Domestic Politics and Strategy in Democratic and Authoritarian systems

The perspective of strategic studies distinguishes itself from the theoretical, historical, constructive and post-modern perspectives. Hence strategic studies are the study of strategy. Strategy is the art of creating power (Freedman 2013[i]). Power is defined as the ability of one strategic player to influence other strategic players in taking decisions that lead to a qualitatively better situation. The strategist retains the prerogative as to whether the said outcome benefits him alone, majority or all the strategic players and internal stakeholders. This is where strategy as an art is differentiated from science. An outcome can only be achieved taking into account the inevitable interaction with other strategic players in the field of international relations. International relations being a social science are difficult to be reduced to the linear chronological cause-and-effect of sciences where variables are measurable through instruments of high accuracy. International relations on the other hand, are a social science with human, social, political, geographic, mental dimensions. Therefore, strategy is an art. It is a dynamic and an interactive art.

This art is then given a practical form through politics. The word politics originated in the late Middle English: from Old French politique ‘political’, via Latin from Greek politikos, from politis ‘citizen’, from polis ‘city’. Politics governs the priority that is accorded to a particular definition of politics. It is a continuous activity of human beings with no clear markers unless the strategist defines a particular politics. It is again the prerogative of the strategist to define his politics. Various forms of politics are defined by various kinds of variables. The reason it is essential to define a particular version of politics is that without definition, decision making which can be subjected to deductive reasoning is impossible. Therefore, defining politics is the first step for any decision-maker. The definition of politics includes the values, structure, process, justice and mechanisms of decision making. This approach to decision making makes it possible for other strategic players to interact or counter-act with the strategic player. The question is not if a particular definition makes it constricting for the strategic player. But without definition, the strategic player cannot even begin deductive reasoning, politics and strategy.

Many strategies fail because the politics around it is not clear. The politics is not clear because it is extremely difficult to define politics in governing large groups of people. Hence, many scholars have concluded that strategy is impossible and the ‘master strategist’ is an illusion in social sciences. However, the process of strategy is inescapable because decision makers are elected to make decisions. How do we escape this conundrum? The escape to this conundrum is partially provided by Democracy which is a mechanism to replace one form of politics with the other through the principle of universal adult suffrage and discussion. However, societies with authoritarian governments escape this mechanism by persisting with a single politics. They make decisions without changing their politics even when contrary evidence surfaces. It is argued therefore that authoritarian governments do not engage in strategic decision making but planning. They keep their politics fixed and all variables are included and excluded in this politics through arbitrary exercise of authority. Therefore, strategic decision making and planning are both possible in a democracy but only planning is possible in authoritarian systems. This is because the essence of strategy is interaction and process which are both missing in an authoritarian system.

Democrats and Republicans are pre-disposed to strategy whereas authoritarian systems are pre-disposed to planning. The former are insistent on criteria of success and therefore willing to change if they fail to meet it whereas the latter cannot include failure in their planning since they operate with a fixed politics permanently.

The decision makers therefore more willing to define their politics are more prone and adept to strategic decision making. It becomes essential for the leader to define politics in a way which leads to a qualitatively improved situation so he can be re-elected. Re-election is the first criteria of a successful decision maker. Since there are no elections in authoritarian systems it is impossible for an authoritarian to convince other strategic players that he is succeeding or failing in his planning outcomes. Decision making in authoritarian systems centers on a plan and not a strategy. A National security plan in the classical sense in a democracy is only possible if there is unanimous agreement. The process and the eventuality of such an outcome are extremely rare in a democracy. Hence democratic governments publish a National Security Strategy instead of a plan.

Philosophy can bring important skills and tools to the intersection of strategy and domestic politics.

• First, from Aristotle there is the idea of prudence (practical reasoning) which requires thinking about means and ends in regard to human society and experience. (Kaurin 2016[ii])
• Second, rather than taking the political end as a given goal in strategy, we can help reflect upon and question the role of the political end in strategy.
• Third, the need for adaptability and alternative ends requires the ability to think outside of one’s framework—to think with and like the enemy. Philosophers are specifically trained not just to be aware of what counter-arguments might be, but also to be able to represent them charitably and to understand their logic from the inside out. (Kaurin 2016[iii])

Defining Domestic Politics- “Democracy by Discussion”

How to exercise collective choice is an important question. As Kenneth Arrow showed, individual preferences cannot simply be aggregated directly into collective choice (Arrow 1963). His impossibility theorem showed the difficulty in choosing one clear alternative in a three-way election. AmartyaSen proved that this problem could partially be overcome by what JS Mill called a “Democracy by Discussion Model”. Sen divides this into 3 sub-parts-

• State and Government: A Government is the core of a state but not the state in whole. A state consists of other branches such as judiciary, civil society, media etc. and a government (legislature and executive)

• Majority and Plurality:  He explains that a plural form of government is different from a majority government. He further says in a FPTP system of democracy, rarely do governments get the majority of votes of all citizens. Governments formed on 30% votes are plurality governments not majority government. But we accept the system as it is because FPTP system is fair, feasible and repeatable.

• Voter and Citizen: He says in the “Democracy by Discussion” model, it is imperative to distinguish voters from citizens. While voting is exercised after every few years, citizenship is established through sharing opinions continuously. Hence, individual preferences and values are conveyed to the public whereby a “Democracy by Discussion” collective choice decision model is formed.

Elections and re-elections therefore, resolve the issues related to different politics leading to a more clear-eyed and sustainable strategic decision making. These elections should then be followed by a continuous process of discussion till the next elections resolve the next set of politics. Authoritarian systems are hamstrung against achieving this process due to the design of the system where by individual or single party preferences are imposed on the collective by force.