Justifications to Hold Power

The Mandate of Heaven is a justification for ruling based on the idea that one is chosen to govern because his or her moral code is aligned with that of a “cosmic all-pervading power.”  Though it may seem unfair to citizens that a leader could claim approval from a higher power, I believe that the Mandate of Heaven was the most morally acceptable justification to rule in lieu of leaders being democratically elected. 

Throughout millennium, leaders have used a variety of justifications to legitimize their power. An example of these justifications was the Mandate of Heaven, an idea that a cosmic force concurred with a leader’s moral code. Another example of a religious justification for power was the Divine Right of Kings. Of course, neither of these justifications could have actually been proven true, because as far as people knew, no leader was told by God that he/she had the right to lead.  Despite the manipulation involved, I believe that between the Divine Right of Kings and the Mandate of Heaven, the Mandate of Heaven was the more morally responsible justification for a leader to have. 

When a leader used the Mandate of Heaven to justify his reason to lead, he claimed that the previous leader did not have the right virtues. The individual with the correct virtues was consequently able to overthrow the morally compromised predecessor. This might have given someone the appearance of being a self-serving, power-hungry individual, but the basis for this reasoning nonetheless influenced individuals to assume leadership with a moral code.  If a leader used the Mandate of Heaven to justify his reason for leading, then he must have led a life with good virtues. Otherwise, he would look like a hypocrite. A government that was run based off of a moral code and humaneness would have functioned much more smoothly.  In the interest of self-preservation, a government would have had to had to show that its moral code was acceptable so another government could not claim that its virtues were superior.  The competition for power fueled by moral codes ideally might have influenced leaders to strengthen their moral codes.

It was not until the development of democracy that leaders no longer needed justification from a higher power for their right to lead. A leader’s given right to hold power was simple; he or she had been chosen by the people.

All in all, the Mandate of Heaven may have not been a fair claim to leadership, but it was the most morally responsible justification to lead in lieu of a democracy.

The New International Response to Abusive Leaders

In The Prince, Machiavelli argues that the leader that stays in power for the longest amount of time is the leader who can strike fear into his/her citizens' eyes so they show respect. He explains that if one’s power is based on friendly relationships and not fear, then one’s “friends” can easily turn against him and he will lose power.  Therefore, a leader’s power should be based on subjects having a measure of fear and respect towards their ruler, so that he/she “can endure very well being feared.”  I agree that this might have been a foolproof method of leading centuries ago, but in current times, this no longer stands true.  

The concept that a leader could hold power for an extended period of time by subjects living under the “dread of punishment,” works if there is no opposition against a leader’s methods, either within or outside of the country. If other nations do not involve themselves in conflicts that are not domestic or relevant to their interests, then leaders can do whatever they want to the people they govern.

However, in the past few centuries our world has become more globally connected.  Technology and globalization allow people from around the world to have access to information about events around the world.  This access to information drives people to care about how other people are being treated around the world. Now, people in other countries and their governments can involve themselves in foreign affairs in countries hundreds of thousands of miles away.  This means that the mistreatment of individuals is now not only a domestic problem, but problem that sometimes involves the whole world.  

A very recent example of the international community getting involved in a domestic human rights violation is the response to Moammar Gaddafi's treatment of Libyan citizens.  For over 40 years, Moammar Gaddafi ruled Libya similarly to how Machiavelli describes a long-lasting leader.  He showed little compassion to his citizens and treated many inhumanely.  Gaddafi was able to maintain is position as because of his ability to strike fear into his citizens.  

