NATIONAL AND NATIONALISM

Nations and Nationalism

A  nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent(ancestry0 , or history. In this definition, a nation has no physical borders.

It can also refer to people who share a common territory and government (for example the inhabitants of a sovereign state) irrespective of their ethnic make-up.

In international relations, nation can refer to a country or sovereign state.

According to Joseph Stalin writing in 1913 in Marxism and the National Question: "a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people;" "a nation is not a casual or temporary assembly, but a stable community of people"; "a common language is one of the characteristic features of a nation"; "a nation is formed only as a result of lengthy and systematic intercourse, as a result of people living together generation after generation"; "a common territory is one of the characteristic features of a nation"; "a common economic life, economic cohesion, is one of the characteristic features of a nation"; "a common psychological make-up, which manifests itself in a common culture, is one of the characteristic features of a nation"; "A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture

An alternative view, expressed by Otto Bauer is that "A nation is an aggregate of people bound into a community of character by a common destiny.

Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a nation.

There are two main perspectives on the origins and basis of nationalism:

Primordialist perspective that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient and perceived evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct grouping based on an affinity of birth;

Modernist  perspective that describes nationalism as a recent phenomenon that requires the structural conditions of modern society. There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism.

 It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities

The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development, has commonly been the result of a response by an influential group or groups that is unsatisfied with traditional identities due to inconsistency between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its members, resulting in a situation of anomie that nationalists seek to resolve. This anomie results in a society or societies reinterpreting identity, retaining elements that are deemed acceptable and removing elements deemed unacceptable, in order to create a unified community. This development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially foreign powers that are deemed to be controlling them.

Nationalism may involve several recognized nations being involved in a single goal of self-determination uniting the nations, such as binationalism or multinationalism, examples of this occurred in Austria-Hungary, Belgium, and Czechoslovakia.

National flags, national anthems, and other symbols of national identity are commonly considered highly important symbols of the national community.

^{Varieties of nationalism}

Civic nationalism

Civic nationalism (also known as liberal nationalism) defines the nation as an association of people who identify themselves as belonging to the nation, who have equal and shared political rights, and allegiance to similar political procedures.

 According to the principles of civic nationalism, the nation is not based on common ethnic ancestry, but is a political entity whose core identity is not ethnicity.

Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic nationalism. Membership of the civic nation is considered voluntary,

Ethnocentrism

Whereas nationalism does not necessarily imply a belief in the superiority of one ethnicity over others, some nationalists support ethnocentric protectionism or ethnocentric supremacy. Studies have yielded evidence that such behaviour may be derived from innate preferences in humans from infancy.

This is judging another culture solely from the values and standards of one’s own culture

Fascism

Fascism is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek elevation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry and culture through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, war, indoctrination, physical training.

 Fascism seeks to eradicate perceived foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture.

National purity

Some nationalists exclude certain groups. Some nationalists, defining the national community in ethnic, linguistic, cultural, historic, or religious terms (or a combination of these), may then seek to deem certain minorities as not truly being a part of the 'national community' as they define it. Sometimes a mythic homeland is more important for the national identity than the actual territory occupied by the nation. This could be seen in some single race countries such as South Korea where the nation comprises people from one race, and where mythical origins of the 'race of the land' are pervasive amongst the populace.

Left-wing nationalism

Left-wing nationalism (occasionally known as socialist nationalism  refers to any political movement that combines left-wing politics with nationalism. Many nationalist movements are dedicated to national liberation, in the view that their nations are being persecuted by other nations and thus need to exercise self-determination by liberating themselves from the accused persecutors.

Territorial nationalism

Territorial nationalists assume that all inhabitants of a particular nation owe allegiance to their country of birth or adoption. A sacred quality is sought in the nation and in the popular memories it evokes. Citizenship is idealized by territorial nationalist^.  A criterion of a territorial nationalism is the establishment of a mass, public culture based on common values and traditions of the population as in Brazil

Pan-nationalism

Pan-nationalism is unique in that it covers a large area span. Pan-nationalism focuses more on "clusters" of ethnic groups.

Proto-nationalism

Proto-nationalism refers to the nationalism that people feel for a connection to a particular indigenous or ethnic identity which is unconnected from the national identity. It also refers to a "nationalism" that existed before the foundation of a nation-state. It thus describes a nation-less nationalism.

