Mechanism of Politics

by Lee, Chang Hoo

Chapter 2. Theoretical Foundation of Political Phenomena

A. Theory of Politics as War Continuation

(1) Politics and War

a. Politics is continuation of war

On the morning of December 6th, 2012, 5 tanks and 2 armored vehicles appeared in front of the Presidential Palace in Egypt. This was due to intense protests and clashes the night before. The events started when President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt declared a constitutional declaration granting himself absolute power on November 22nd, 2012, also known as the "modern-day Pharaoh constitution." This caused division between supporters and opponents of the President in Egypt and intense protests swept the country. First, anti-Morsi protesters occupied the Presidential Palace for 4 days, shouting anti-dictatorship slogans and setting up tents, then the next day pro-Morsi protesters appeared, tearing down the tents and brandishing sticks, and on the morning of the 6th, gunshots were heard. According to local media reports, over 600 people were injured and at least 6 died. Eventually, the military intervened and the Commander of the "Republican Guard" along with troops and tanks were present at the Presidential Palace.

The appearance of tanks, armored vehicles, and soldiers symbolizes war. The fact that they appear in front of the presidential palace during a violent demonstration shows that politics and war are continuous. This happens in both the East and West, past and present and politics is a continuation of war. It is similar to the activity of a businessman preparing a free feast, which is a continuation of making money. The survival struggle of war is extended, just like providing free food to people, and various political activities with different characters from war are developed.

The War Continuation Theory

When presented as a well-organized proposition, it is as follows:

War and politics may appear to be very different, but it is inevitable that politics is a continuation of war. Why is this so? This is because politics arises in the process of human survival[Ch.1.1]. The process of survival is a struggle for survival[Tab.1.1]?, and it necessarily involves a constant struggle against things that threaten survival, which is war.

The insight that politics is a continuation of war is not something new. Machiavelli said earlier, "a prince ought never to let his thoughts stray from military training; he should school himself for war even in peacetime.." Hobbes also understood politics as similar to conducting war. Philosopher Michel Foucault also made a similar argument, and this perspective continues to be presented by scholars such as Otto Hintze, Charles Tilly, and others in modern times.

In reality, not just conceptually, the political process exists as a continuation of the war process. Representing it in a diagram makes it easier to understand.

In the above diagram, the process referred to as "politics b" is the process in which the survivors of war 1 act to enhance their survival abilities. This politics b (or politics a and c) is a situation where there is no activity of attacking and killing others with weapons, and I will call this process "canonical politics." In canonical politics like politics b, political actors enhance their survival abilities, and as a result, their interest relationships may clash, and at the same time, each actor's understanding and judgment may also conflict, leading to the outbreak of War 2.

First, look at the process in which politics B arises in War 1. The process in which canonical politics arises from war activities is well demonstrated by the fact that military organizations engage in the same activities as the nation, a representative political organization. As seen in [Diag.2.A.1], canonical politics arises during the period between wars, so we will examine the activities of the unit during the time between combat activities. Here, we will see that the activities of the war organization, the unit, are the same as all the activities of the political organization, the nation. Thus, one might agree with the claim of Charles Tilly that the construction of European nations originated from the necessity of European rulers to wage war, or with the historian Otto Hintze who argues that all national organizations are originally organizations (military organizations) for war and that this is a "confirmed result of comparative history."

Take a look at the activities of the Joseon Navy, led by General Yi Sun-sin, during the long period of reinforcement negotiations between the Imjin War and the Jingyu Uprising. This includes economic activities to secure military supplies in case of a war, judicial activities such as punishment for refugees, conscription of personnel, appointment and supervision of key officials, and administrative activities. If in the course of a long-term war or a very unfavorable war, external military support for combat units is not possible, then the production activities in the form of combat preparation activities from peace to combat activities become even more important. When General Yi Sun-sin also became unable to receive military support from the government, he concentrated much effort in supporting and securing the harvest of farmers to accumulate military supplies and make weapons.

