Mikael Saniyar, PhD Student in Iranian Affairs

Carl von Clausewitz, the Prussian military theorist, believed that war should not be viewed as an independent variable, but rather studied as a political tool. According to his theories, it is politics that declares war. War is the continuation of politics and therefore follows it.

The main premise of this note is that if war follows politics, then peace must also follow politics. The primary conclusion is that political leaders shape both war and peace. In other words, it is the leaders and political elites of governments who, through their definitions of national interests and security, either create peace or lead to war. In this context, the introduction of ethics into politics and the institutionalization of peace-seeking and peaceful coexistence could bring hope for sustaining peace and compel political leaders to uphold peace-based ideals. Montesquieu's theory can be discussed here: governments are the result of the collective thinking of the people in societies. Therefore, to have peace-oriented governments, fundamental concepts of political thought based on peace, tolerance, freedom, equality, and similar values must be institutionalized within societies.

Let's first look at some political theories in the international relations system and then examine the impact of ethical politics on the peace process.

The optimism of liberalism and idealism faded with the outbreak of World War II. Realists believe that national security determines foreign policy and that in the anarchic structure of the international system, states pursue their interests and national security based on the principle of "self-help." On the other hand, constructivists argue that national security is "what states make of it." This means that political leaders are the ones who determine peace-building or war-mongering actions. Another theory, Democratic Peace, posits that peace and democracy are the fundamental bases for establishing peace in the world. According to this theory, the presence of democracy and mutual respect in international relations guarantees peace among states.

Given the above assumptions, if ethics enters politics, it can be predicted that peace and tolerance will likely replace war. However, there is an opposing experience to this proposition, which occurred after World War I. The formation of the League of Nations and the dominance of liberal and idealistic theories became ineffective with the onset of World War II, and international relations witnessed a resurgence of realism and the concept of "national security." Some analysts have also studied the personalities of leaders, such as Harold Laswell, who identified two personality types: the Agitator and the Reformer, who were not recognized or lacked self-confidence in childhood. Such individuals impose their thoughts and, if they gain power, become the most destructive elites in government. Stalin is an example of such a leader. According to Lasswell, the actions and thoughts of warlike leaders result from their childhood experiences.

Considering the above introduction and the main premise of this note, despite the various theories and views on this matter, the author argues that by introducing ethics into politics, concepts of peace, tolerance, and diplomacy can be established in international relations. However, the prerequisite for the above proposition is that democracy, development, and ethics, along with a culture of peace, must simultaneously grow and be institutionalized in the world, particularly in countries with significant military power.

Ethics and Politics

Today's global political society is rife with corruption. Lies have replaced honesty, and plunder and deceit have become embedded in the thinking of realist rulers. The goal is to achieve power, and for this goal, any means have been legitimized. All these dangers arise because politics has become devoid of value and ethics, and "power" has become the central axis of political science. States, based on the "security dilemma," see their survival in the principle of "self-help" and use any means to create security and ensure their survival. However, if society is to move beyond a Hobbesian state (the war of all against all) and replace war with peace, politics must certainly free itself from the struggle for power. In today's world, where humanity carries the accumulated experiences of history, and where the most fearsome military equipment is in the hands of superpowers, politics needs ethics, culture, and spirituality more than ever.

Since the mid-20th century, when the definition of politics was limited to the study of power, the most destructive blow was dealt to the body of political science. According to positivists, science is free from values and should only consist of objectivity, statistics, and figures. Positivists believe that the humanities, like the natural sciences, should be value-free. This claim implies that no value, meaning, norm, sound, or spirituality should infiltrate science. However, this issue has been dangerous for human society. According to the positivist theory, political science should be devoid of ethics and values. This means that the basic axis of political science is "power," and any means to achieve it becomes legitimate. This teaching has profoundly shaken the post-Renaissance world in the West and subsequently the East, considering man as devoid of meaning. The human being, who was supposed to participate in all aspects of society and decision-making about human issues, is no longer considered an active agent but rather a passive one, moved like a tool in the hands of the power-holders. In this regard, Habermas argues that positivist technical sciences have become tools enabling a minority to exercise power over the majority. On the other hand, value-free science opens the door for politicians to act as they please.

In contrast to this way of thinking, there is the idea of "ethical politics" or "the coexistence of ethics and politics," which holds that human society, individuals, and the humanities are not like the natural sciences; society is full of meaning and ethics, and virtue is the foundation of a moral society. In such a society, rationality and ethics rule, and in this state, both the goal and the means are ethical.

