MORALITY AND POLITICS IN A CHANGING WORLD VASSIL PRODANOV Every crucial social change alters the essence of the activities in the different social spheres, and is manifested in new interconnections between those spheres. The changes in Eastern Europe and the global processes of democratization in the contemporary world lead, firstly, to alterations in the concept of morality and politics. For when, in both spheres, there begin to prevail elements which are common to all mankind, new elements appear in values and their regulation. Secondly, they lead to changes in the structure of the interrelations between politics and morality, and vice versa. All this revives the ancient problem of the relation between morality and politics. Both morality and politics serve to regulate or direct human behavior. They differ, however, in the strength of their regulation and demand different, though related, personal qualities. Groups, classes and separate persons are interrelated morally. Depending on the concrete historical political peculiarities of this interrelation, some moral qualities of a politician can be easily developed, while others, which concretely and historically conflict with his policy and political goals, could cease to develop and become rudimentary and opposite qualities. As a regulator, morality is directed towards the other: it concerns interpersonal relations and interrelations between the person and group. In contrast to morality, politics regulates mainly relations between the groups and the state and between the different socio-political organizations; directly or indirectly these are connected with the function of state power. Therefore, the boundaries between the spheres of morality and politics are very flexible. In some periods particular relations can be regulated by moral mechanisms, which in other periods are ruled by political ones. The interaction between those mechanisms depends on the particular social contradictions and the objective possibilities of achieving class, national and state goals by acting in accordance with, or neglecting, respective moral values and norms. The flexibility of the boundaries between morality and politics generates the differentiation between private and public morality in social life, between the morality of individuals and the political morality of groups. On the one hand, nondemocratic centralized political regimes tend to broaden the sphere of action of politics and its related morality while restricting correlatively the range of the moral sphere related to the life activity and interrelations between separate individuals and between individuals and groups. On the other hand, the relation between the private and the public spheres of human life has an historical character. (Marx held that the abstraction of the private life is characteristic only of modern times.) 1 This abstraction reflects the growing individuality and autonomy of the person and at the same time is an expression of the peculiarities of individualism, with its connotation that each individual himself freely pursues specific inalienable rights and freedoms, that he makes decisions which, if they do not interfere with other persons, should not be subject to their control and sanction. On the one hand, there is the individual with his private interior life which does not concern anyone else. On the other hand, there is the public life connected with politics and the state; this refers not to private goals and interests, but to those that are common and concern everyone. In this way morality is divided into private and public, the morality of the individual and political morality. Because the relation between the public and the private spheres of social life is historical, their separation and contrast is very clearly outlined in modern times. As ancient theories of morality and politics do not contrast these two spheres, politics is directly related to morality. Thus, Aristotle does not make any difference between private and public morality; ethics is at the same time politics. The same is true of Plato. The contrast between morality and politics and the tendency to subordinate morality to politics and to give public morality the leading role becomes dominant with the rise of capitalism. The most characteristic views in this regard are those of Machiavelli and Hobbes. THE SUBORDINATION OF MORALITY TO POLITICS AND VICE VERSA The mutual subordination between morality and politics depends upon additional factors as well. The deeper the contradictions between persons, classes and nations the more real the possibilities of separation, contradiction and conflict between morality and politics. In such a situation the health and life, as well as the satisfaction of the ordinary needs of single persons, easily could be neglected in the pursuit of political goals. The main mechanism of the contradictions between morality and politics are the politization of morality and the moralization of politics. The moralization of politics consists in disregarding the specific character of the political sphere and the tendency to use morality to explain political goals and to solve political problems although this remains objectively impossible for a given historical stage or definite social group. The politization of morality consists in the introduction of political principles and criteria for the regulation of the relations between persons and between groups and persons through a replacement of morality by politics. In spheres where morality should have a relatively independent role, it is identified with politics or its influence is restricted to situations in which there is no danger that it can conflict with politics. Such a politization is characteristic