Emotions and politics

By Carlo Fonseka

(January 19, Colombo,Sri Lanka Guardian) In the run up to the presidential election we talk a lot of politics. As Sir Winston Churchill said, "to jaw-jaw is better than to war-war". Given the way things are happening in the political arena, however, one cannot avoid the feeling that, Clausewitz’s dictum to the contrary, politics is the continuation of war by other means. The presidential election of 2010 has boiled down to a war between our two warlords who combined to vanquish the Tigers. As political debates on television amply demonstrate political talk for and against the two is highly charged with emotions. People express their political feelings first and their political thoughts afterwards. This is not surprising to a physiologist like me because studying human emotions is part of the science of physiology. The truth is that emotions and politics are inextricably intertwined.

Emotions

Emotions (desires, feelings, passions) associated with politics include anxiety, fear, anger, hostility, pleasure, ecstasy and depression. In 1950, Bertrand Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. In his acceptance lecture, he spoke of four politically important desires. They are: acquisitiveness, rivalry, vanity and love of power. It is interesting to see to what extent the operations of these desires and emotions are relevant to our current political situation.

Acquisitiveness

By acquisitiveness is meant the desire to acquire as much worldly goods and money as possible. There is no limit to the desire to acquire wealth. More is always better. This is really an aspect of what the Buddha identified as thanha. We all have it to a greater or lesser degree. After all, we all desire to live long happy lives and to do so we need resources. Acquisitiveness is the emotion that drives us to behaviour appropriate to satisfying the desire for acquiring resources. Political power gives people ample opportunity to acquire wealth and this motive appears to have become stronger and stronger in those taking to politics in post-independence Sri Lanka. In his book called The Panic of 89, Paul Erdman says: "The best way to get really rich is to take over an entire country and then loot the hell out of it before the people finally kick you out. It does not have to be a particularly wealthy country; Duvalier proved that in Haiti; so did Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos in the Philippines". Acquisitiveness may well be a strong emotion at play at all levels of politics in our country, especially when hitherto non-political personalities make a bid for power in new departures from their established careers.

Rivalry

According to Russell’s reading of European and Middle-Eastern history, rivalry has been a much stronger political motive than even acquisitiveness. He points out that in Arabian history, rivalries between the sons of a Sultan by different mothers have repeatedly resulted in mutual ruin. Our own history is replete with instances of internecine rivalry even within putative liberation movements. There is evidence that some people will risk life, limb and honour to secure the ruin of their rivals with no direct gain to themselves. I am told that military officers attach deadly importance to hierarchical status. They seem to find disruptions of hierarchies quite intolerable.

Vanity

Another politically important emotion of great potency is said to be vanity. No one is immune from this emotion. Even humble saints are said to be vain about their humility. Vanity is simply the desire to be talked about; to grab attention. Never before in living memory has my surname Fonseka grabbed so much public attention! Those in whom the emotion of vanity is very powerful seem to gravitate easily to politics and the arts whether or not they have the requisite talent. Hence the number of candidates running for president in our country.

Artistic activity inspired by vanity confers on artistes not power but glory. The glory facilitates their capacity to move hearts and minds of their fans. They cannot, however, control the lives of the people of a country in the way that those with real political power can.

Love of Power

In Russell’s judgment by far the most powerful motive that drives men and women to politics is love of power. Power is simply your capacity to get other people to do what you want them to do in fear of consequences of not complying with your wishes. Absolute power confers on you the power to give orders to all and take orders from none, not even the Supreme Court. Constitutionally, presidents of Sri Lanka cannot be charged in courts for any offence they may commit during their tenure. Where is the politician or military leader for that matter who will not find such a position irresistibly attractive?

Fear of Oppressive Government

As an ordinary voter, I confess that the emotion which strongly affects my political thoughts at present is fear. The last three decades have seen a systematic militarization of this country. This has been well documented by various scholars. The logical culmination of this process would be (the extremely remote possibility of) a period of military rule in our country. In the very marrow of my bones, I feel that even legitimate military rule would be more oppressive than illegitimate tiger rule. Let me illustrate this point with a story associated with the Chinese sage Confucius. According to the story, one day Confucius saw a woman weeping bitterly by a grave. Her wailing suggested to him that she was a person who had suffered "sorrow on sorrow". On being asked whether that was indeed so, she had said yes and added: "Once my husband’s father was killed here by a tiger.

My husband was also killed, and now my son has died in the same way". Confucius had then asked her why she did not leave the place. "Because there is no oppressive government here" had been her reply. Confucius had then told his followers: "Remember this my children; oppressive government is more terrible than tigers".