Politics As a Vocation

1. Politics Defined: Striving for Power

Hence, 'politics' for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either amongst states or among groups within a state.

Power dynamics. Politics, at its core, is about the pursuit and distribution of power. This can manifest on an international scale, between nations, or within a country, among different groups and factions. Understanding this fundamental drive is key to understanding political actions and decisions.

Motivations for power. Individuals engage in politics for various reasons. Some seek power as a means to achieve other goals, whether ideal or self-serving. Others are driven by the intrinsic satisfaction and prestige that power itself provides. This pursuit of power shapes the political landscape.

Examples of political action:

• Lobbying for specific legislation
• Participating in election campaigns
• Forming political alliances
• Engaging in public discourse to influence opinion

2. Three Types of Legitimate Domination

To begin with, in principle, there are three inner justifications, hence basic legitimations of domination.

Traditional authority. This rests on the belief in the sanctity of age-old traditions and customs. Leaders inherit their authority and maintain it through adherence to established norms. Examples include monarchies and patriarchal systems.

Charismatic authority. This stems from the exceptional qualities of an individual leader, such as heroism, revelation, or extraordinary skill. Followers are devoted to the leader's personality and believe in their unique abilities. Examples include prophets, revolutionary leaders, and charismatic demagogues.

Legal-rational authority. This is based on the belief in the validity of legal statutes and rationally created rules. Obedience is owed to the office, not the person holding it. Examples include modern bureaucracies and constitutional states.

3. The State's Monopoly on Violence

A state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.

Defining the state. Max Weber defines the state not by its goals, which can vary widely, but by its unique means: the legitimate use of physical force. This monopoly on violence distinguishes the state from other social organizations.

Territoriality. The state's authority is confined to a specific territory. Within those borders, it claims the exclusive right to use force, although it may delegate this right to other institutions or individuals under specific circumstances.

Implications of the monopoly. This monopoly is not just about physical control; it's about legitimacy. The state's power rests on the acceptance of its right to use force. Without this acceptance, the state's authority crumbles, potentially leading to anarchy.

4. Living "For" vs. "Off" Politics

Either one lives 'for' politics or one lives 'off politics.

Economic independence. Living "for" politics implies that one is economically independent and does not rely on politics for income. This allows for greater freedom of action and less susceptibility to corruption. Wealthy individuals or those with independent sources of income are more likely to be able to live "for" politics.

Economic dependence. Living "off" politics means that one's livelihood is derived from political activity. This can take the form of salaries, fees, or other benefits. Those who live "off" politics are more likely to be influenced by economic considerations and may be more prone to corruption.

Examples of living "off" politics:

• Salaried party officials
• Journalists who depend on political reporting for income
• Politicians who use their position for personal gain

5. The Rise of Professional Politicians

During this process of political expropriation, which has occurred with varying success in all countries on earth, 'professional politicians' in another sense have emerged.

Historical context. Professional politicians emerged as princes sought to consolidate power by expropriating autonomous bearers of executive power. These politicians served the princes, managing their politics for a living and a sense of purpose.

Types of professional politicians:

• Clergy: Employed for their literacy and administrative skills
• Humanistically educated literati: Served as political advisors and memorialists
• Court nobility: Used in political and diplomatic service
• University-trained jurists: Played a decisive role in the development of the rational state

The modern demagogue. With the rise of constitutional states and democracy, the demagogue has become the typical political leader in the West, using oratory and the printed word to sway public opinion.

6. The Politician's Essential Qualities

One can say that three pre-eminent qualities are decisive for the politician: passion, a feeling of responsibility, and a sense of proportion.

Passion. This refers to a matter-of-fact devotion to a cause, a god, or a demon that serves as its overlord. It's not mere excitement but a deep commitment to something beyond oneself.

Responsibility. A politician must feel responsible for the consequences of their actions. This requires careful consideration of the potential impact of decisions and a willingness to be held accountable.

Proportion. This is the ability to maintain inner concentration and calmness while allowing realities to work upon oneself. It involves a sense of distance from things and people, preventing emotional reactions from clouding judgment.

7. Ethics in Politics: An Unavoidable Tension

We must be clear about the fact that all ethically oriented conduct may be guided by one of two fundamentally differing and irreconcilably opposed maxims: conduct can be oriented to an 'ethic of ultimate ends' or to an 'ethic of responsibility.'

The problem of means. Politics operates with power and violence, which often necessitates the use of morally dubious means to achieve desired ends. This creates a tension between ethical principles and practical considerations.

The ethic of ultimate ends. This approach focuses on adhering to moral principles regardless of the consequences. Actions are judged based on their inherent goodness, not their potential outcomes.

The ethic of responsibility. This approach emphasizes the need to consider the foreseeable results of one's actions. Politicians must weigh the potential benefits of a course of action against its potential harms.

8. The Ethic of Ultimate Ends vs. Responsibility

There is an abysmal contrast between conduct that follows the maxim of an ethic of ultimate ends...and conduct that follows the maxim of an ethic of responsibility, in which case one has to give an account of the foreseeable results of one's action.

Conflicting approaches. The ethic of ultimate ends and the ethic of responsibility represent fundamentally different approaches to ethical decision-making. The former prioritizes adherence to principles, while the latter prioritizes consequences.

The limitations of absolutism. An ethic of ultimate ends can be impractical in the real world, where achieving good outcomes often requires compromising moral purity. It may lead to inaction or even unintended negative consequences.

The dangers of consequentialism. An ethic of responsibility can lead to moral compromises and the justification of harmful actions in the name of achieving a greater good. It requires careful judgment and a willingness to be held accountable for the results.

Last updated: April 6, 2025