Circumspect use of power

Given the difficulties and dangers of power it must certainly be used carefully. By the circumspect use of power I mean using it in such a way that means are carefully crafted to complement ends and that likely utility is applied as the test before action is taken. In order to see how this is possible (and practical) I look at two sets of guidelines, one entirely pragmatic the other with an ethical basis.

There are two sets of guidelines that serve as useful checklists,  

• Establishing reciprocity
• Just War Theory

Both of these demonstrate the need for hard headed but clear sighted choice of the means to be used to pursue ends.  

Establishing Reciprocity

The first set of guidelines are derived from the the game of prisoners dilemma, this is a simple game that involves 2 players who act independently. They are given the choice of cooperating or cheating. They have to get as high a score as possible, they can either cooperate or cheat. Cooperation is where they both decide to tell the truth, cheating is where they blame the other (essential they can either fess up or blame the other). The rewards for what they chose to do vary; the reward for cooperation is less than that for cheating but both sides score equally, if you cheat you can get the maximum score unless your opponent also cheats in which case you both lose - the dilemma is simple, what do you do? The choices generate a table of possibilities as follows;

The game is set up to be played repeatedly. In order to explore the best strategy to win the game people were invited to put their approaches into computer programs to run against each other. Many kept score in some way and tried to predict when they should be better cheating. The surprise result was that a very simple program won repeatedly against all other programs, it was called Tit for Tat Note: Reciprocity . The strategy that won simply started with cooperate and followed 1 rule, if the other side cheated its next choice would be to cheat, but after that it would unfailingly revert to cooperation. 

The key work that reported this finding (still studied) is by The Evolution of Co-operation  Axelrod . 

At its simplest a set of guidelines can be developed from Tit for Tat which are as follows;

• Always be willing to co-operate
• Never allow the other (person/side) to get away with an action that benefits them and disadvantages you - always retaliate
• Make sure that the retaliation is both appropriate and proportionate; this is vitally important, never be taken advantage of (no bluster, act) but also never escalate
• Always go back to co-operation, do not bear a grudge, don’t keep score don’t try and second guess, there is no vendetta
• Make clear what you are doing, be explicit about the return to co-operation and spell out both that you will talk and that you will not be taken advantage off
• For all of the above reasons, language must be deliberate and measured

A few observations about this.

• If you say there is a red line, then there is; don’t say it and then fail to act
• Never escalating is difficult, it means calibrating the response; if you punish attacks made with home made rockets, which kill no one with air strikes that use several aircraft destroying not just military targets but having widespread collateral damage in residential areas and kill civilians, by the rules here this is a disproportionate response more likely to lead to a continuing cycle of violence if not to escalation.
• Retaliation can just leads to vendetta unless cooperation is, explicitly the next step
• Co-operating means just that, engage and do it; you can’t say the door is open and merely wait, be proactive, set up the meeting and send out the invitations, mean it.
• Reality is complex and messy it is not a game of prisoner’s dilemma; analysis of the situation and the design and selection of means requires a great deal of due care and attention – don’t bomb Libya without a state building programme for the aftermath
• This is quaint likely to be a slow process, starting is likely to be difficult if political forces, intent on winning by force have to be overcome
• There are a number of academic papers that worry about the first mover advantage, this can arise when the “opponent” knows tit-for-tat will be used all they do is cheat on the first move and secure a perpetual advantage. In practical politics this can be ignored, the initial gain will become smaller and smaller and in real situations never start with a clean sheet, there is just a need to start from the messy now. Cooperation is being established in the future not the past Note: First Mover Advantage . 

Just War theory

The second set of guidelines are known as Just War Theory, this has been haltingly worked out over hundreds of years. It starts from the premise that war is always an evil to be avoided and should therefore only be embarked on under specific circumstances as a last resort. In the Christian tradition this goes back to St Augustine and Thomas Aquinas  Note: Just War Theory . Unlike Tit for Tat which is purely utilitarian (it started from the premise that it works) Just War Theory started from a morale/ethical standpoint; that killing is wrong and that war is always an evil.

However, I think that there is a huge (underestimated, untapped) weight of (historical) evidence in favour of adopting the just war tests based on utility alone. In support of this I would point to The Utility of Force, the art of war in the modern world, General Sir Rupert Smith. He quotes Albert Camus (who was writing about Frances war in Algeria, but the point is a general one)

“Whilst it is true that in history at least, values – whether of the nation or of humanity – do not survive unless we fight for them, neither combat nor force suffices to justify them. The fight itself must be justified and enlightened by those values. To fight for truth and to take care not to kill it with the very weapons we use in its defence; this is the double price to be paid for restoring the power of words.”  Smith p383

The utility argument get allows one to get to the nub of the problem without an appeal to ethics.

The principles of just war theory provide an invaluable checklist.

• For a war to be just it must be possible to show; just cause, last resort, proper authority, right intention and a reasonable chance of success.
• The war itself has to be fought with discrimination, proportionality and does not exclude individuals from their responsibilities.
• When victorious the terms of peace must be reasonable.

If it is critical to balance means and ends in the conduct of war, it is undoubtedly also true for the conduct of politics. Here are two examples

• In Russia in 1917-21 war communism would have given way to socialism if the ends and means had been in balance - in practice war communism developed all the apparatus of state power that Stalin used and extended.
• In Great Britain from 1945-50 socialism would have been ushered in by a parliamentary majority if the means and ends had been in balance - in practice radical changes was pursued top down and the resulting institutions were not owned and run by their users. Despite having a degree of cross party support and surprising longevity the legacy of that Labour Government is under mounting pressure.

Emotions, beliefs and inertia

It is worthwhile at this point to remind ourselves that the human animal is emotional and does not act rationally all the time (if ever). Behavioural economics was based on a critique of economic theory, it assumed that “homo-economicus” was a rational actor. The same applies to the use of power and when blood has been spilt the difficulty of getting over the emotional reactions and the desire to give it back  becomes massive – but it can and has to be overcome as has been seen in South Africa and Northern Ireland. In the case of Both Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission was used, in both cases a large amount of political capital, going right to the top, had to be expended to make progress.

Entrenched beliefs have to be overcome – specifically the belief that there is no alternative to the current order. This will only occur if a different, provably true and better narrative is told. As we have seen in the previous sections this can be done. What is needed is unflinching advocacy coupled with challenge – the challenge of democracy and equal citizenship against purchased advantage.

Inertia has to be overcome – specifically the idea that the upheaval of moving to a different system will be disruptive, difficult or even violent. Non of this need be true. With the intelligent selection of means holistic political economy can come about through an evolutionary process, one of adaption and learning that can unfold organically. This does not mean it has to be slow, but it has to be deliberate.