notes-politics-misc2

In monarchies and quasi-monarchies like imperial ancient Rome, sometimes we see situations where the monarch decides to focus on enjoying their personal life (sports etc) to the exclusion of close involvement in political and economic decisions. This seems like it often leads to problems.

Looking at ancient Roman law, you see a lot about families. Perhaps the idea that you could have a monarch is a holdover from the more ancient tribal patriarchal systems of politics, with the monarch corresponding to the role of the tribal patriarch.

Or perhaps it's just a result of the natural tendancy towards nepotism.

Contrast this to modern systems of government -- it seems like whatever other faults they have, most U.S. Presidents and large company CEOs tend to spend a lot of time on work.

--

Another pattern to note is that when the monarchs become too uninterested and delegate everything to powerful 'prime ministers', sometimes those prime ministers plot against the monarch and sometimes they are corrupt. It seems like it may be better forthe monarch to be directly involved, as they have not much further to gain from selfish ambition, but the ministers do (the ministers could become monarch, or could become much richer).

--

It's curious to me why some societies have so little assassination of top political figures compared to others. Perhaps the reason there was more assassination in Rome was that things were personal; if an opponent killed the emporer that made a big difference. But if an opponent killed the U.S. President it would probably increase your own power only a little, as the next President to be elected will depend on the usual party and PR mechanics anyways. This theory jives with the theory that Presidential systems are more unstable than Parliamentary systems because the Presidency is a very valuable prize.

Similarly, it's curious to me why some societies seem to have less corruption.

--

often you hear of politically powerful people, such as monarchs or presidents, being threatened by a rebellion and simply ordering it to stop, then ordering the police/military to crush it, and then ending up getting dethroned etc. Perhaps their mistake is in believing too much in the words and symbols (they are nominally in charge), and too little in reality (their actual power is less than their nominal power; they are in charge, but only up to a point).

Or, perhaps the truth is that power is a multifaceted thing, and they are only looking at what was until this situation the dominant facet (their nominal power) and neglecting the others. E.g. when ancient and medieval kings displease the lords too much, they get overthrown; until they are near that tipping point they usually have much great power than the lords and can do almost whatever they want to them, but near that tipping point they must simultaneously hold two facets of power in their head at once to truly grasp the situation. Similarly, there are also the priests (in the modern world, this facet ('the first estate') is mostly displaced by the media, 'the fourth estate'), the rich people, the intelligensia, etc.

Similarly, in companies, management holds power nominally (they are nominally in charge and have the legal authority to dispense the money, e.g. to hire and fire) but also through respect for their ability, and also through personal relationships. Sometimes management attempts to hold power only nominally while disregarding the other facets, but it seems to me that there are a lot of stories of that not ending well (for the company; possibly also for them, as sufficiently disgruntled subordinates may convince the Board to fire a CEO; I've witnessed this occurring at a nonprofit). Similarly, it would probably be difficult to be a CEO who is respected and has good relationships and nominal control over what the company does and what employees are supposed to do, but little control over actual hiring and firing.

Perhaps the best politicians keep these different facets of power in mind at all times.

this jives with the following quotes from the Song of Fire and Ice books (or the Game of Thrones TV show, i'm not sure, though something similar to this was in the books), although the main point is somewhat different:

" “In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold. Between them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. ‘Do it,’ says the king, ‘for I am your lawful ruler.’ ‘Do it,’ says the priest, ‘for I command you in the names of the gods.’ ‘Do it,’ says the rich man, ‘and all this gold shall be yours.’ So tell me – who lives and who dies?”

..

"Power resides where men believe it resides....A shadow on the wall, yet shadows can kill. And oft times a very small man can cast a very large shadow"