Ultra-nationalism

Ultranationalism is a  zealous nationalism that expresses extremist support for one's nationalist ideals. It is often characterized by authoritarianism, efforts toward reduction or stoppage of immigration, expulsion and or oppression of non-native populations or minorities within the nation or its territories, emotionalism, real, or imagined enemies, predicating the existence of threats to the survival of the native, dominant or otherwise idealized national ethnicity or population group.

Instigation or extremist reaction to crack-down policies in law enforcement, efforts to limit international trade through tariffs, tight control over businesses and production, militarism, populism and propaganda. Prevalent ultranationalism typically leads to or is the result of conflict within a state, and or between states, and is identified as a condition of pre-war in national politics

Anti-colonial nationalism

This form of nationalism came about during the decolonialisation of the post war period. It was a reaction mainly in Africa and Asia against being subdued by foreign powers. This form of nationalism took many guises, including the peaceful passive resistance movement led by Gandhi in the Indian subcontinent .

 Benedict Anderson argued that anti-colonial nationalism is grounded in the experience of literate and bilingual indigenous intellectuals fluent in the language of the imperial power, schooled in its "national" history, and staffing the colonial administrative cadres up to but not including its highest levels. Post-colonial national governments have been essentially indigenous forms of the previous imperial (royal) administration.

PARTIES AND PARTY SYSTEMS

Parties and Party Systems

A party system is a concept in comparative political science concerning the system of government by political parties in a democratic country.

 The idea is that political parties have basic similarities: they control the government, have a stable base of mass popular support, and create internal mechanisms for controlling funding, information and nominations.

PARTY SYSTEMS

One-party system: this is a state where one party rules. Such states would include the remaining communist states of the world (Cuba, North Korea and China), and Iraq.

The old Soviet Union was a one party state.

One of the more common features of a one-party state is that the position of the ruling party is guaranteed in a constitution and all forms of political opposition are banned by law.

The ruling party controls all aspects of life within that state. The belief that a ruling party is all important to a state came from Lenin who believed that only one party - the Communists - could take the workers to their ultimate destiny and that the involvement of other parties would hinder this progress.

Two-party system: This is a state in which just two parties dominate. Other parties might exist but they have no political importance.

 America has the most obvious two-party political system with the Republicans and Democrats dominating the political scene.

For the system to work one of the parties must obtain a sufficient working majority after an election and it must be in a position to be able to govern without the support from the other party. A rotation of power is expected in this system.

The two-party system presents the voter with a simple choice and it is believed that the system promotes political moderation as the incumbent party must be able to appeal to the ‘floating voters’ within that country.

Those who do not support the system claim that it leads to unnecessary policy reversals if a party loses a election as the newly elected government seeks to impose its ‘mark’ on the country that has just elected it to power. Such sweeping reversals, it is claimed, cannot benefit the state in the short and long term.

Third parties, meaning a party other than one of the two dominant parties, are possible in two-party systems, but they are unlikely to exert much influence by gaining control of legislatures or by winning elections.

The multi-party system: as the title suggests, this is a system where more than two parties have some impact in a state’s political life.

A multi-party system can lead to a coalition government as Kenya, Germany and Zimbabwe have experienced.

In Germany these have provided reasonably stable governments and a successful coalition can introduce an effective system of checks and balances on the government that can promote political moderation.

Also many policy decisions take into account all views and interests. In Italy, coalition governments have not been a success; many have lasted less than one year.

In Israel, recent governments have relied on the support of extreme minority groups to form a coalition government and this has created its own problems with such support being withdrawn on a whim or if those extreme parties feel that their own specific views are not being given enough support.

Dominant-party system: this is different from a one-party system. A party is quite capable within the political structure of a state, to become dominant to such an extent that victory at elections is considered a formality. This was the case under the Kenyan government in the 90s.

In Kenya the elections of the 1987, 1992 and 1997’ were fought with competition from other parties - hence there can be no comparison with a one-party state.

During an extended stay in power, a dominant party can shape society through its policies.

THE KENYAN SITUATION

Kenya's system is one with characteristics comparable with a two-party system, since two dominant political parties.

Coalitions have dominated since the last general elections in 2007. However, it has been a multi-party system since 1992 and one of the ruling coalitions consists of several parties.

Kenya had over 160 registered political parties as of November 2007, but following the implementation of several Political Parties Acts starting with the 31 December 2008 act, the number has been coming down considerably since.