However, in 2011, a revolutions sprang up in Tunisia and Egypt, both North African countries like Libya.  The individuals living in Libya saw how the people of a country could overcome a tyrannical leader and decided to proceed with their own revolution.  After months of war between the rebellious revolutionaries and the Gaddafi loyalists, Gaddafi was killed and the rebels took power.  Yet, the rebels’ victory and Gaddafi's death were not accomplished solely by the individuals in Libya.  Most of the funding for the weapons and the support for the rebels were actually given by countries half way around the world.  NATO, the North American Treaty Organization, gave money and weapons to the rebels and also used their own aircrafts to hunt down Gaddafi.  The revolution in Libya that started because citizens felt like their leader was treating them unfairly was funded and supported by countries all over the world.

What is concerning is that there are still cases where abusive leaders continue to lead without opposition from the rest of the world.  Often, the reason that powerful countries such as the United States get involved in domestic conflicts elsewhere over the world is because the land that these nations rest on contains some natural resource that can be useful to powerful nations.  An example of this is oil.  In Libya, America and other powerful nations involved themselves in helping the rebels not only because it was the noble decision, but because there is oil in Libya that many countries would love to profit from.  In cases where abusive leaders rule in countries that do not contain valuable natural resources to powerful nations, the powerful nations are less likely to get involved in those conflicts. 

Therefore, I would argue that Machiavelli's opinion of what allows a leader to maintain power for a long period of time is no longer valid in many cases. In current times, countries from all over the world will intervene if there is a conflict concerning citizens' human rights.   However, there are still areas with abusive leaders where the people are left helpless.  I believe Machiavelli's ideas should be used by powerful nations as guidelines for what kinds of abusive leaders need to be taken out of position. Ideally, even if land may not be able to produce valuable resources, the international community should always come together to help the citizens of a nation with an abusive leader. 

The Evolution of the Right to Lead

Before leaders were democratically chosen to govern, they often times needed to give justification for their legitimacy.  This meant that in order to make sure no one would oppose his or her right to govern, a leader would justify his right to be in power. One of these justifications was the Mandate of Heaven.  

The mandate of heaven revolved around the idea that one deserved to lead because his or her virtues were supported and endorsed by a heavenly force.  If one were to overthrow another leader, he or she could claim that the fallen leader was not leading in a virtuous manner and therefore did not deserve to be in power. In the Shu Jing text, Yi Yin tells the heir-king that if he is not “virtuous, be it in large things or in small, it will bring the ruin of [his] ancestral temple.” In other words, if the heir to the throne lived a virtuous life, there was no “rational” justification that could prevent him from holding the position of power indefinitely and passing it on to his descendents.

It was not until the French Revolution that a major shift in political thinking occurred, regarding a monarch’s right to power.  People began questioning the idea of the Divine Right of Kings, a justification for leadership that claimed that all kings had god’s stamp of approval. How could mortal monarchs know what god wanted?  As the period of Enlightenment emerged across Europe and the New World, questioning leadership became a trend.  Revolutions in Europe had begun.

When democracies emerged, leaders no longer needed to give divine justifications for their right to govern.  Their reason for leading was that they had been chosen by their citizens.  I believe that this is one reason why democracies are beneficial to the citizens of a nation.  Rather than a leader keeping power for an extended period of time because of a religious justification, a leader can only serve for a set amount of time if he/she is voted to lead by the citizens of a nation.

I agree that voting for leaders is the most rational way of picking someone to lead, however I do not believe that there should be a time limit on how long a leader can lead for.  I believe that in the United States, if a leader is repeatedly reelected, it means the leader is accomplishing enough for the citizens of a nation to keep voting for him/her.  The leader is therefore deserving of his/her leadership position.  I am aware that the reason for a two-term limit is to stop leaders from growing greedy with their power, but if a nation likes the way an individual is leading, I do not understand why he/she cannot lead for a longer amount of time.

A leader's legitimacy to lead is valid if he/she is elected to lead.  I believe that in America, a President should be allowed to lead for as many terms as he/she is elected for.