of periods of revolution and great social clashes where the individual person faces the need to join actively in the life-and-death struggle for the defence of the global interests of the class and the nation. When political theory, ideology and practice come into sharp contradiction with the morality of the people, they lose their efficacy and in the end are doomed to failure. Therefore, every political theory, ideology and practice seeks moral justification and arguments in order to be accepted by the masses. But when political theory contradicts to some degree the morality of people or masses, then politicians seek to camouflage this contradiction with political demagogy. The higher the stage at which the politics of a definite organization, party or state contradicts the moral values of the people, the stronger the need for demagogy and the greater the use of different means of propaganda for this purpose. The moral feelings of the popular masses are the most direct early indicators of whether the actions of the political system are justified. That most people begin to accept certain political actions and organizations as discordant with their moral feelings indicates an emerging crisis in the society. A political system which takes morality into consideration does not in principle go beyond certain moral boundaries. Moreover, through its functioning the system it strengthens those bounds and forms appropriate moral qualities in the persons. All this means that political and moral goals, means and actions can contradict one another only within certain bounds; if those are trespassed the political system is threatened by instability and failure. No socially important action is without a positive or negative moral dimension. All political actions are carried out by persons and concern relations between persons. Relations between separate persons in the political sphere are based on a certain moral code which is produced spontaneously in political practice. This can also be made public officially and serve as one of the bases for evaluating politicians on behalf of the populace as well as on behalf of the different political institutions, units and representatives of the political hierarchy. Depending on the peculiarities of the political goals, means and practices of a certain group or organization, the moral code which influences the behaviour of the politicians will correspond to or contradict in some degree their moral demands. MORALITY AND POLITICS IN TIMES OF STRESS OR CALM The interrelation between morality and politics, between moral and political actions, depends also upon the peculiarities of the structure of the society, upon whether this is in peaceful and calm evolutional change or in an extreme situation connected with an abrupt change of social relations and the need to confirm and defend fundamental social principles. Revolutionary periods and times of war require the person to defend or confirm directly the most important group or national interests. In situations of danger for the destiny of the group, society or nation a person should be ready to give up his personal interests and orient himself towards common interests. Then the sphere of the political regulation becomes wider, and to a high degree private life becomes subordinate to political goals. In such extreme situations moral and political evaluations come closer together and the eventual conflicts between morality and politics are solved in favor of politics. In times of mass social cataclysms and upheavals, in times when the fate of millions is decided, the suffering or tragedy of the individual could be put aside. When one is on a barricade and people are dying all around, one has to fight the enemy without looking after oneself. Evaluations become then in many respects bipolar and mutually exclusive: of the type friend and foe, free and enslaved. These become stereotypes which manifest themselves subsequently in completely different situations. Until the 1950s and 1960s in Bulgaria the kind of trousers one wore and whether or not one had a beard carried ideological and political meanings and were perceived in terms of friend or foe. In calm, peaceful times, the sphere of the relative autonomy of moral regulation expands. The value of separate persons and individual life increases and normally need not be sacrificed in the name of great political goals. Individual goals and the main political problems are correlated in a much more indirect manner. Although contradictions between morality and politics are not an exception, a person could serve certain political goals without sacrificing and giving up what is required by a revolutionary or military situation. This creates conditions for developing a variety of concrete goals, abilities and qualities on the part of separate persons which make them rich in individuality and distinct from others. Reality becomes much more diverse. In the more varied reality of everyday life the person begins to consider more detailed and personal circumstances. In this flow of little things it is often difficult to use political criteria directly for evaluation, as these would not be adequately precise. Designed for more significant social relations and events, it would be like using a cannon to shoot small game. In the diverse nuances of the personal relations in a rich individual life, morality is a more precise and exact regulator. Because the correlation of each separate case with larger group and national interests in peaceful times is not so direct, their relations become more subtle according to their particular circumstances. The relations and conflict of the moral and political qualities of the political activity of persons reflect