Compromise in Politics

This topic will be presented by Rob on Friday 18 March 2016.

“To what extent should a politician be prepared to comprise some principles in order to achieve others?”
Are there some principles that should never be compromised?

General Background:

Machiavelli’s “The Prince” remains an excellent, if somewhat old-fashioned, starting point – that is, of the means justifying the ends.

“Although he bitterly recommended, in the final resort he taught, that in politics, whether an action is evil or not, can only be decided in the light of what it is meant to achieve and whether it successfully achieves it.” This 16^th Century lesson remains a truism for 2016.

“The Prince” remains the bible of “realpolitik”…. Has anything changed since 1512?
The politician judges what he or she requires to attain and then carefully calibrates the needed means.
So much depends on the situation at hand and what the politician is attempting to achieve.
E.g. Taking your country to war after, an election where you present yourself as a strict opponent to war and increasing military expenditure.
Is this a principle that should not be tampered with?

How does the group consider the issue when a politician claims to deliver a certain policy, gains electoral support and then changes tack, explaining that budget circumstances will not allow the initial policy to be delivered.

How far can one carry such an interpretation?

At the risk of sounding like the group “pedagogue”, could we each bring an example of such a situation to the meeting? That is, a current situation or one that has taken place in the previous 20 to 30 years. One that you can see as a concrete example – or dodgy compromise of principles.

My example: Western Sydney Road Tolls. The ALP promise to lift such tolls and then presented an alternate view, outlining that contractual issues did not allow such a change. A compromise based on economic reality but essentially this was known pre-election.

For discussion – Machiavelli claims the leader must be able to act in defiance of good faith – And be of flexible disposition.
Such words described the “pragmatic polly” especially in the 20th and 21^st centuries.
This “flexible disposition”, in my view, depends on the situation at hand – that is, how grey the situation would/ will be for the populace.
If the political comprise involves the death and destruction of a community, then in my view that remains beyond redemption. But the compromise may save a greater number of people.
For example: the A-bomb on Japan probably went beyond a principle that should not have been compromised. In my view the war had nearly been one. The bombs involved, especially the second, were purely experiments. They are principles that should not be further compromised.
Another principle not to be compromised is outlined in the A-bomb (?) experiments on the Bikini atoll roughly in the early 50’s. (Actual date eludes me). A naval scientist/politician, name of Graves, gave an order to detonate a bomb, knowing full well and on advice of his underlings, that the adverse prevailing wind directions would greatly harm the indigenous locals. He ignored the principles, wanting to observe the health issues and how they would affect the islanders. They were extremely harmful. His principles and those of his advisers were completely ignored and the local population suffered severe health impacts.

CONCLUDING REMARKS:

I have tried to outline a number of basic paradigms in an attempt to generate discussion.

In regards to the issue to what principles should not be compromised, it depends on the issue at hand. It can range from saving a forest or a road construction, to the commencement of a savage war/bombing, and/or destruction of a community.

As Machiavelli outlines, how far can a ruler/politician/leader go in using a variety of means to justify pre-determined ends? The answer remains extremely difficult.