Does Absolute Power corrupt absolutely?

[blah the Prussian]

It is one of the oldest catchphrases of all time, and yet I do not think it is true. There have been plenty of times in history when people given absolute power proved to be incredible rulers. For example, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Cincinnatis, Frederick the Great, the Hongwu Emperor, and many more had absolute power and were extremely benevolent with it. Of course, absolute power in the hands of someone good is not worth the risk of absolute power in the hands of someone bad. However, we cannot pretend that tyrants like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Robespierre were corrupted; clearly, absolute power is not something that corrupts, so it would be giving those people too much credit to say that they were merely corrupted. I hold that absolute power does not corrupt people, and that tyrants with absolute power were always evil, not corrupted.

[Life]

Yes, a rap song. Deal with it. The lyrics explain the corruption of power very well.

There is a problem with a bunch of your examples for the good. Not all of them were in power long enough to turn. Caesar and Napoleon, for example. In addition, Frederic the Great wasn't so great (in his eyes, I personally would be "less than human" since I'm a Jew), especially when you look at his track record with the Polish.

Does absolute power corrupt absolutely? Probably not absolutely but it doesn't take much.

[blah the Prussian]

To be fair, Frederick's views on Jews were no different from what literally everyone believed. In addition, the Partitions of Poland were essentially imperialist actions, which were par for the course for the time. Napoleon was in power for 15 years; I'd say thats more than enough time to be corrupted, and even if Caesar wasn't in power for long enough, Augustus certainly was and he was undeniably a good leader.

[Sasori]

I think absolute power can corrupt, but doesn't neccesarily do that. There where plenty of people with absolute power that where pretty decent rulers if you look at them with the vallues from their time.

On the other hand I do think absolute power can play a factor in getting corrupted. If very easy to start believing in your own hype when you have the power to decide over everything and that can cause some problems.

I do actually think Robespierre is someone who turned into the awfull human being he was because of the power he got. I mean he did start out opposing the death penalty and had some idea's that where ahead of his times before he became a complete and utter lunatic who had people left and right beheaded. Then again the entiry French revolution is somewhat messy in my opinion.

[Skynstein]

No one is benevolent for free, and benevolence can be segmented.

[Crysta]

I want to believe that there are a few precious souls who can handle significant amounts of power and not let it go to their head, but I've seen even a tiny bit of power or influence turn seemingly well-meaning people into petty little monsters. I suspect it corrupts more often than not, but the source of the problem is probably the human ego more than actual power itself.

[amiabletemplar]

There is as yet insufficient data to provide a meaningful answer.

What does "power" mean? What does "corrupt" mean? What does "absolute" mean?

For a strict, literal definition of "absolute power," no human being has ever possessed it (outside of religious claims). From that standpoint, the question is impossible to answer--if we've never seen it, we can't speak about whether it always has a particular consequence or not. If we allow for a squishy definition of "absolute power," we should thus also allow for a squishy definition of "corrupt[ed] absolutely," which makes the whole thing a matter of interpretation.

In response to the Cincinnatus example--which I do think is a very important thing to bring up, and reflects his noble character--consider what we're talking about. He agreed to a set of limits; yes, he had total control over the armed forces, but we must remember the legal context in which such decisions occurred. The Roman Senate had the power to make people dictator--literally, in Latin, one who speaks/reads aloud, i.e. one who tells others what to do/reads out orders--for a wide variety of purposes, each of which had a description and a specific situation he had to resolve ("he" because women, AFAICT, couldn't be politicians in Rome). In each of the two times Cincinnatus was declared dictator, it was as rei gerundae causa (literally, "for the matter to be done"; in idiomatic English, "for the matter at hand") and with a specific time limit. Six months in the first case; though I'm having difficulty finding a precise time for the second case, my guess would be another six months. Much of his story has been mythologized to the point where the historical events can no longer be determined, unfortunately. It is true, however, that for his first appointment as dictator rei gerundae causa, he is claimed to have held the position only 15 days before resigning--just long enough to rescue the consular army that had been trapped and beseiged by the Aequian forces in the Alban Hills, southeast of Rome.

So, this was an officially-appointed office, with a specific mission, and a time limit to it. Could he have defied these rules if he so wished? Certainly--and in all likelihood, even if he had simply fulfilled the letter of the law and held the position for the full six months, no one would've batted an eyelash, as he acquitted himself quite well as a general. It was a noble, honorable act to relinquish that authority once the cause for giving it had been dealt with. But I think it's a bit of whitewashing to call his position "absolute power." It might not have been backed up by much force, but legally he was accountable to the Senate for his actions (though it would require some rhetorical work to actually try him--dictatores were shielded from the legal consequences of their actions, if those actions were consistent with their mandate, but the whole "finished in 15 days" thing would certainly help the Senate's case). And socially, there was HUGE pressure among the Romans of the time against the idea of "kings," which would have discouraged flagrant abuse of power anyway. (The Tarquins, Rome's last "kings," left such a bad impression on the people that even the guys we call Roman "Emperors" today tended to call themselves "princeps"--"first citizen," more or less--rather than any formal title of authority, specifically because "kings" were so heavily reviled even though the principes were more powerful, and sometimes more abusive, than any of the Tarquins had been.)

You can make similar examples with men like George Washington. Did they have "absolute power"? Or did they merely have a goodly amount of power, and recognized legal/social limits on that power even when force COULD have overcome those limits? Couldn't we say the same thing about every US President ever? Was FDR a horrible power-abuser, then, because he defied the purely social convention that a President would seek only two terms? This is what I mean by opening up "squishy" definitions gives rise to an interminable debate about what the terms mean.