POLITICAL CULTURE

Political Culture

Political culture refers to what people believe and feel about government, and how they think people should act towards it. 

It can also be defined as attitudes, values, beliefs, and orientations that individuals in a society hold regarding their political system.

Types of political culture

1.) Moral Political Culture. In this culture type society is held to be more important than the individual. Individualism is not submerged in any way, but the group recognizes the need of individuals to assign value to the group.

Government tends to be seen as a positive force. This emphasizes the commonwealth conception as the basis for democratic government.  Politics is considered one of the great activities of man in the search for the "good society."  Good government is measured by the degree to which it promotes the public good.  Issues have an important place in the moralistic style of politics.  Politicians are expected not to profit from political activity.  

 Serving the community is the core of the political relationship even at the expense of individual loyalties and political friendships.  In practice this often results in more amateur participation in politics than in the other political cultures.  Upper New England, the Upper Middle West  and portions of the west are the central areas for this culture type.

2.) Individual Political Culture. In areas with this type of political culture, government is seen as having a very practical orientation. Government is instituted for largely utilitarian reasons.  It need not have any direct concern with questions of the "good society."  Emphasis on on limiting community/government intervention into private activities.  Government should be largely restricted to those areas which encourage private initiative.  Private concerns are more important than public concerns here. To a significant degree there is cynicism about government.   Dirty politics tends be accepted as a fact. The key to understanding this type is that people accept dirty politics as the way things are and should be. The Middle-Atlantic States through Illinois, and to the West, is the area most prevalent for this type of culture.

3.) Traditional Political Culture. Social and family ties are prominent where this type of political culture is found. This often means that some families run the government and others have little to say about it. This reflects an older attitude that embraces a hierarchical society as part of the natural order of things.  Government is seen as an actor with a positive role in the community, but the role is largely limited to securing the maintenance of the existing social order.  Political leaders play a largely conservative and custodial role rather than being innovative.  Otherwise, limited government is viewed as best because that is all that is required to meet the needs of those in power. The South is the regional focus for this type of culture. While undergoing change, traditional southern politics have been dominated by "backdoor" arrangements and strict class divisions. 

POLITICAL SYSTEMS

Political Systems

THE SOCIAL ENGINEERS - COLLECTIVISM

This group considers mankind the raw material from which to construct a society. The forms of society differ, the means by which its design is arrived at differs, but what they all have in common is the notion that one/some/many men should rule the others - whether it be king, dictator or majority.

AUTOCRACY / DICTATORSHIP / DESPOTISM

An autocracy is characterized by a supreme, uncontrolled, unlimited authority, or right of governing in a single person, as of an autocrat. It is very similar to a dictatorship.

The key here is that the autocrat has absolute power. An autocrat requires a massive amount of force (in an army for instance) to exert control over an unwilling people.

A kind autocrat is a contradiction in terms. A (rational) benevolent person recognizes that benevolence is not something which can, by its nature, be forcibly created. A benevolent leader would seek to undo the social engineering and return the society toward the sovereignty of the individual. Iraq under Hussein is a good example of dictatorship, as was Russia under Stalin.

COMMUNISM

Communism means a scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life; specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of inequalities in the possession of property, as by distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.

The means to achieve this is by collectivization of all private property. Although meant to indicate the means of production, to be consistent communism requires that no individual may own anything exclusively, privately.

Not the product of his work (thus his mind), nor any personal material benefit he may achieve as a result of it. All material is centralized and distributed by legislators, the intention being to achieve equal utility (of material) by all. Freedom of expression tends also to be mediated by the state for the same reasons and to maintain the 'integrity' of the collective

In practice communism fails dismally. The only way it can be achieved is if every single member of a communist society is in absolute agreement with the above arrangement - and that the legislators are not open to corruption in the form of personal acquisition or favor.

CONSERVATISM

A political philosophy that tends to support the status quo and advocates change only in moderation. Conservatism upholds the value of tradition, and seeks to preserve all that is good about the past. Irishman Edmund Burke, in his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), compared society to a living organism that has taken time to grow and mature, so it should not be suddenly uprooted. Innovation, when necessary should be grafted onto the strong stem of traditional institutions and ways of doing things: "it is with infinite caution that any man ought to venture upon pulling down a structure which has answered in any tolerable degree for ages the common purposes of society.” Conservatives are usually social engineers by default.


