption — as leaders increasingly require huge amounts of money just to get the media blitz needed to stand out in an era of bewildering choice, they increasingly skew their policies to get the support of wealthy lobby groups or special interest organizations. For instance, Republicans have often been accused of deliberately undermining federal legislation against tobacco in America, simply because of the enormous funding provided to them by the tobacco conglomeration. Thus, it does seem that pure politics is being adulterated by a greed for wealth.

One need not look far to find an example of hard-headed pragmatism overriding the ideals of free speech and expression. In Singapore, the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) has often expressed the opinion that the realities of our multicultural society override the individual right to speech. The effort to build cohesion to ensure stability which is sorely needed for economic progress has led to policies such as quotas for each race in Housing Board flats, policies that are ruthlessly efficient in terms of social engineering, but hardly libertarian or permissive. The fact is that the pragmatic view of our foremost aim as being economic survival has led to a subtle undermining of idealism in our system. As the economic recession sets in, it is likely that the government and its various ministries will focus even more intensively on "bread-and-butter" issues, stemming the tentative tide of liberalism we had witnessed with the creation of the Speakers' Corner and pseudo-political groups like Think Centre and Roundtable.

However, one must realize in the final analysis that the term "idealism" is highly subjective. Throughout this discussion, democracy and humanitarianism, the focal points of idealistic endeavour in our global polity today, have been surveyed and found somewhat wanting. Yet, one could look upon the PAP's firm intent, in spite of all odds, disregarding our small size, our lack of hinterland and our vulnerability, to make Singapore succeed (and indeed be "best" at everything!) as the greatest idealism of all! Idealism is not completely dead in politics today. When the occasion calls for it, it can still rise to the occasion, as it did in South Africa with the ending of the apartheid. Nelson Mendela's fervent quest for equality of blacks and whites in South Africa is a hopeful reminder of the noble potential of political leadership.

Ultimately, the very term "idealism" indicates that romantic notions are meant to remain just that — ideals, concepts and goals to be pursued and achieved. Pragmatic means, through hard-headed decisions, money and power, are necessary to achieve political ideals. These need not necessarily be taken in the negative light. Politics, especially in this era of social organizations like non-governmental organizations (NGOs), has its specific burden to bear — management of a country on a day-to-day basis. NGOs like Amnesty International can help supplement this by keeping issues like human rights on the agenda. "Hard-headed decisions, money and power" may be too harsh a term to use — it would be crucifying politics on a cross it does not have to bear.

Marks: Content = 24/30, Expression = 18/20, Total = 42/50 (A1).

Taken from http://schools.moe.edu.sg/rjc/subjects/english/gp/downloads/politics