A review of past political literature reveals that politics was synonymous with managing affairs, which encompassed all aspects and domains of human society, in which all citizens participated. Ancient Iran embodied ideas of peace, justice, religious tolerance, and the abolition of slavery by Cyrus, the legal code of Darius, the justice of Anushirvan, and the wisdom of Bozorgmehr. In ancient Greece, politics meant careful attention and comprehensive understanding, intertwined with ethics and virtue. Hannah Arendt and Habermas believe that politics in those days encompassed all aspects of people's practical lives, so in the classical tradition, politics was seen as praxis, not as technique. This means that politics was the common action of people who, through face-to-face dialogue, reached practical results. Technique, according to Habermas, means creating a result using a tool chosen by the elites of society, without seeking the opinion of citizens. For the ancient Greeks, politics was a moral vision based on "the good life," and since it encompassed all aspects of citizens' lives and was somewhat derived from their beliefs, it was considered a form of wisdom.

Ethics, according to Erich Fromm, means judgment based on reason and rationality, distinguishing good from evil, and acting on that judgment. Virtue means ethics and righteousness. Ethics refers to the inner good conduct of a person and encompasses matters that are always constant and unchangeable. Ethical principles are part of nature and natural life and continue to exist independently of people's understanding and awareness. Therefore, ethical principles, like natural and innate rights, are enduring principles that transcend history, geography, and politics; in other words, they are timeless and exist above the petty scheming of politicians. In the past, politics was intertwined with ethics, and the politician had the crucial duty of guiding citizens toward prosperity and transformation, and citizens, in turn, played their part in advancing the ethical goals of politics. This is the shared social responsibility where each individual is responsible for all the affairs of their country. Socrates believed in wisdom in the world of politics, and as Popper noted, Socrates' goal was to teach politicians to avoid arrogance, pride, and prejudice.

Concepts such as law and legality, justice, liberation and freedom, and living a humane life emerge where arrogance, pride, prejudice, and hubris have no place among individuals and statesmen. Arrogance and pride in politics create what Jung describes as "a man without a shadow" and breed dictators. Arrogance satisfies a person and absolves the dictator of moral responsibility, and without moral responsibility, a person is no longer truly human.

Aristotle and Plato also emphasized ethical politics. According to Aristotle, the goal of the political community is to live better, meaning happiness, which does not tolerate oppression and tyranny. The political community is a place that fosters intellectual and moral transformation, and culture holds a special place in it, a culture based on ethics. In a society where politics is based on ethics (and not power), values, norms, God, and meaning will be present.

However, after the Renaissance and with the emergence of Machiavelli, the subject and goal of politics changed and transformed from praxis to technique. In technique, unlike praxis, humans have no role and are not considered as "subjects" and creators. In this state, traditional values turn into anti-values, and culture, literature, and ethics become the victims of material interests of profiteers. Profiteers seek to create a crisis so that, in the moment when the victim (society or the targeted country) weakens and abandons its values, they can impose their beliefs on it. This is the situation Naomi Klein calls the "shock doctrine." According to Leo Strauss, political philosophy takes a wrong turn with Machiavelli, and from then on, "power" becomes the subject of politics, and virtue, ethics, good, justice, and culture disappear. Although Isaiah Berlin believes that Machiavelli does not separate politics from ethics but rather separates politics from Christian ethics, Leo Strauss calls Machiavelli the teacher of the devil. With the advent of Machiavelli, politicking and Machiavellianism enter the world of politics, and individuals are turned into tools and objects.

Deception in Machiavellian Politics Has Become the Basis of Statecraft

The opposition of Socrates and Plato to the Sophists stemmed from the fact that the Sophists permitted the use of deceptive discourse to achieve their goals, resorting to lies and attempts to deceive citizens. This is why Socrates emphasized wisdom and considered ethics and virtue as essential values for politicians. According to Socrates, "The statesman must be wise enough to know that he knows nothing." This sentiment is echoed by the famous Iranian philosopher Avicenna, who said:

"My knowledge has reached the point
That I know I know nothing."