the contradictions between morality and politics of a certain class or group (and their political organizations) in concrete historical conditions. Depending upon the conditions, some moral qualities can easily be formed and can be useful for the political success of a certain politician, while others are formed with difficulty and do not provide direct political success. Depending upon the class or political organization to which a politician belongs, the circumstances under which he acts and the degree of democratic pressure upon him, politics could corrupt him or dull his moral sensitivity; other cases could be favorable to the development of ones sensitivity and promote the consideration of moral criteria. The more narrow and egoistic the goals to which the political system is related and the weaker the mechanisms of control by the masses upon the politician the more the system will encourage its representatives to reach for success on the basis of self-seeking, without principles or honor. REAL SOCIALISM AND THE RELATION OF MORALITY AND POLITICS The different stages and patterns of real socialism were characterized by different types of interrelations between the moral and political spheres and their specific values. Political interference by the party and political authorities expanded. The inefficiency of the economic stimuli was replaced by moral campaigns and appeals which presented moral obligations as also political requirements in the labor sphere. At the same time wage-levelling created a sense of moral justice which reacted against every differentiation whether or not based on personal work and ability. Any differentiation generated envy and ill will: even Plato argued that in societies dominated by equality, without taking into account the personal abilities and results of ones activity, envy easily flourishes. Domination by state property and its related alienation led to a decline of a work morality that had a destructive effect upon the other spheres of the moral regulation of the human behaviour. Ideology tried to compensate for the lack of efficient stimuli and motivation for work by ideologized symbols and honorary titles, distributing a growing quantity of decorations, medals, banners, flags and charters. But in the course of time the increase of such titles as hero of socialist labour, etc., became directly proportional to a fall in motivation for work. The clash between the myth about distribution according to labour and the reality of wage- levelling and distribution according to position in the hierarchy led to a lack of initiative and a low quality of work done and hence to a decline of the moral authority of labor. Class ethics favored industrial workers and led to neglecting intellectuals. Physicians, teachers, engineers, scientific workers, artists and journalists in most cases received for their work the same as a worker with average or low qualification. The individual economic initiative suppressed could be expressed only in the second of black economy. In the revolutionary changes through which societies of real socialism pass, there is no practice of democratic decision-making on the part of the majority, but violence of some social groups towards others. Violence even in the name of high humanistic ideas and values tends to be generalized in the name of social progress, history and common welfare. But, as the analyses of the French revolution by A. de Tocqueville and E. Burke show, every use of violence and terror in the name of goodness has in itself at least a potential boomerang effect, carrying with it the danger that the means used will render the goal meaningless. Forced compulsion in the name of the common good easily turns into totalitarianism. In the strongly centralized political systems there developed a one-sided dependence of morality on politics in which morality was subordinated to politics. Morality, its reasons and justifications, were tied to political goals and interests. This is synthesized in Lenins famous phrase: everything that serves the cause of communism is moral. In the moral code of the builder of communism, set up by the Soviet communist party during the time of Khrushchev, the highest moral principle is devotion to the cause of communism. But in authoritarian and totalitarian regimes politics loses its real essence, namely, to be a manifestation of the interests of larger social groups, classes and nation. Where political authorities are not controlled by society, the conditions exist for their own alienation and that of their bureaucratic interests. These begin then to impose themselves as political and moral demands upon the citizens. Thus, everything the centralized authorities demand becomes moral because their activity and prescriptions are identified with the fight for communism. At the same time insufficient openness on the part of the political authorities creates the conditions for them to neglect the moral feelings of the masses. Thus, authorities remain beyond the control of mass popular moral consciousness; they impose criteria upon it but do not allow it to influence them. The ethics of a totalitarian regime has some important characteristics. First, the political system is proclaimed to be directed towards attaining the common good--national interests, the good of the working people, etc. Second, it is supposed that separate individuals and social groups might not be aware of their true interests, which can be krown only by the Party, which therefore plays the leading role in all spheres of social life. Third, the relative autonomy of the different spheres of society, particularly those of morality and politics, are neglected as are the possible contradictions between those