The focus here is that a military organization, which exists solely for war, will eventually engage in economic activities as the war continues in the long run. At this point, the economic activity becomes part of the war. Moreover, when the military continues the war in the long run, it performs almost all government functions, including judicial and administrative activities. Ideological activities are also included in this, where in the unit, the maintenance of values centered around officers such as battalion commanders or regimental officers is carried out simultaneously. This is essentially the same as the political activities during normal political periods to unify people's objectives.

The history of the East and West, both past and present, supports this point. The administrative system that was established as the standard in most of the civilized world by the 19th century was first created by the Assyrians between 935 BC and 612 BC, and its origin was a bureaucratic military management system. In the development process of European-style military organizations, regiments also became a "national school" and educated soldiers in reading, writing, arithmetic, etc. to improve their self-restraint, physical strength, and skills. Commanders established schools in regiments to educate young officers and taught soldiers how to read and write, and taught the wives of soldiers how to sew and do needlework.

Politics is a continuation of war, and at the end of war, normal politics appears. At the point where a new power system emerges in all countries, including Korea, a strong military leader always appears to rule the country. When political order becomes unstable, the military leader takes control again. The first emperor of Rome, Octavianus, was a general, and the last emperor of the Western Roman Empire, Romulus Augustus, was overthrown by Odoacer, a Germanic mercenary commander who became king. European lords during the Middle Ages were also all military leaders or knights. The Latin "Imperator" originally meant "triumphant general," and was a title awarded to the victorious general by his army. The name of the king (or chief) of ancient Indian tribes during the era of tribal society was "Raja," and the Raja was also a military leader who helped protect the community. The establishment of the Goryeo dynasty and the Goryeo era's military regimes showed this, as did the military regimes of Japan during the similar era. In ancient China during the Eastern Zhou dynasty era, war was undoubtedly the most important driving force for forming a nation. This is a universal phenomenon through East and West, past and present.

As Ian Morris said, in a state with power, the canonical political process and war follow a certain pattern and appear periodically. Once the state of confusion is overcome, the government brings order, and then the counteraction to return the world to a state of lawlessness begins again. However, this counteraction again leads to a strong government. Through this process, an endless repetition of order and chaos ensues.

War Transformation Theory

So what is war? It is essentially a process of survival struggle, and it can be defined as follows to distinguish it from canonical politics.

The basic implication of survival process theory and war continuation theory is that politics is full of war. The factual basis of politics is not that people are exceptional when they fight, but that people originally survive while fighting, and occasionally (under special conditions) they come together. This is what the war continuation theory means.

We generally have a tendency to reduce war periods in human history. However, in reality, this is not the case. For example, in the case of China, when its history is considered from the Chunqiu era to 2800 years, the peaceful era was only 560 years, and the rest of the 2200 years or more was a turbulent time with wars. The history of ancient and medieval times is also dotted with wars. Sometimes, in many parts of politics, what is seen is not wars and violence but peace through dialogue and compromise and order based on laws and systems. However, if we look at the essence, politics is just a continuation of war.

Therefore, war continuation theory can also be expressed as war transformation theory as follows.

Politics is a continuation of war, and political organizations are equivalent to war organizations, so political activity resembles war activity. However, war as a violent conflict does not aid the survival of war parties, so war activity is transformed to be more favorable to survival. The core of this transformation is the restraint of violence.

As a transformation of war, politics is directly preparation for war. If political activity is not preparation for war, it will not be able to survive in the event of war. That is, there will be no future political activity. Therefore, political activity must be a preparation for war in order to exist continuously. Of course, one can also think in the opposite direction to critically review this position. That is, war is for political activity. In this case, what is the political activity that war is pursuing? It is security or conquest, that is, preparation for war. Even if it focuses only on security, it is still preparation for war. If not, it is clear that the political body will not survive if a foreign country invades and a war breaks out.

People often use terms such as "power struggle," "friction," "submission," "line," "victory," and "defeat" when explaining politics. These are all terms that express war activities, and it is common for us to understand and analyze politics as equivalent to war. According to the war transformation theory, these expressions are not metaphorical, but literal. In this way, war transformation theory essentially expresses the real position in which we understand politics today in a systematic manner.

<Every footnote was deleted from the book>