Pericles' Athens

1. According to Pericles, what precisely makes Athens great?

Pericles, a famous orator, believed Athens was great because of the structure of its government and its peoples’ way of life. The government was “in the hands of many and not few,” a democracy. Because of this, the citizens of Athens were afforded privileges such as equal justice in private disputes, and recognition in society based not completely on one’s background (such as class) but upon one’s personal accomplishments. He insisted that citizens were prevented from doing wrong because of respect for authorities and for the law. Pericles also thought that the citizens of Athens make the state great.  The citizens were able to adapt to the varied forms of action with “versatility and grace.”  They were brave and intelligent. Finally, Pericles believed that the city of Athens was a unique place. Pericles stated that poverty was never an “obstacle” in Athens.   In times of peace and war, businesses thrived and there was no exclusiveness in public life. Throughout the city architecture was beautiful and elegant. The city was filled with recreation for the purpose of balancing hard work and relaxation. The education system in Athens taught kids to be smart and brave. Lastly, Pericles states that because Athens was prominent in the trading world, they were able to enjoy both their goods and the goods of foreign nations.

2. How does Athens compare to other city-states in regard to the above?

Athens compared to the other city-states by being an example to them all. The Athenian government was original in how it structured its democracy. In Pericles’ view, it was model to other city-states. In terms of its citizens, Pericles insisted that Athenians were braver and had more heart than the people of surrounding city-states. Pericles described Athens as having the bravest citizens in times of war. In addition, Pericles marveled at Athens’ military. It was “superior to all of their enemies.” The army did not find difficulty in wars and extended its hand in friendship whenever it could. It was a safer, more prosperous, and more beautiful city than any other.

3. What are some problems you see with Pericles' Athens?

I see that Pericles’ Athens sounds too good to be true.  It seems to me like Pericles had his head in the clouds.  He was so excited about his city that it seems that he was not looked to further progress and improve on what his city had already accomplished.  Second, even though Pericles thought of his government as a democracy, like in any democracy, not everyone could have been represented and happy.  Pericles described everyone in Athens as being respectful and prosperous and living an honest life.  Though this ideally sounds wonderful, I believe that there is no way that Pericles could speak for everyone in Athens. There had to be individuals who didn’t follow the rules and didn’t live the wholesome Athenian life.   What is concerning to me is Pericles’ negligence to any problems in Athens.  I understand the Pericles’ role during that speech was to glorify his city, but his words were perhaps too adoring and not realistic enough.

The Reliance on Agriculture

Throughout history, leaders have often risen to power and maintained power because of their ability to ensure that people have food and water. I would argue that in every nation and empire, the leadership structure held power because of its ability to supply food and water. Today, in the twenty-first century, this is still true. When food and water become scarce, governments are in danger.

In feudal times, the very core of the leadership structure was strung together by agriculture.  Peasants worked the fields so their lords had food and money to collect armies of knights.  They then had armies with which to serve the kings.  The relationship between the members of the different levels of the hierarchy relied upon whether or not there was food.  

Another example of how food is linked with government and leadership is the French Revolution.  Preceding the French Revolution, famine and economic hardships had struck France.  The food supply was depleting and prices were skyrocketing. When the French people saw that their leaders were not supplying them with their basic needs (food), they revolted. French Revolution is a radical example of how a shortage of food can tear apart a nation.  The absence of food in France had left a bloody mark.

Because the possession of food is so closely linked to the success and prosperity of a government, modern day governments are in danger of losing power when their citizens’ basic caloric needs are not met. If food prices were to skyrocket and the population at large cannot afford to feed themselves, then governments, especially in underdeveloped nations, find themselves facing destabilization.  People will always look to their leadership to supply them with their basic needs, and when governments cannot deliver these necessities, people will revolt. 

Han Fei-tzu's Problematic Leadership Structure

Han Fei-tzu’s Legalist Views on Good Government focuses on the need for strong enforcement of laws and the role of a single unchallenged power. The main points of Han Fei’s views are as follows: if a government has a strong leadership structure that is able to ensure punishment to whomever does not follow strict rules, then the government will be effective. Han Fei also believes that being able to capture the hearts of the citizens is not necessary to a successful nation, and that even though the citizens may think that a leader is making bad decisions, they must always trust the leader because the leader knows what is best.

