In the words of the Political Scientist Machiavelli, we read or learn that what differentiates Political Science from other social Sciences is the emphasis on the concept “Power”. This is because political values, resources, political decisions etc. at the national and international level are inseparable with power in politics.
This is why the American Political Scientist, Prof. Harold D. Lasswell conceptualized Politics as “Who Gets What, When, How” By analysis, this could mean that politicians equated as the “Who” rely on power for their desired goals or interests equated as the “What” The “When” can arguably be equated as the political season such as elections, referendum etc.
Arguably, the “How “can be equated as the means of ensuring or obtaining power which is the fuel of politics. This in all societies is legitimized by procedures as in cases of voting during elections or referendum. The case of the pending 2017 Presidency and Representatives Election in Liberia is a contemporary example of the “How”.
There is one legitimate universal phenomenon or way politicians make use of the “How” to Get the “What” during political season (the “When”). It is through campaign that power becomes the means to an end. However, it is observed that politicians cognizant or mindful of loss or win adopt or engage into particular political behavior.
This political behavior that politicians employed as a strategy during campaign is a “Game” that reflects the caption of this article.
The absence of “Politics as a Game” from the glossary of Political Science creates room to opinionate the definition. In whatever case, such definition must worth intellectual value. Against this premised politics as a game can be conceptualized as nothing other than political behavior exhibited by politicians driven by desire goals or self-interests.
Politics as a game is not a new phenomenon. It has long history in human existence. One of such old game that politicians use today is the “Divide and Rule” a strategy employed by the British Imperialism that breaks up existing power structures, and especially prevents smaller power groups from linking up, causing rivalries and fueling disagreement among the people in Africa.
Driven by self-interest at the national level, let’s look inside the theater of the Liberian politics. Politicians go into theater that is strategic to their personal interest which may not necessarily reflect the interest of those wanting to help or impact or the institution attach to.
For example, the switching or crossing carpet of several politicians desirous of positions from the ruling party to opposition parties and among opposition parties is arguably driven by personal interest in Liberia 2017 elections.
Their reasons for crossing over are not so much about the platform and manifesto of the parties as expressed by these politicians. This is how they play the game. Strategic to their personal interests, they are convinced of not winning contested seats during the parties primary that will afford them right to become members of the National Legislature. Some are also convinced that no matter what happen, they will not win any seat in the House of Representative or as President.
This desperation driven by personal interest is the driving force behind the crossing over to other parties with the hope that when the party wins election, they will get appointed positions in government.
These are people that resign from the ruling party led government at the completion of its tenure on grounds that the government has lost popularity, will not win next election, corrupt etc.
They are the ones that failed to resign from the party at the inception of the so called grounds but benefited immensely. They are the ones who political behaviors typify the late Liberian politician Keikura Bayoh Kpoto theory “Where the sun shines is where you hang your clothes”.
At the international level, the game is strategic also to the national interest of the states involve not those wanting to help or affected. The game is played at the detrimental of innocent people. Take for example, the Theory of Conspiracy in the Syria civil crisis played by the many international actors.
For instance, from the beginning Israel adopted the stance of a bystander, stressing publicly its policy of nonintervention. On the contrary, opposition groups accused Israel of being responsible for the survival of the Assad regime.
The allegation stems from a popular claim in Syrian opposition circles of Syrian president as a “loyal lapdog” of the State of Israel protecting the security interest of Israel in exchange for insurance protection. (Tha‘er al-Nashef and Ofir Winter)
Similarly, despites concerned about the complex humanitarian crisis, China and Russia under the theory of conspiracy continue to support the Assad regime’s accused of slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians in the 2-year-old civil war.
At the detrimental of innocent people, Russia as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council that should uphold and respect the Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations that provides remedy for situation tantamount to threats to the Peace, breaches of the Peace, and acts of aggression as in the case of the Syria war continue to support the regime for two undisputable reasons strategic to their interest. Russia is one of Syria’s biggest arms suppliers.
Research revealed that Moscow also signed a $550 million deal with Syria for combat training jets. Added to this, Russia also leases a naval facility at the Syrian port of Tartus, giving the Russian navy its only direct access to the Mediterranean.
The second reason is ideological. Citing the Arab Spring and the U.S.-led war in Iraq as evidence, Russia advanced the argument that revolutions, wars and regime change have failed to bring stability and democracy.
