Political opportunism
Political opportunism refers to the attempt to maintain political support, or to increase political influence - possibly in a way which disregards relevant ethical or political principles. History. The political philosophy of Niccolò Machiavelli as described in "The Prince" is often regarded as a classic manual of opportunist scheming, and indeed a "Machiavellian" is nowadays defined as "a cunning, amoral, and opportunist person, especially a politician". Definition. Political opportunism is interpreted in different ways, but usually refers to one or more of the following: Typically, opportunist political behavior is criticized for being short-sighted or narrow-minded. That is , in the urge to make short-term political gains or preserve them, the appropriate relationship between the means being used and the overall goals being aimed for is overlooked. The result might well be, that "short term gain" leads to "long term pain". Thus, after opportunist mistakes have been made and recognized, a lot of soul searching may occur, or "a return to principles" may be advocated, so that the proper relationship between people's principles and their actions is restored. Most politicians are "opportunists" to some extent at least (they aim to utilize political opportunities creatively to their advantage , and have to try new initiatives), but the controversies surrounding the concept concern the exact relationship between "seizing a political opportunity" and the "political principles" being espoused. In other words, the question is "how far you can go" without compromising principles or abandoning an agreed-on code of ethics. There may be no quick and easy answer to that, because whether a transgression has occurred cannot be verified, is known only later, or is in dispute. This happens particularly in a new situation where it is uncertain how principles should be applied, or how people should respond to it . The role of principles. The term "political opportunism" is often used in a pejorative sense, mainly because it connotes the "abandonment" of principles or compromising political goals. In that case, the original relationship between means and ends is lost. It may indeed be the case that means become ends in themselves, or that the ends become the means to achieve goals quite different from what was originally intended. Political principles can also be "diluted", reinterpreted or ignored, purely for the sake of promoting a contrived political unity. In consequence, a coherent rationale for being in the same organization is gradually  lost; members may then drift away or the organization may decline, split or disintegrate. In politics, it is sometimes necessary to insist on political principles, while at other times it is necessary to insist on political unity among people who "differ" in their beliefs or principles. Some compromises usually have to be made. If political principles were typically defined or imposed in a completely inflexible, non-negotiable way, a likely result would be sectarianism or factionalism, since few people beyond "true believers" could support a political practice based on such rigid positions. How political principles are to be implemented is  therefore usually open to some interpretation, and in part a personal responsibility. This creates the possibility that the same action is justifiable with reference to different principles, or that how a principle should be put into practice is interpreted in different ways. Just how "principled" an action is may therefore be open to dispute. Hence there is potential for deception in the way that principled behaviour, and deviation from it, is understood and justified. This becomes critically important in understanding opportunism insofar as it is a departure from principled behaviour. Assessment. Political integrity typically demands an appropriate combination of principled  positions and political flexibility that produces a morally consistent behavior in specific circumstances. Thus, whereas it may be necessary to seize a political opportunity when it presents itself, it should ideally be seized also with an "appropriate motivation", and on a "principled" basis—which is basically what a leader of an increasingly large group aims to accomplish: to ensure that the right things are done for the right reasons. This ideal may be difficult to honor in practice, with the result that opportunistic mistakes are made. In his famous book "Rules for Radicals", community organizer Saul Alinsky for instance comments  that in political organizations, quite often the right things are done for the wrong reasons, and conversely that the wrong things are done for perfectly "correct" reasons – presumably because of differentials in the existing understandings about "why" something is actually being done, and what the real "effect" of it will be. If power is wielded by means of special knowledge others don't have access to, such differentials are obviously likely to persist. This is likely to be the case, insofar as confidentiality and secrecy are necessary in politics – if the wrong people get hold of vital information, this could  have unfavourable political effects. Thus, people may know "part of the story" but not the "full story" because, for political reasons, it cannot be told. The corollary is that people "imagine" reasons for political action that differ from the real reasons. This can get in the way of a truly principled approach to politics. In fact, Alinsky claimed that: If "there is no such thing as an honest politician", this need not mean that all politicians are liars, but just that they are often not in a position to know or reveal the "complete picture" and thus express "selected  truths relevant to their actions, rather than all possible truths that could be told. In that sense, it is quite possible to be a principled" politician – if that was not so, then (arguably) "all" politicians are opportunists. Yet if all politicians are opportunists—as many cynics believe—it becomes difficult to explain a politician's professional "motivations" . Namely, if their purpose is based "only" or "primarily" on self-interest—disregarding higher principles, which is the hallmark of opportunism—then politics is "the least likely vocation", since it requires that politicians serve a collective interest or cause bigger than themselves. They  would then be better off in a line of business where they can just pursue their own interest to the full. If they are able to be politicians, they could easily do so. The question is then why they don't, if indeed only out to serve themselves. The counter-argument to this interpretation is that politicians may "start out" in their career as hopeful idealists aiming to serve the community, but as soon as they become deeply entangled in political processes, they abandon their high ideals because they must reconcile many contradictory situations, and in the process begin to  compromise themselves. Their political position, originally a means to a higher end, "becomes an end in itself": a lifestyle. This counter-argument may have some validity, but has not proved that the suggested political evolution is inevitable in all cases. Namely, the politician owes power only to an ability to serve a greater cause, and the ability to "represent" people based on popular perceptions and trust. Therefore, the ability to serve exclusively according to self-interest is limited. At best, the counter-argument indicates that only the strongest characters can withstand the temptations of opportunist behaviour in politics, and