spheres. Thus, the Party begins to realize in practice its leading role in morality which it subordinates to politics in a one-sided manner. Fourth, it is supposed that the new society creates a relatively uncontradictory unity of personal, group and social interests, though in practice the personal interests of citizens deprived of the right to own, utilize and take care of the state-owned property are alienated from state interests which are proclaimed as national interests. In this way the political sphere lacks a concrete mechanism through which the individual will of the citizen could be reflected in the common will, which should be expressed by the authorities. As the interests of the separate persons and social groups cannot find political expression, only the interest expressed by party and state authorities have legitimacy. These are imposed as the common good and are not subject to criticism. Fifth, because the separate individuals and social groups could not appreciate the interests of the authorities proclaimed as the common good, and because of the real alienation of personal interests from this common good, the main means for its imposition becomes the economic, political and ideological monopoly. Alternative patterns of real interests of the citizens and the social groups are totally excluded; violence is done in the name of the common good. The top criteria of morality, namely, national interests, public welfare, communist ideals, all are projected in time. They are diachronic dimensions expected to be achieved in the process of building socialism and communism. From their manner of presentation, however, they can begin to contradict general human values and moral norms which are valid for different periods and social groups, for they exist not only in the future but also at present and in the past as well. Thus, general human values and norms are discarded theoretically as they cannot serve as practical criteria for political activities, but neither can existing political mechanisms. The high centralization and its monopoly formed during the first decades of the development of socialist countries and the lack of sufficient control on the political hierarchy from below appear to open the way to a loss of moral guidelines for party and state personnel. This became strongly apparent in the period of classical Stalinism and its rude repressions until the 1950s, but also after that period within the milder system of Neo-Stalinism in Bulgaria, political leaders experienced conflicts between morality and politics. In the administrative and command socialist system political institutions constantly faced the problem of popular confidence and hence of the moral image of the staff working in these institutions. Conditions for the mutual alienation of these institutions and their staff, on the one hand, and the citizens, on the other, remained until the 1980s and were a factor in the failure of the control mechanism for the morality of politicians. They also hampered legitimizing the political system in the popular mass consciousness. The mechanisms for a more efficient moral control upon the political staff developed parallel to the reduction of red tape and of centralized management structures, as well as with the spread of openness and democracy in the actions of the authorities. DEMOCRATIZATION AND THE RELATION OF MORALITY AND POLITICS From the middle 1980s on turbulent processes and changes began to take place in the USSR and in Central and Eastern Europe. The crumbling of previous structures was accompanied by processes of social democratization of the Communist parties. The difference in Europe between the social democrats and socialists on the one hand and the communists on the other hand, dating back to the beginning of the twentieth century, began to narrow. There began to be envisaged in the economic sphere a pluralism of forms of property, a free market economy with social guarantees for the socially weak strata of the population, and a narrowing the scope of centralistic state regulation of economy. In the political sphere attention turned to multi-party systems, parliamentary democracy, separation of the executive, legislative and judicial powers and free elections. All of these changed the relation between morality and politics. In the first place there was a clear orientation towards a more human, just and moral system of social life. The moral movement itself was seen to have an important place in the platform of political forces. Democratization and openness came to be acknowledged as prerequisites for a more active penetration of morality into the political sphere. If earlier politics, which was often carried out in favor of group bureaucratic interests, tried to subordinate the moral consciousness and impose its own criteria, now the two came to be seen as equals, and moral consciousness could very actively influence political life. Politics, too, in a sense was moralized and ethnitized through taking into account the mass moral expectations and demands. Democratization is the most favorable political ground for the progress of morality. Both democracy and morality ensue from the citizens autonomy, from his right of choice and tolerance of differences. The more thoroughly a democratic regime regulates the citizen, the less the opportunity to enhance such moral categories as honor, conscience, dignity, responsibility and charity. Democracy has as its first principle the citizens freedom, choice of alternatives and the assumption of personal responsibility. Democracy implies not only a distinction between civil society and the state, but also the development of its own regularities, with relative autonomy of the different social