Truth be told, there isn’t a set way to rule a country. If not, there would have been a manual out by now and everyone would have been doing it. Thing is, different countries, different cultures, different people, different societies all behave differently (hopefully you caught my drift) and approach issues within the country in order to address the status quo.
The reason why constructivism, liberalism, and realism all exist is because people have developed different needs and the governing body had to address these needs through different means. The governing body has to assure that it has the resources to maintain its people and regulate their behavior in society in order to function as one country. Is one approach more efficient than the other? Not really. Its more about, “which one satisfies people the most and allows me, the governing body, to get the work done?”
Some countries prefer to mute its citizens and hope that their actions will ultimately lead to better results, despite the consequences and hardships society might encounter. Others believe that the best would be to listen to the people or their history to make proper choices. The latter will most definitely give you, the ruler (or government) the advantage to claim that you're only representing the people's wishes (so you won't get full blame for it.)
In the end, you're not going to apply Latin American politics in Asia. Who does that? There is such a great degree of cultural spread that both cannot be applied interchangeably. Are there overlaps? In every culture there are, but the exact similarities will be very minimum. Within these places, you will always find groups that have been excluded from sharing their opinion, and that is where cultures will cross. There will always be suppression of women and minorities.
You’re never going to get a full set on method to approach issues within a country, but it would be convenient to listen to the people and their needs. Perhaps even learn how they want you to execute their ideas. It usually helps. Simply remember that what you do in one country, you can't always do in another.
You say that listening to the people will give rulers the advantage to say that bad decisions are not fully your fault. I would argue that this is exactly what Machiavelli was saying is a key aspect of being ruler in a realist fashion.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with our world order is that its not necessarily that we do things differently, but that we view the motives behind these actions differently. Some would see listening to the people and acting through institutions as a liberal way of governinng, but realists would say it is all to gain an advantage in the global power structure by gaining legitimacy.
Honestly world views are always going to be subjective to the person and their experiences, beliefs, values, etc... so we're not going to always be able to convince everyone of everything all the time. There will always be a reaction to every action and some will be positive and others negative. It is how we play the game of countering these negative views that is the constant struggle of great powers.