Politics, a necessary evil: is it always necessary? is it always evil?

Politics sets up a hegemonic structure which tends to discriminate against certain classes of people.

From an utilitarian POV, however, sometimes it might be a “necessary evil” to promote certain people’s interests over others in the interest of a more stable society. Of course, there are those who disagree, such as people from the nihilist school of thought.

The above is just a philosophical statement in the interest of discussion, and might not represent my views

Politics: the ability to spoonfeed the masses bullshit and make them think they are eating sugar, no matter what side you are on
If you beleive Bush is not in bed with Clinton then you have no idea what politics are all about Urban Dictionary

Politics has always and will always be divisive and desructive.

We can talk through our problems and negotiate agreements, or we can fight for what we want. Politics keeps us from devolving into armed combat. Well, most of the time. I don’t even think it’s evil. I think it is a very difficult career that requires an awful lot of effort and you have to be the best poker player in the land to succeed at it at the highest levels.

When politics work, we don’t get torn apart. There are a lot of angry feelings and a lot of people who want to take up arms, but, for the most part, they don’t. And the few who do are generally seen as crazy. Our decisions making system, much though people hate how it runs, is seen as legitimate enough that people will abide by its rules.

Those rules are set up to provide enough fairness that people won’t start physically fighting. I’m not saying the rules are fair. I don’t think they are. But they are fair enough. So yes, politics are necessary, but they aren’t evil. Not by a long shot.

The way I see it is politics is the human factor in government. Government to me is the vehicle by which protocol operates. Government uses procedure and protocol to decide where and what resources is allocated where, when humans enter the picture and try to decide which is more worthy to be funded or address and to get the majority in line with that thinking then that is politics. The art of cobbling consensus is politics

As for a fictional group of people who had no politics only the Borg of Star Trek would come close to that in my book.

The Borg Collective was made up of at the very least trillions of humanoids referred to as drones. Through the use of their cybernetic implants, the Borg interacted by sharing one another’s thoughts in a hive mind. Upon assimilation, these trillions of “voices” would overwhelm the drone, stifling individual thought and resistance to the Collective’s will. To some drones these voices could eventually become a source of comfort, and their absence a source of pain.

Borg philosophy was governed by a primary directive to add the biological and technological distinctiveness of other species to that of the Borg. In this manner the Collective sought to achieve its definition of perfection; all other pursuits were deemed irrelevant. Accordingly, Borg drones did not engage in any activities except their duties and regeneration.

Politics by its nature is a necessary evil, there will always be someone whom the government doesn’t serve because the majority thought different, as the Vulcan saying goes ”The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few” When you have a majority wishing an agenda or action they clearly know will impact

You folks are thinking pretty big: national governments and all that. That’s great—my question didn’t exclude that level of political behavior. But I am just as much interested in the politics that develop in a professional organization of 20,000, a social club of 200, a governing board of 20, a family of 5.

The resources might be money, but they could also be land, volunteers’ time, space in a newsletter, community activity, endorsements and publicly stated opinions, and support of causes, or they could be space in a home or yard, use of the car, grocery shopping list, control of shared supplies and media, or even just permission to do certain things. Don’t the deliberations, contests of wills, negotiations, and decisions on behalf of the whole group come down to politics?

Of course politics is necessary, and of course it’s not always – or even ‘usually’ – evil. As you noted, politics exists in every group of people of any size (two or more). It exists in families, friendships, clubs, voluntary and for-profit businesses, and obviously and always in governments.

That’s where it gets evil, because most government is unnecessary.

@WasCy, have you not seen a friendly little club, a church, or a committee undergo terrible rifts because of clashes of vision and priorities? people talking about “power” and stabbing each other in the back over the right to head up a service organization of fewer than a thousand members? a team of ten with a job to do, split down the middle over issues of delegation versus perceived micromanaging? Does any organization exist where all runs smoothly and harmoniously, with no grumbling over leadership and decision-making? Don’t people get just as worked up and even behave just as viciously in these microcosms as in the government of a nation?

@Jeruba

The “politics” is necessary; it’s “setting policy”, after all. But it doesn’t have to be the sturm und drang that you’re referring to. I was fortunate enough to be the commissioner of a recreational youth soccer league with 1200 kids in Michigan. I stepped into an organization that was already flowing smoothly, grew it in two years from less than 1000 kids to the 1200 on hand when I left, and left it in capable (and smooth) hands when I stepped down. The only contention I ever faced in two years was to settle a spat between two coaches of some of the older kids, whose games tended to get more competitive, and had an on-field incident that threatened to continue to another game or two. We settled that over breakfast one morning, and though they still didn’t like each other or like what had happened, they shook hands, dropped the spat and BS, and kept coaching.

But that was politics, too. I just had to remind the coaches that the purpose of the league is not to win a trophy (or a pissing match between the two of them), but to get kids (including their own kids) on the fields, running and competing against their friends, and their dislike for each other and on-field antics weren’t supposed to be part of the game. I told them I’d be unhappy, but willing, to take both of their resignations (and I didn’t have a replacement for either of them, so it was kind of a lie: I wasn’t exactly anxious for them to quit!), or we could sit there and come to an agreement that preserved everyone’s honor and let them get back on the field.

I guess that’s small potatoes, but… I like “small” politics.

Politics is about the division of resources, creating and enforcing rules that govern trade, business, education, the provision of services, defence, and the political system itself.

I don’t think you can call politics a necessary evil. Sure it is necessary, but I don’t think it is an evil. When a political system is well designed it works to the advantage of the signatories, and creates a far stronger group than a group of people without a cohesive system to act within. To some extent every nation that has enforced the rule of law rather than the rule of a person or body of people has had great success as a result.

No group of people ever operates without politics. At some stage a decision must be made, and the manner in which the decision is made determines the nature of the political process at work within that group. If the prettiest of the school girls decides where to sit at lunch, that is a dictatorship/monarchy. If the best football players decide the tactics for the upcoming game, that is an aristocracy.

Politics becomes an ‘evil’ when a person has too much power or too much responsibility. Given too much power, they lose sight of their position as a servant of the people. Given too much responsibility, mistakes are made and the population is set up in the fashion of the dream of one person, and therefore lacks resilience. As long as the rule of law prevails and politicians are not swayed by any factor but what is best for the people, politics is a necessary and effective way of managing a group of people.

Two ways for politics not to exist
1) Everyone to have the exact same goal(s).
2) The sum of everyone’s maximum desires is less than the total resources available + no conflict between the desires.

I doubt its possible on modern society, though it may have been possible at a time when
1) pure survival was the one and only goal
2) people moved in small groups
3) people realized that the entire group needed to work together to survive

I’m not sure that every happened in its pure form but maybe cavemen came close…

The alternative is tribalism and warring factions. I prefer elections and civilized debates.

Governor Deval Patrick was on The Daily Show yesterday and said “government is the name we give to how we make decisions together” (or something to that effect. If thats true, it would seem to follow that it shouldn’t be evil…

That’s spin, @roundsquare.

Government “has become the institution that makes rules for us”, for another way to look at it. But in any case, “government” is just a subset of politics, which exists in far more places than just an elected body of legislators.