spheres and of mechanisms for the regulation of behaviour. Where totalitarianism relies upon the monopoly and unification of society, democracy puts forward variety and makes everything, everybody and each action commensurate with its own individual measures rather than with the same criteria applied elsewhere. In this sense democracy is a means of limiting the field of action of politics and political criteria, whereas the criteria of morality are much reinforced. The development of a mixed economy and the freedom of citizens in managing the various functions of property-- ownership, management and use--is a favorable basis for crucial changes in morality and motivation regarding work. The moral evaluation of enterprise and initiative in the economic sphere has been changing. Along with loyalty to the building of socialism, a basic principle in the moral code of a builder of communism is socialist collectivism as opposed to bourgeois individualism. In fact, however, this collectivism is not a community of individuals having equal rights and joint interests; on the contrary they are equal only in their economic alienation from state property and their political alienation from the authorities. Collectivism without actual economic links among the individuals of the social group who lack proper political rights and freedoms is a moral shell for totalitarian subordination depriving the citizen of individuality. Economic and political freedoms promote the development of individualism. When this individualism produces socially positive results, it has indisputable moral advantages in comparison with recent collectivisms. Only a free person with developed individuality can take an active part in different social groups to consolidate their unity as well. The fundamental political principles of the societies of real socialism was the division of social and professional groups in terms of their capacity to take part in public progress and contribute to the positive development of society. It was thought that the working class engaged directly in productive labour and that in particular the working class in industry possessed a socially privileged position which made it the leading power and the avant garde for the rest. Its moral values and perceptions of common interests and welfare were considered much more precise and truthful than those of other social groups. The working class was considered politically and, all things considered, morally more complete. Such a division turned out to be without justification. As epistemological subjects, intellectuals were first, while from the point of moral ability the members of society are to a certain degree equal and could not be separated mechanically in terms of the social group to which they belong. In former periods of human civilization the boundaries between the separate social estates, casts and groups were relatively stable and difficult to overcome so that important differences between the moral values and norms of those groups could develop. In industrial and post-industrial societies, with their dynamism and the flexibility of their boundaries between social communities, the differences between social values and norms are not so great. The most essential change takes place in the logical argumentation and justification of moral values and the norms which guide peoples lives. In the former societies of real socialism the main criteria for the justification of moral values and norms were future ideals, namely, the goals of the communist party. Some political systems now are emerging which give the first place to universal values and norms which are the achievement of human civilization. A political morality is developing for the democratic evolution of society. Its starting point is tolerance towards differences and the freedom to express all kinds of views. The moral image of a politician becomes very important for his or her political survival and success. Under the circumstances of political pluralism and a multi-party system the following are of essential importance: civilized dialogue, mutual respect, readiness for compromise and cooperation between the different political forces; in contrast, the following are disvalues: attitudes towards others as enemies and tendencies to anathematize, abuse or defame them. Changes from totalitarian to democratic and market society are accompanied by new tensions between morality and politics. If a totalitarian system is connected with the politization of morality, the process of social change is connected with a moralization of politics. In the transitional period the old political system does not work, while the new is but emerging. The people want to carry on politics directly, but, as they are not politicians, they too easily replace real politics with morality: mass moral consciousness begins to dictate to politics. While this is accepted as purifying corrupt totalitarian politics, the replacement of politics with morality is full of danger. Morality also can kill people; in the history of mankind it may have killed more people than have the police. For moral evaluations and decisions employ an either-or logic, while politics uses an and-and logic that is more flexible. Where morality could search for absolutes, politics finds compromises. The tragedy of every revolution is the replacement of politics with the uncompromising moralism of a highly excited mass consciousness. Maximillian Robespierre had the aura of an Unbribed or moral man, but he created the politics of terror. When morality entirely replaces politics it could become an executioner. There is another contradiction between morality and politics in the time of changes in Eastern Europe. On the one