More importantly, Russia is skeptical about U.S. intentions in the region. It argues that humanitarian concerns are often used an excuse for pursuing America’s own political and economic interests.
As for China as permanent member of the U.N. Security Council that should respect the Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, research disclosed that despite its opposition of the use of chemical weapons and supports the U.N.’s chemical weapons inspectors, it is still supporting the regime because of its economic interest. According to data from the European Commission, in 2010 China was ranked as Syria’s third-largest importer.
Some Observers and political commentators opinionated that China still wants to maintain financial ties with Syria. This could be the reason why China doesn’t want to reprise what happened with Libya by abstaining.
Literally, any game of competition must be played according to rules and regulations. For example, in the soccer game, players’ behaviors on the field are regulated by the FIFA normative framework. At the international level in politics, the behaviors of State actors are also regulated by normative framework.
Example, the right to veto for or against resolution is part of the normative framework that regulates the behaviors of permanent members of the U.N. Security Council as State actors.
Take for instance, China and Russia as permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are relying on the right to veto against any resolution in Syria that will threaten their national interests.
This is why China made it cleared that the mistake they made by abstaining from the resolution in the Libya case will not happen with Syria. Though debatable, the U.S. has relied on this same normative framework to protect its interest as in the case of the unilateral decision in the U.S. led war in Iraq.
Another type of political behavior displayed by Political actors both at the national and national level is “Blame Game”. An accusation exchanged among political actors who refuse to accept sole responsibility for some undesirable event they could have handled or prevented by virtue of their potential, capability or ability. It is a political phenomenon characterized by fingers pointing justification.
For example, if a ruling party or its leader has done something wrong, the opposition pulls its legs but when the same opposition comes to the power and commit a mistake, it tries to hide or rationalize its mistake when opposition (the party in power before) points it out, so the ruling party, to deviate from the point highlights the crimes of its opposition and tries to prove that everything is fine with them and the whole game continues on and on.
At the international level, the blame shifting in the Rwandan genocide among key actors (Belgium, the UN Secretariat, the US and France) that could have prevented the genocide despite convincing early warnings may validate the example of the blame game in the theater of politics.
In this game at what level, honesty is questionable despite explicit normative framework. What question the honesty of the actors are their national and individuals interests involve. This could be one of the reasons why some critical minded people argue that morality should be aloof from politics.
To support this assertion, ponder about the U.S. unilateral decision in the led war in Iraq on grounds of the so called weapon of mass destruction they couldn’t prove till now. It worth arguing that interest at what level can legitimize the illegitimate in politics.
If you can recall, in 2009 the U.S. President Obama was in Ghana on official visit. In his speech, he emphatically asserted that “Africa doesn’t need strongmen, it needs strong institutions.” Bearing in mind liberal democracy as a strong pillar of the U.S. foreign policy that derived from its political philosophy, it is safe to infer dictator in Africa from Obama’s assertion.
In August 2014, the U.S. government hosted the first Africa Leaders’ Summit in Washington D.C. that focused on trade, investment and security of the continent.
Ironically, the U.S. invited some African leaders bearing the semblance of the so called “Strong Men in Africa” Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo from Equatorial Guinea, from 1976 till now; José Eduardo dos Santos from Angola since 1979 till now in power, Yaya Jammeh from the Gambia since from 1994-2016; President Museveni from Uganda with 23 years in power till now; former President Blasé Compare from Burkina Faso; King Mswati from Swaziland since 1986 till now etc.
President Robert Mugabe from Zimbabwe and President Omar Bashir from Sudan were denied invitation on grounds that bear the semblance of Obama description of the so called Strong men in Africa.
To help you validate the example in light of the honesty in the game, objectively compare the leadership profile of all of the invitees that received red carpet welcome in Washington to the non-invitees. It can finally be argued that the interest of the U.S. was more important than its foreign policy on liberal democracy in the game of legitimize the illegitimate in the politics.
In conclusion, nothing is more important other than the interest of the actors in the theater of politics. Yes in theory, they played by normative framework that supposed to guide their behaviors. However in practice, the strategic interests of the actors care less about circumventing the existing rules irrespective of the repercussion.
Disclaimer: This is totally my thinking that has no reflection of the institution that I am attached to. It is not to hurt the sentiments of anyone. It is intended for academic argument.
Ambrues M. Nebo Sr., Contributing Writer
[email protected]/[email protected] / (+231) 0777531129