            This idea seems ludicrous to me. It states that the leader is always right and the people should not question him/her.  Over the past millennia, people have been subject to slew of tyrannical leaders that inflict pain upon people and ruin societies.  In those situations, were leaders right?  People sat and watched Adolf Hitler destroy Europe because they were forced and chose to listen to their leader without opposition. No one question what he or she was told. Should people be forced into being tolerant of tyrannical leaders? To me, this idea is inhumane. 

            Han Fei claims that the people have “minds of infants.” He states that a leader would accomplish nothing if he listened to the people.  Instead, the people need to be nurtured by the leader.  They must be guided, for on their own they would not be able to prosper.  This idea is slightly reminiscent upon Alexander Hamilton, an early American leader who had limited faith in “the people” to progressively run their nation without a strong governing body.  The problem that I see with Han Fei’s idea is that it will result in leaders having absolute power.  With absolute power comes corruption and often times horrible lives for the citizens of a government.  Han Fei underestimates the peoples’ ability to think.  Even though a leader might thing he/she is doing the right thing, it is always essential to listen to the people. 

            The Han Fei views are extremely dangerous and can jeopardize humans’ unalienable rights.  Outcomes such as censorship, cruel and inhumane punishment, and terror would occur out of a government structured like this.  The Han Fei views on government lack the importance of a healthy relationship between the leaders and the led.

Confucius' Superior Man

When the master was asked about the characteristics of a humane superior man, Confucius answered that this type of man must have the willingness to pursue learning.  Most of Confucius’ answers highlight humility and the motivation to pursue a higher level of humaneness. This idea is brilliant for it shows the importance of always believing that there is room for improvement.  Therefore, it makes me wonder whether there is ever an end to how humane one can be or how much one can know.  Is there always room for someone to learn more and become a better person?

In XVII.2, Confucius says that “by nature, men are nearly alike; by practice, they get to be wide apart.”  He believes that at birth, everyone is the same.  However, by learning, individuals become better or worse than others.  Confucius also says that “the progress of the superior man is upwards; the progress of the mean man is downwards.” This also shows that the best people are always progressively becoming better or learning how to improve.

Yet my question is whether the superior man can ever reach the end of “progression.”  Can there be an end to knowledge and being humane?  Personally, I believe that there can never be an end to righteousness, but there can be an end to knowledge.  At some point, I believe everything can be figured out.  Knowledge is based on the accumulation of facts.  However, righteousness is based on feelings and emotions.  Righteousness is based on morals and the knowledge of what will make ones self and others happy.  There is always room to learn more about how to become a better person.

Therefore, I believe that Confucius was right about the best people realizing that there is always a way to be better and therefore always having the motivation to learn.  There may be an end to factual learning, but never to becoming more righteous.  

The Qualities of a Great Leader

In the Themes in World History textbook, it explains that an effective leader is "both intelligent and charismatic- he knows what's best and he can convince the average person that he is right." Though everyone may have a different idea of what an ideal leader is, I believe that these qualities are not the ones that make leaders great.  Instead, I believe that an ideal leader is someone who is almost selfless; willing to take risks that can jeopardize his own life or career.  A leader can listen with an open mind to the people he/she represents, and whether the leader knows how best to do so, the leader is always trying to bring its represented population the best lives they can live.

A leader must be willing to make decisions for the benefit of his/her people even if it jeopardizes his/her own career. Before the times of advanced military technology, the best military leaders such as George Washington, would lead their armies into battle from the front lines rather than the back. In current times, I believe that when a leader needs to make decisions that will greatly affect the world, he/she must make the right choice even if it defies the opinion of the individuals who voted the leader into power.  These kinds of decisions may make an individual very unpopular and even voted out of office, but it is a risk that a great leader must take.  This demonstration of leadership shows bravery and selflessness.