hand, the newly emergent political forces under the circumstances of the multi-party system declare their ambition for a more human and moral society. Democratization forces politicians to consider the demands and concepts of justice, and the moral evaluations of the broad layers of the population. The moral evaluations of politics and the moral pressure of the people in political life find much greater opportunities for public expression. On the other hand, the movement of the economic sphere towards market relations under the circumstances of an acute deficiency of goods and the economic imbalances created over the course of decades lead to increasing social differentiation, corruption, increasing inflation and an expansion of the number of people living under the poverty level. Mass moral consciousness in which the traditional egalitarian stereotypes are relatively strong reacts very violently against those processes and resists increasing differentiation. As the experience in such countries as China and Poland shows, the mass moral consciousness reacts violently as well against the processes of increasing corruption which are inevitable under the circumstances of a deficient economy in which the opportunities for individual initiative increase sharply and in which there still are no efficient mechanisms for control. Reaction against such corruption and differentiation so that they gain political expression may become a prerequisite for stopping or slowing down economic reforms. MORALITY AS A SEPARATE SPHERE IMPOSING ITS CRITERIA UPON POLITICS AND OTHER SPHERES OF THE SOCIETY This is a prevailing model emerging during the last two decades in the most developed countries where so-called postindustrial or information society is arising and some characteristics of postmodernity are emerging. In this process the political and cultural maps of the modern period have been redrawn so that the old oppositions-- science versus art, facts versus fictions, Left versus Right, high culture versus low culture, morality versus politics, morality versus economy, and morality versus art, no longer hold. No values prove timeless, authentic or oppositional forever. At first the separation between economy and morality which was characteristic of the industrial age loses its rigor. There is a big shift to post-materialist values as the motives and the basis of the work ethic come to the fore. I agree with A. Toffler who wrote in The Third Wave: Throughout the second wave era corporations have been seen as economic units, and attacks on them have essentially focussed on economic issues. . . . Todays corporate critics start from a totally different premise. They attack the artificial divorce of economics from politics, morality and other dimensions of life. They hold the corporation increasingly responsible, not merely for its economic performance but for its side effects on everything from air pollution to executive stress. 2 That is why in only twenty years business ethics became one of the most active and fast growing disciplines. In various fields old centralized social and power structures are replaced by new flat and horizontal networks. The civil society enlarges its boundaries and the morality of this civil society imposes its criterion on the state and on politicians. This is connected with a transformation of the old power structures, the status of the politician, and his place in society. The dictate of moral precepts on the politicians has become much stronger after Watergate. One of the most important achievements of the industrial society--the separation of public from private life loses its strength. Society burst in upon the politicians private life, which in turn becomes especially significant for his career. Laws, codes, commissions, parliamentary ethics committees, and so on, are set up so that an ethical concern over a political or judicial nominee could become the most important national event over several months. All this is related to the fact that in an over-centralized mass society the old type of politics is out of date. In a society where the horizontal structures are so important there is a: Deepening breakdown of the ability to make timely and competent decisions . . . charging the deepest power relationships in society. Under normal non-revolutionary circumstances, the elites in any society use the political system to reinforce their rule, and further their ends. . . . Today the elites can no longer predict the outcomes of their own actions. The political systems through which they operate are so antiquated and creaky, so outraced by events, that even when closely controlled by the elites for their own benefit, the results often backfire. 3 In a more decentralized and participative society the strong, older divisions between politicians and constituency disappear, and the participation and control of citizens over the power structures become much stronger, thereby imposing their moral precepts on politics. When increasingly the government is not a representative of the majority but of different minorities and the consideration of their interests comes first, morality enters actively into politics. A signpost of this new unity of morality and politics was After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre, published in 1981. Acknowledging the failure of the old divisions between facts and values, person and society, he went back to the Aristotles ethics of virtue. In a similar context other criticisms of the liberal idea of neutral government have appeared manifesting a shift toward more humanistic and adequate relationships of morality to politics. But it is important to underscore that these relationships could be optimal, but not