DEMOCRACY

There are two major modes of democracy.

 1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.

2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government.

The problems with democracy deserve separate discussion for instance that a majority can 'vote away' the freedom of a minority. To use an extreme example imagine that you live in a village of 100 people and 99 of them vote to take your house. Despite the 'landslide' democratic victory there is no change in the morality of the theft they vote for.

FASCISM

Fascism is characterized by elements of pride in the nation, anti-Marxism, and the complete rejection of parliamentary democracy, the cultivation of military virtues, strong government, and loyalty to a strong leader.

Whereas in communism the individual is second to the society, in fascism the individual is second to the state or race. It is not 'right wing' per-se, but is virtually the same as national socialism (Nazism); it therefore shares much with Marxism in its view of mankind as a collective. We all know what can happen when sufficient people in a state are in eager support of national socialism, hence its widespread repulsion.

IMPERIALISM

The policy that aims at building and maintaining an empire, in which many states and peoples, spread over a wide geographical area, are controlled by one dominant state. Much of the twentieth century history of the Third World, for example, is of the dismantling of the legacy of nineteenth century European imperialism.

 An imperialist state can also be any other type of collectivist, but not a type of individualist, nation. In Britain the growth of classical liberalism can be said to have contributed to the negation of the belief in imperialism as being 'good'.

MONARCHY

Form of ruler ship whereby a queen or king, empress or emperor holds absolute or limited power, usually inherited. In this century most European monarchies have become constitutional or limited, such as with the British Monarchy.

Such monarchies often represent a strong symbol of national identity in (some of) the people's minds (but exist at the expense of all). In some countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia monarchs still continue to hold absolute power. Under these conditions the state is similar to autocracy.

PLURALISM

Government carried out by a process of bargaining and compromise between a variety of competing leadership groups (business, labor, government, etc.). Advocates of pluralism claim that it best serves the democratic ideal in a complex modern society, in which individual participation in every act of decision-making is impractical.

 According to pluralism, individual rights and interests are protected by a sort of extra-constitutional checks and balances: No single group holds the dominant power position, power is always shifting, and individuals can have influence on policy-making through being active in one of these power groups. Some claim that America is such a pluralistic society; other theories say that pluralism is in fact a myth and American society is elitist. Despite this pluralism is not limited, other than by the common sense of its participants. Therefore it is still, in essence, collectivist and adversarial.

PLUTOCRACY

Government by the wealthy, or by a government primarily influenced by the wealthy. This system is as open to the social engineers as any other, and is against any principle of individual liberty. One of the criticisms of the US political system is that some wealthy people and organizations exert enormous influence over political power. This is not to be mistaken for a criticism of the free market or of wealth but as a criticism of unlimited political power.

SOCIALISM

Sharing the same collective view of mankind as communism socialism is a political system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are mostly owned by the state, and used, at least in theory, on behalf of the people (whose 'good' is decided by the legislator).

 The idea behind socialism is that the capitalist system is intrinsically unfair, because it concentrates wealth in a few hands and does nothing to safeguard the overall welfare of the majority. Under socialism, the state redistributes the wealth of society in a more equitable way, according to the judgment of the legislator.

Socialism is a system of expropriation of private property (regardless of how this was earned) in order to distribute it to various groups considered (by the legislator) to warrant it, usually the unemployed, ill, young and old and significantly, those with political pull.

THEOCRACY

A state or government which is run by priests or clergy. A recent example of a theocracy is Iran immediately after the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, when the Ayotollah Khomeini gained power.

Theocracies are becoming more common as Islamic fundamentalism grows in strength, but its influence is almost nonexistent in the West, with the exception of the USA where the 'religious right' have some influence.

THE INDIVIDUALISTS

ANARCHISM / NIHILISM

A doctrine that advocates the abolition of organized authority. Anarchists believe that all government is corrupt and evil. Anarchism was a force in nineteenth century Russia, associated with Prince Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) and Mikhail Bakunin (1814-76). Types of anarchism range from pacifism to violent revolution. While most often anti-capitalist (and tending to more collectivist philosophies), there are pro-capitalist strains, depending on the view of private property. The major problem with anarchism is in maintaining the freedom of the individual. Without an organized objective system of law an anarchic society might be at the mercy of the criminal and the powerful, with only personal and communal self defense to rely on. Many questions on anarchism are addressed by this

LIBERALISM (CLASSICAL)

A term which has changed its meaning, in the nineteenth century in Europe, the great age of liberalism, the term stood for freedom from church and state authority and the reduction of the power of royalty and aristocracy, free enterprise economics, and the free development of the individual.

