Suchergebnisse

Anger is not just a journalistic convention, but a key motivation in politics. Certainly, it is one thing to say that anger is relevant; it is quite another to suppose that it is routine. Residual anger is relatively common & distorts decision making, but is generally ritualized. Democratic politicians confronted with intractable realities may be tempted to adopt authoritarian solutions, but democratic systems restrain this. Dictators frustrated in this way turn to the armed forces as skilled practitioners of violence to enforce their ideal vision of society on the untidy reality of ordinary everyday life. Military governments characteristically employ the imagery of the politics of salvation to defend a military autocracy. Paradoxically, authoritarian regimes, from fear of challenges to their own order, vent their anger on the weak; hence, the persistence of anger, as well as other empirical evidence, casts doubt on the theory of the democratic peace. The analogue of military autocracy is to be found in revolutionary organization, which is also concerned with the politics of salvation. Hence, there is indeed a parallel between the politics of a revolutionary elite & the military politics from which it draws at least part of its rationale. Both are about the use of physical compulsion to create a better order, whether people want it or not. Hence, it is in anger that we find the link between autocracy & the politics of salvation. Adapted from the source document.