applicable to every kind of society, that is, they could be only for the highly developed societies with new technological, economic and social structures underpinning definite power structures. If one tries right away to introduce these new relationships between morality and politics in Eastern European societies where all social structures are of an industrial or preindustrial type with an exceptional degree of centralization, massification and state property, it would be a manifestation of, or a path to, neototalitarianism. Max Weber wrote that in a radically transforming society an ethics of ultimate ends in politics is most disastrous and a direct route to bloodshed and dictatorship. Moralization in a time of revolutionary changes almost always gives rise to some kind of dictatorship. Thus democratization reveals the contradiction between morality and economy, between the moral feelings for justice and the economic realities of increasing differentiation; through politics this would hamper the changes in economy. This example shows that morality, represented by the moral feelings and inclinations of the masses, can be considered also an expression of absolute values and be the only factor by which politics is controlled. Mass moral consciousness could be conservative and play a hampering role. We must not suppose that in the interrelation between the political sphere and the moral consciousness of the masses the political sphere must have priority at all costs. But we must not suppose the opposite either, namely, that the priority should belong at all costs to the moral consciousness of the masses, for morality and moral behaviour are not equivalent to mass consciousness or to what the majority in democratic societies and communities consider moral. Quite often it is not the majority but the minority which is the bearer of more moral views and values for it acts more in accord with the perspectives of social development. Therefore, democratization is not in all cases a guarantee of more moral points of reference. The moralist, Socrates, was sentenced to death in an ancient democracy. The dictatorship of the majority under the circumstance of democracy could turn out to be no less immoral than the dictatorship of the minority, or of separate persons under an oligarchy or autocracy. Overcoming the dangers of sharp contradictions between morality and politics, between the mass moral consciousness and the real needs of society, is connected with the development of democratic mechanisms, political means, balances and counterweights. This is a prerequisite for making it impossible for any social group to gain absolute power to the detriment of truth for a society. First, the common good which should be defended by the state loses its absolute significance before something proclaimed by a group of people as an exclusive truth. Political pluralism means the opportunity to criticize certain notions about the common welfare and interests and to seek consensus and compromise. Second, developed democratic mechanisms are a prerequisite for the transition from the individual will of separate citizens to the level of a common will carried out by the political institution and the state. Third, the separation of the powers and the existence of a political opposition are counterforce to the corruptive influence of unrestricted power. Politics becomes much more moral as values begin to play a more significant role in social life and become stable moral regulators, which in turn confirms limits in the political sphere. Naturally, this process is not without its contradictions. Democratization removes some contradictions between morality and politics, but it can also open new contradictions. Since morality and politics are relatively independent spheres in social life every elimination of certain contradictions between them and constitution of a new unity itself opens the way for a new contradiction and a new unity. There exist also certain global prerequisites for a change in the interrelations between morality and politics. These are connected with the global processes of democratization in the contemporary world. These include a greater number of people in political life whose moral criteria, evaluations and consciousness influence more politicians. Strengthened by the contemporary mass media, they can mobilize world public opinion and exert an influence over political events even in most remote parts of the world. The internationalization of public life and the serious global problems at the end of the twentieth century greatly raise the significance of moral and political values which are universal to all mankind. Morality, which in principle accumulates the more stable achievements of a civilization and is connected with the regulation and establishment of more stable human interrelations, bears in itself elements which are universal to all mankind. The growth of the impact of morality upon political institutions leads to a stronger trend in the politics of different groups to include in their essence values common to all mankind. As one of the main characteristics of the new historical essence of the world, democratization makes international political life more human and imposes certain moral limits upon politics. Through democratization there is growth in the sense of mutual dependence and mutual commitment, of the need for new thinking, new values and new ideas of a world in which there is a place for us all. NOTES 1.K. Mapmc, Ehranc (Cih. T. 1), p. 247. 2.A. Toffler, The Third Wave (Toronto: Bantam Books, 1980), p 234. 3. Ibld. , P. 395.
Posted on: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 16:13:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015