Liberalism advocated freedom of the press, religious toleration, and self-determination for nations. It was liberalism that established parliamentary democracy. The Founding Fathers of the USA might be termed liberals

LIBERTARIANISM

A philosophy of freedom, particularly from any unnecessary restraints imposed (or indeed any restraints) by governmental authority. It is central to America: liberty is one of the inalienable rights described in the constitution ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"), and it has always been what America sees itself as standing for, although it can be argued that America has become more of a typical European nation (economically and politically) and has greater freedom simply because it has yet to decline to European standards.


OBJECTIVISM

Similar in 'appearance' to libertarianism, objectivism is different because it is based upon a specific philosophy of reality as first detailed by Aristotle and further extrapolated in the mid to later part of the 20th century by philosopher Ayn Rand, well known for her best selling fiction novels which encompass her philosophy in dramatic form. Objectivism supports individualism with reference to the nature of reality and this differentiates it from being just another political opinion. It is not an easy philosophy to understand, or for many, to accept.

CAPITALISM

Contrary to popular belief capitalism is not a 'system' as such. It is the consequence of individual liberty and corresponding property rights (the right to own that which you create, or are born owning). Capitalism is readily blamed for various inequalities despite having never been practiced in fact, with the closest examples being 19th century USA and to a lesser extent 19th century Britain.

Many people appear to have a very different idea about what is meant by capitalism. It is not a system of force imposed by people. It is a lack of such a system. It is what happens when people are free from the force of other people. In order to have people 'free' of the force of natural conditions something must be done to make those conditions better for mankind. That is exactly what people have been doing with the invention of the wheel, of machines, the production of energy and everything that followed. All of this is the product of mans mind, without it mankind is returned unprotected to nature. Capitalism itself forces nothing.

Capitalism doesn't aim at equal ends because they do not occur where people are free to choose their own paths. Those better off do have more opportunities (not more freedom), but that in no way gives one person (or group) the right to rob them of these opportunities and give them to another. Life can be very hard for an impoverished man in a desert compared to a rich man in a European landowner’s family. That does not give anyone the right to rob the European and give to desert dweller.

THE REPUBLIC

A republic is a political system whereby political power is explicitly is granted with consent of the people and ruled according to law. The purpose of the government is to protect the rights of the people and in discharging that purpose it derives its just power from the consent of the people. Hence the words "we the people". It is not a democracy, nor is it populism or pluralism. Infact it is quite a strictly limited system where the people essentially delegate (note - delegate, not forfeit) the protection of their individual rights to a government of their choosing. The limitations would be made explicit in a constitution and an excellent example is the US constitution, which sadly is largely unknown by the American people and constantly undermined by their governments.

POLITICAL SCIENCE

POLITICS

·         Politics refers to the art or science of running governmental or state affairs, including behavior within civil governments, but also applies to institutions, fields, and special interest groups such as the corporate, academic, and religious segments of society.

·         It consists of "social relations involving authority or power" and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.

·         Modern political discourse focuses on democracy and the relationship between people and politics. It is thought of as the way we "choose government officials and make decisions about public policy

Political science is a social science discipline concerned with the study of the state, government, and politics. Aristotle defined it as the study of the state.  It deals extensively with the theory and practice of politics, and the analysis of political systems and political behavior.

Politics as an art of government

·         This is the traditional definition of politics, based upon the original meaning of the term in ancient Greek Civilization. The word 'Politics' is derived from the Greek word 'Polis' literally meaning city-state.

·         Ancient Greece consisted of independent city states, each of which had its own system of government. Politics refers to the affairs of the 'Polis' or what concerns the state. This is the classical view of political science.

·         According to J. W. Garner, "................... political science begins and ends with the state". The study of politics concerns itself with the life of man in relation to organized state. Paul Janet states,

·         Hence, the state came to occupy the central place in politics. The ethical basis of the state, its evolution, the functions it is supposed to perform, its relationship with individuals became the main concern of political science.

·         Since the state performs its functions through the government, its main forces remained on the personnel and machinery of government. To study politics essentially meant the study of government or more broadly the study of authority.