maintain  personal and political integrity. It may be not so much the politicians "themselves" who are opportunist, but rather their entourage: those who "climb on the political bandwagon" to profit from it for themselves. In this sense, John Keegan writes: Few actions are "intrinsically" opportunist; they are opportunist in a specific context, or from a specific point of view about means-ends relationships involved. This may make an objective approach to assessing the presence of opportunism quite difficult, because it may require a lot of "inside knowledge" about the relevant circumstances and about the motives involved. An objective, rational evaluation of  whether a course of action is opportunist or not can only be stated in terms of whether the action and its motivation really did, or did not represent relevant principles (a consistency of means and ends); or whether it was motivated by self-interest or sectional interests rather than the common interest of the party (or parties) represented. Yet insofar as allegations of opportunism reflect a moral judgment, they may also contain a subjective interpretation, emotional preference or partisan viewpoint. Sources. There are four main sources of political opportunism: Dilemmas. To some extent, politics unavoidably involves dilemmas about whether to  insist on one's own principles (and risk being isolated) or to adapt to a more widely held opinion for the sake of working together. People may be very unwilling to take risks and respond to opportunities, or they may take risks and opportunities without much regard for their overall significance. Accordingly, most political situations involve at least some "potential" for opportunism. Thus, there may not be any generally applicable rule or technique (a "philosopher's stone") that could be invoked in advance to prevent opportunism. At best, one could be aware of the possibility that opportunism could become a  real problem, and take steps to minimize the risk. Generally, that risk is minimized if people ensure that they can always explain clearly the relationship between chosen means and ends vis-a-vis the basic principles that guide them, i.e. to understand exactly "why" they are doing things and what motivates them. Sometimes it is argued that opportunist errors are preferable to sectarian or factional errors. Whatever his "sins" may be interpreted to be, it is argued, the political opportunist prioritizes gaining or maintaining "influence among people", and therefore at least remains among majority opinion or "among the masses". In  contrast, the sectarian or factionalist is likely to uphold his principles or beliefs "regardless" of any experience that might contradict them, and regardless of how many people support them; he attaches supreme importance to espousing his principles with an exaggerated belief in the power of ideas, no matter what others believe. This leads to political isolation and permits little experiential verification of the validity of political ideas. Sectarianism and opportunism might however also combine, to the extent that a sect believes that almost any trick is permissible to attract more members to the sect. Since the majority could be quite  wrong in regard to particular issues, however, adapting to that majority opinion on those issues might, in a specific context, be an even bigger error than "keeping one's principles pure". This is acknowledged in democratic theory to the extent that democracy is normally thought to involve the civil right of dissent from majority opinion, and consequently also the civil right of a minority viewpoint to exist. It implies that "the majority could be wrong", and that the minority could be right, something that could never be corrected efficiently, if minority viewpoints were simply silenced. Because in that case, the  minority might not be able to become a majority, even if experience proved the minority correct. That is why it is especially important to evaluate criticisms of "opportunism" in context. Drawbacks. The tragedy of opportunist politics is often that, by forsaking principles to make political gains, it becomes difficult or impossible to distinguish and evaluate political "success" and "failure" appropriately, and draw appropriate conclusions. Because for such an evaluation, it must be possible to specify clearly to what extent it has been possible to "realize the agreed principles" being advocated (how far a political movement has progressed toward realizing its  aims). If it is not even clear anymore what those principles are, a failure may be hailed as a success, or a success decried as a failure, giving rise to intense disputes about their real significance. It may create disorientation and confusion that, in turn, opportunists use to further their aims. If opportunist politics, in its urge for success, confuses what a political movement really stands for, or continually changes its story to suit the moment, any profound evaluation of its experiential record becomes impossible, and the past can be re-interpreted in any number of ways to suit the  political purposes of the present or those of the future. In turn, that undermines the possibility of cumulative and collective learning from political experience in a truthful way. In that case, the errors and problems of the past are more likely to be repeated. Normally one would say that "if a course of action doesn't work, try something else", but if it is no longer even clear what worked and what didn't in the past, or they are mixed up with each other, current political activity may keep reproducing the problematic patterns and traditions, the essence of which  the political actors are only dimly aware of. It becomes difficult or impossible to explain why a political policy was really opted for and followed, or what can justify it, or "why" what was done, was done. Political appraisals begin to look arbitrary, relativistic and subjective. And that promotes a growing discrepancy between the motives political actors "said" they had, and their "real" motives—which breeds cynicism, loss of purpose, lack of accountability, and the loss of the aspiration to work for political ideals. According to a popular saying, "there is no such thing as an honest politician" (politicians will  accentuate certain truths at the expense of other truths), but there is such a thing as a "principled" politician working within clearly defined moral boundaries, which rule out doing "just anything". A politician may be a "clever talker" who can justify anything, but if there is a big discrepancy between the talk and what is actually being done, people are usually unlikely to believe it for very long. They know that things "do not match up", even if they do not know exactly why, and may become indifferent to whatever is being said. Continual political opportunism ultimately reduces the scope  of politics to a visionless realpolitik or a barren pragmatism that may only function to maintain the status quo, and in which people deceive themselves about their own motivations and those of others. This makes life even more difficult for politicians, in their attempt to persuade people to work together for common goals. According to journalist Adam Nagourney, "Many Americans are more likely to assume that anyone they read or see on television has a political bias." Yet what that bias is, might not be obvious anymore. In 2009, a Pew Research Center survey found that only 29% of Americans  believe that the media "gets the facts straight" and only 18% thought that media stories "deal fairly with all sides".