There's also--and this is extremely important--the issue of what "corruption" actually means. Is it flagrant abuse of power only? Or does nepotism count? We don't consider it "wrong" to care more about the welfare of the members of your immediately family than you do about the welfare of a total stranger, yet granting positions of power/authority to your relatives is often frowned on, falling into that grey area between "socially unacceptable" and "morally unacceptable." What about using your authority to make sure your family's concerns are attended to first? Doesn't mean you ignore the problems other people face--but if your daughter complains that she can't understand her math homework, is it a problem if you thus prioritize education over, say, unemployment?

All of these things can carry shades of "corruption." And being "corrupted" doesn't necessarily mean that you're a horrible person 100% of the time. As Cerberus87 said: "benevolence can be segmented." A person can be a complete angel in some circumstances, and a loathsome devil in others. I don't agree with the first part of the sentiment (people can be benevolent "for free," because material/service costs are not the only motivator of human behavior).

In the end, I think it's much more profitable to consider what the pithy maxim is trying to say, even though its narrowly-defined meaning doesn't properly communicate it. "Give people--individually or communally--great power and zero responsibility, and they're likely to act selfishly." When said like that, in weaker and more obvious terms, we can see that it's basically a truism: people will "look out for number one," most of the time, when they are faced with a zero-sum choice between their own welfare and the welfare of others. In that sense? Sure, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Consider how people feel about the way corporations (especially financial ones) operate. If a corporation has the power to do an illegal or immoral thing, that will make a shitload of money, and the executives think they can do it without getting caught, will they do it? You only have to look at the news to see that the answer is, often, hell yes they will. Consider political entities, like government surveillance programs, or the "no-fly" list. Can these things be abused? Absolutely! Have they been abused? In the past, yes; whether or not they are now is an extremely contentious topic, and most critics of surveillance don't care if it is being abused, only that it can be, and that the government should not be allowed the opportunity to abuse it in the first place.

And isn't that, really, what we want to communicate with that maxim? It's not even the lame truism I cited above, even though that, too, follows naturally from the phrase. It's, "If you trust people with the power to do something, remember that they can abuse it." Never claim for yourself a power that you wouldn't want your opponents--be they political, corporate, whatever--to have access to.

[FionordeQuester]

Well, let me put it this way. Take your typical, well-trained, 30-40 year old Navy SEAL officer in the Marine Corp., and compare him to your typical street thug. Who's probably stronger? The officer, right? But who's probably the better, more balanced person? Again, it'd probably be the officer, which to me indicates that the answer to this question is based on a number of factors...

1) How good of a person are you? Reason for this should be obvious, as power will magnify every part of your character, good or bad.

2) How did you get that power? After all, the guy who climbed up the chain of command one rung at a time, fairly, and without any malice, is going to do a heck of a lot better than the guy who took the easy way out, and just lied and cheated his way to the top. Why? Because the former leader's experience with power was gradual, and he never got more power than he could handle at any one time. He was never able to earn more power before he was able to wield it properly.

The latter person, however, is totally out-of-their-depth, hence why self-made millionaires tend to handle their money much better than people who won their money in a lottery. So basically, it's important to remember that it's the journey, not the destination, that's most important on the path to power.

3) A person needs to realize that they are ALWAYS accountable to someone, whether to God, or to their family, or to their loved ones, or etc. There's always consequences to your actions, and you'd best not forget that.

4) Can you live without power, or are you addicted to it? Are you controlling your position of power, or is it controlling you? Are you going to be able to be at peace with the fact that your power will wane at some point (such as when you start getting older)? Or are you going to spend all your days constantly clinging to your position for as long as you possibly can?

And I think you get the general idea. So essentially, it's more complicated than just "power=corruption". There are a lot of factors that go into it.

Edited December 19, 2015 by FionordeQuester

[blah the Prussian]

I would say it also has a lot to do with how you got your power. If you lied and murdered your way to the top, then the negative character traits you got in the process aren't just going to go away. If you inherited your money/power, on the other hand, you were probably taught to respect that power from a young age.

[amiabletemplar]

I would say it also has a lot to do with how you got your power. If you lied and murdered your way to the top, then the negative character traits you got in the process aren't just going to go away. If you inherited your money/power, on the other hand, you were probably taught to respect that power from a young age.

Eh. Inherited power has its own share of issues. Like chronic backstabbing disorder, and granting positions of authority purely due to genetic or legal relationship, not due to any qualifications for the office. Many of history's great military and economic blunders can be placed on the shoulders of an inherited noble who was grossly unfit to rule, or who promoted commanding officers based on familial connections instead of tactical acumen.

The benefit of monarchy is that it's fast, and if the office-holder is qualified for the position and prioritizes the interests of the state, the government can respond rapidly to concerns and can be directed by a single, focused will. The weakness is that you're really dependent on that one person actually being qualified having the state's interest, and not her or his own, as their primary concern--even if it's "the state's interests" in the backward way described by Machiavelli: "Therefore a wise prince will seek means by which his subjects will always and in every possible condition of things have need of his government, and then they will always be faithful to him." The benefit of democracy is that it gives the people most affected by a government's choices some measure of involvement in how those choices are made. The detriments are that it's slow (and often fractious), and that you simply see the anti-state self-interest problem replicated on the grand statistical scale, rather than the individual: when the people can "vote" to pay lower taxes *and* receive more services, you can bet your britches they'll do so, even if it means driving the government into the ground as a result. On the bright side, the dudes who would be "in the trenches" are unlikely to be okay with wars fought for petty or bullshit reasons, and elections allow the possibility that a bad leader can be recalled quickly and easily before long-term damage is done.

Neither system's perfect, unfortunately.