The interpretation of Machiavelli's ideas, which advocate for the separation of ethics from politics, became the core doctrine of realism. According to this philosophy, the subject of politics and political science is "power," leading to the complete independence of the state from society. While society and citizens were once connected to politicians, this connection has been severed by the Machiavellian interpretation of statecraft. Consequently, the world of politics has detached itself from society, God, religion, the metaphysical, and all other forms of moral and cultural life. The political world now stands alone, living in a moral vacuum, which poses serious dangers to human society, as such a world cannot foster humanity. Such a world will bring about murder, massacre, racial and ethnic cleansing, and its main discourse will be one of distortion and lies. This way of thinking seeks to kill language and meaning, to kill values and moral principles, and to kill culture. In such a world, language dies, and the only remaining language is that of dominance and power. Immorality emerges extensively in such a discourse. The dominance of this discourse leads to the death or weakening of "the other," and under such conditions, what some call "civilization-building" will neither emerge nor grow. In his book The Second Sin, Thomas S. Szasz identifies the dominance of a single language as the second sin. He argues that the danger of losing past heritage, especially the destruction of culture, literature, and language, is one of the factors that rekindles the issue of culturalizing politics, which has long been a concern of humanist thinkers. Such actions are akin to shocking the brain, causing it to become defective and devoid of previous knowledge, making it ripe for implanting whatever the powerful want into the injured and defective mind and culture.

Interaction between languages and cultures can have positive and uplifting effects on societies and politics. Today, cultural diplomacy, with an emphasis on respecting the identity and culture of others, seeks to create peace.

The first victim of a corrupt society is language. Unethical and diseased language and discourse are the most significant indicators of a sick society. In a language where power and lies form its foundation, deceit and trickery infiltrate. This language, filled with lies and deceit, challenges all societal values and norms. In such a world, words are manipulated to change their meanings. As George Orwell (in his book 1984) notes, war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength—this signifies the killing of meaning, ethics, and all religious, spiritual, moral, and cultural values of humanity. George Orwell depicted this language in his book 1984, a language that brings about the collapse of standards and the death of meaning. The primary goal of the 1984 society is to uproot the existing language and replace it with a new one, causing people to forget their past and culture and further distance themselves from their moral and cultural values. In such a language, there is no place for dialogue, and superstition, falsification, deceit, materialism, godlessness, oppression, and lack of wisdom replace belief in God, humanity, ethics, freedom, and justice.

Today, the ideas of Hobbes and Machiavelli have become the main brand of political science in our country's universities. In contrast, at a university like Oxford, politics is a branch of moral philosophy. There is a strong need in our educational system for courses on peace, tolerance, and solidarity from elementary school through to university.

Verse 61 of Surah Al-Anfal instructs the Prophet that if those who broke their treaty and engaged in war with Muslims seek peace, he should accept their request for peace and not hesitate or fear the consequences, trusting in God.

Throughout history, Iran has seen many thinkers. Among the poets, mystics, philosophers, and other intellectuals of this land, noble concepts such as justice, freedom, lawfulness, ethics, human dignity, and avoiding egotism and fanaticism have been preserved. We must learn from Saadi, who said, "Human beings are members of a whole." Such great ideas can be offered to the world, just as Rumi, who placed "love" at the forefront of life, said:

"One hour of love is worth more than a hundred worlds,
Let a hundred lives be sacrificed for love, oh soul."

And love has always been transformative. One who loves God cannot harm God's creation, which is the path of peace and tolerance:

"With friends, show love; with enemies, show tolerance."

Or as Ferdowsi said in praise of peace:

"Whoever seeks peace, celebration, and festivity,
It is not good to rush into battle.

If you've gained everything, don't seek war in vain,
Don't darken your bright heart with murky water."

Or like the emperor of world poetry, the contemporary free poet Sherko Bekas, who speaks of freedom:

"If from my songs
The flower is accepted,
A season will die.
If love,
Two seasons will die.
And if bread,
Three seasons will die.
But if freedom,
From my songs,
Freedom,
The year, the entire year will die."

To achieve faith in God, freedom, justice, development, beauty, and humanism, love for nature, proper interaction with it, dialogue, and peace among the world's peoples and governments, ethics must be the foundation and center of politics. We must learn from nature. In nature, all opposing concepts, different colors, separate seasons, and countless diversities coexist. Nature's creation is based on plurality, not the dominance of one over another. In the end, all these colors, diversities, and oppositions create a beautiful collection called "the world," where night and day complement each other. Spring and winter, dryness and water, and thousands of such concepts and things live together. This teaches us that humans should also be like this, generous and open, not restricting others, like the tree in Sohrab's poetry, which generously opens its branch to the bird. Ethics are like a tree that offers fruit, shade, and breath, and without ethics, politics and society die.

Editorial Board, Iranian Journal of International Relations

Keywords: Ethics and Politics, Peace, Realism, National Security