·         David Easton defined politics as the "authoritative allocation of values" by this he meant that politics includes all those processes through which government allocates benefits, rewards or penalties. This is how it meets the demands and needs of society.

·         The distribution of such benefits, rewards or penalties is called authoritative because these are widely accepted in society and considered binding by the people. Hence, politics involves formal policies or authoritative decisions made by the government.

·         A major problem with this definition is that it presents a limited view of politics as essentially the affairs of state and government, thereby involving only a limited group of people engaged in the management of government as well as those trying to influence it. This implies that most people, most institutions and most social activities are considered as being outside politics.

Politics as public affairs

Another notion of politics takes it beyond a narrow focus on government to what is thought of as 'Public Life' or 'Public affairs'. The public sphere of life can be considered as 'Political' whereas the private sphere of life remains 'non-political'.

The roots of such a view of politics can be located in the writings of the famous Greek Philosopher Aristotle. In his book 'Polities', he said that "man is by nature a political animal". By this, he meant that human beings could live 'the good life' only within a political community.

Hence, politics is a moral activity essential for creating a 'just society'. In other words, politics is a noble activity precisely because of its public character. This is the reason for which Aristotle describes politics as the 'master science'.

However, the distinction between 'public life' and 'private life' needs to be clarified. There are two ways of understanding this distinction.

According to the traditional approach institutions of state can be regarded as public. Hence politics is restricted to the activities of the state which is considered responsible for managing the collective problems of the community. Those areas of social life like the economic, cultural, artistic, personal, domestic, etc. which, the individuals manage for themselves are considered 'nonpolitical'.

The other approach to 'public/private' division takes note of the fact that besides the state there are many other institutions which are opening, which operate in public and the public has access to these.

Institutions such as business, factory, trade unions, church, university and other community groups come to be considered as public and hence political. This definition of politics, however, excludes disagreements and conflicts emerging in the private or personal sphere. It is strongly believed that politics does not and should not interfere in personal affairs and institutions.

Politics as compromise

Politics is commonly called the "art of compromise." This label is thought to be especially appropriate for democratic politics.

Elected officials representing different voters meet in legislative chambers to hammer out policies that all constituents can live with. Of course, no politicians or voters receive everything they want in the final legislative package:

The need to assemble at least a simple majority to implement any policy almost invariably means that supporters of some policy must sacrifice something of value to others active in the political process

Few doubt that politics is indeed the art of compromise. politicians who refuse to compromise seldom win and hold on to office for the obvious reason that uncompromising politicians garner too little to send home to voters.

 Successful politicians early on learn the survival value of compromise. Economist Donald Wittman (1995: 154) correctly observes, "That is what good politicians do: create coalitions and find acceptable compromises." Political philosopher Jean Bethke Elshtain (1995: 61) is almost rhapsodic about democratic compromise: “But compromise is not a ordinary way to do politics; it is an adventure, the only way to do democratic politics.”

While the centrality of compromise to politics is beyond question, we argue that the current story of political compromise is misleadingly incomplete. Our argument is built of two points. First, that politics is the art of compromise only at the level of legislative activity; politics is not the art of compromise at the ballot box. While compromise by elected officials is necessary for the successful political careers of these officials, the argument is that the institutional structure of democratic elections causes voters to seek representatives who at least appear to be uncompromising.

A complication for elected officials is that many voters also want their representatives to bring home the cake. Because bringing home the cake requires compromise with other legislators, each legislator confronts the difficult task of being an expert compromiser in legislatures while appearing to voters to be an uncompromising champion of principle.

Politics as concensus

This is a method where the ruling party uses a system of asking the various sides in an argument to put forward their own ideas and then trying for find a consensus, which is a agreement that all parties can agree with. By getting all sides to contribute their own ideas, the final agreement is built with input from all sides of the question, rather than one group over-ruling all the others, with their power.

Consensus is a hall mark of a mature nation's ability to make good laws with agreement from all sides of the political spectrum.

Politics as power

Power politics  is a form of international relations in which sovereign entities protect their own interests by threatening one another with military, economic or political aggression.

Power politics is essentially a way of understanding the world of international relations: nations compete for the world's resources and it is to a nation's advantage to be manifestly able to harm others. It prioritizes national self-interest over the interest of other nations or the international community.

Techniques of power politics include, but are not limited to, conspicuous nuclear development, pre-emptive strike, blackmail, the massing of military units on a border, the imposition of tariffs or economic sanctions etc.