The second quality that a great leader must have is the ability to listen open-mindedly to the people he/she represents.  If a leader has his/her own agenda, the decisions made will most likely not be beneficial to the people he/she is supposed to represent.  A leader must always have the best intentions of the people in mind and in order to know what they want, he/she must listen to them.  This is also vital to a great leader because in order to hold his/her power, the leader must maintain a positive relationship with the individuals he/she represents.  By keeping close tabs on what the represented people need, the relationship will ideally stay strong. 

The last quality that a leader must possess is the motivation to do what is best for the people he/she is representing or the greater good of the world.  Often times, leaders make decisions not for the benefit of the represented population, but for their own good.  For example, Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Russia because he wanted more own power and fame.  Invading Russia was not necessarily what his country and his people needed, but he thought it would be beneficial to his power and fame.  This is an example of a self-interested and therefore horrible motivation.  Leaders’ motivation must always be to bring its represented population the best lives they can live.

Of course, qualities like intelligence and charisma help leaders accomplish their goals, but without the three main qualities stated above, I believe a leader can never be successful.

The Allegory of Knowledge

Socrates describes two kinds of people in his Allegory of the Cave.  The first kind is the prisoner in the cave, who stares at shadows projected on the wall of the cave. He does not have any idea that he is looking at reflections of reality and not reality itself. This person has never known any other reality than his shadow in the cave. The second person that Socrates describes is the person who walks back and forth with shadow puppets in the cave.  He knows that the shadows are projected from a fire in the cave and they are not real. However, if you ask him what the sun is, he will describe the fire that he has seen for his whole life.  He is also shaded from the outside real world, and has never known anything else than what is in the cave. This person knows more than the prisoner, but is still not exposed to reality. Socrates believes that if someone were to escape the cave, they could see and know what the real world is.  This individual would then be “enlightened.”

I believe that this allegory can be a metaphor for the stages of the development of human knowledge. I believe that the prisoner in the allegory represents humans when they are born.  At that stage in life, a human knows nothing more than what he can see.  A recently born human’s reality is simple.  As far as I believe, a baby does not go looking for answers to philosophical or scientific questions that humans have been asking for decades.  He only knows and is interested in what he sees.  

I believe that the second kind of person who recognizes that the shadows are not real represents the adult human population today.  As relatively more learned individuals, adults understand more about reality than babies do. In addition, adults and society at large are pushing to answer the fundamental questions about science and philosophy.  What is real?  Though some ideas may have working answers, as of now, we do not have the full picture of reality. For example, we do not know if there is an afterlife or what causes certain diseases. The meaning of the second individual is to show that for all humans know, there may be reality outside of what is familiar to us.

In the allegory, the hypothetical “enlightened” person represents something that humans will never reach.  Yet, I believe that enlightenment is what humans are aiming to do.  Every day, with scientific advancements and growth in knowledge, we may be inching closer to answers that we have always wanted to know.  Even the question of how our world was created has been explored and many believe we may have the answers. 

In Socrates’ Allegory of the Cave, he describes the enlightened individuals going back into the cave and leading the others to reality. If Socrates’ allegory is a metaphor for the development of human knowledge, then I pose the question of whether this is what we want. Should we want to know all of the answers to life’s philosophical and scientific questions? I strongly believe that the answers to some questions will never be uncovered. Personally, I think that some questions should be left unanswered even if there are answers that can be found.  If humans knew the answers to how we got here or why we are here, I don’t think that there would be any motivation to keep on living.  It is life’s unanswered questions that motivate me to live the best life I can live, because I don’t know if I have a predetermined purpose.  I can pursue whatever I love. 

I believe that Socrates’ allegory of the cave can be a metaphor for the history and future of human development and knowledge.  Should we want to keep on learning, or should some question be left unanswered?