Political opportunism

Last updated

Political opportunism refers to the practice of taking advantage of every situation to maintain political support or influence, [1] [2] often disregarding relevant ethical or political principles. [3]

Contents

The role of principles

Political opportunism is often criticized for prioritizing expediency over principles. Whether in the pursuit of immediate gains or through compromise, principles serve as the benchmark for distinguishing legitimate behavior from opportunism.

Short-termism

Opportunistic political behavior is frequently criticized as shortsighted or narrow-minded. [4] The drive to secure or maintain political gains can lead to decisions that prioritize pragmatism at the expense of principles. Such actions often provoke public disillusionment and calls for a return to core values. [5]

Ambiguity in political situations frequently provides fertile ground for opportunism. When circumstances lack precedent or consensus, it can be difficult to determine whether an action is adaptive or opportunistic. [6] Politicians may defend such decisions as necessary or aligned with broader goals, even as critics label them opportunistic. Milton Friedman highlighted this tension by remarking, "One man's opportunism is another man's statesmanship". [7]

In some cases, political figures defer judgment of their controversial decisions by claiming that "history will prove me right." This argument has been used to justify actions ranging from significant policy shifts to military interventions. [8]

Opportunism vs. compromise

Compromise is a cornerstone of politics, yet it must be managed to ensure it does not undermine principles. John F. Kennedy emphasized this balance, stating: "We can resolve the clash of interests without conceding our ideals… Compromise need not mean cowardice." [9]

However, compromises that dilute or abandon principles risk being labeled opportunistic. For instance, some political leaders have been accused of shifting their positions drastically for the sake of expediency, leading to accusations of opportunism rather than pragmatism. [10]

Rigid adherence to principles can lead to sectarianism or factionalism, while excessive flexibility risks undermining their role as meaningful guides to action. Political compromises must strike a balance between adapting to changing circumstances and upholding ethical boundaries. [11] [10]

The interpretation of principles often sparks disputes. The same action may be justified using different principles, or interpretations may vary about how a principle should be applied. [12] Consistent adherence to principles helps distinguish legitimate compromises from opportunistic behavior and fosters trust in political decision-making.

Assessment

Caricature chastising the Labour Party for how they changed once they began getting some power in the British Government...
Miss LIBERAL PARTY: "That rough person seems to think he knows you."
LABOUR STATESMAN "Oh, no doubt, m'lady, before one was a member of the governing classes one could know all sorts of queer people, but now, as you know, one has to be careful." The 'orrible effects of haffluence.jpg
Caricature chastising the Labour Party for how they changed once they began getting some power in the British Government
Miss LIBERAL PARTY: "That rough person seems to think he knows you."
LABOUR STATESMAN "Oh, no doubt, m'lady, before one was a member of the governing classes one could know all sorts of queer people, but now, as you know, one has to be careful."

Political integrity involves maintaining a balance between principled positions and the flexibility needed to respond to changing circumstances. Leaders are expected to navigate complex situations while staying true to their ethical commitments. This balance defines effective leadership, as it allows decisions to be guided by values rather than opportunism.

However, this balance can be difficult to maintain in practice. Saul Alinsky, in Rules for Radicals , observed that political organizations often act on contradictory motives, where decisions intended to serve the common good may also be influenced by self-interest. He suggested that laws are often written with lofty goals in mind but are implemented in ways that reflect underlying greed or practical considerations. [13] [14] This tension between ideals and pragmatism highlights the challenges of maintaining transparency in politics. When politicians withhold key information for strategic reasons, public trust may erode as citizens speculate about hidden motives. [13]

The claim that "there is no such thing as an honest politician" underscores the difficulty of fully disclosing the complexities of decision-making. Politicians often provide partial truths to advance specific goals, which may create skepticism about their intentions. Nonetheless, entering politics does not necessarily preclude acting with integrity. Many leaders begin their careers with the intent to serve the public good but face pressures that force them to compromise or adapt. Over time, the role of political office may shift from being a means to achieve higher goals to an end in itself, shaping their decisions around maintaining power rather than advancing ideals. [15]

As John Keegan observed, the greater threat to political integrity often lies not with the leaders themselves but with those around them who exploit political systems for personal gain. These individuals may undermine trust by creating factions, manipulating processes, or prioritizing their own interests above the common good. [15] Assessing whether an action is opportunistic depends on understanding the context and motivations behind it. Actions aligned with ethical principles and showing consistency between means and ends are typically seen as legitimate. In contrast, actions motivated primarily by personal or factional interests are more likely to be judged as opportunistic. However, these judgments are subjective and can be shaped by political biases, emotional reactions, or limited information. [16]

Ultimately, balancing principles and pragmatism is essential for maintaining public trust. While political leaders must adapt to changing circumstances, adherence to consistent ethical commitments reassures the public that decisions are being made for the common good rather than for short-term political gain.

Drawbacks

Political opportunism disrupts coherent strategies by prioritizing short-term gains over principled action. Tactics such as exploiting crises for electoral advantage, shifting positions to suit public sentiment, or distorting facts obscure long-term goals. This creates confusion about which strategies are effective, blurs the distinction between success and failure, and leads to the repetition of past mistakes. For instance, research on political opportunism during economic crises reveals that leaders often delay necessary but unpopular measures to secure voter approval, causing long-term harm to economic stability. [17] [18]

Moreover, opportunism erodes public trust. As leaders abandon consistency or manipulate information to suit immediate needs, voters grow cynical, perceiving decisions as arbitrary or self-serving rather than accountable. These behaviors also deepen societal divisions, with polarizing rhetoric and disinformation used to manipulate perceptions and maintain power. While effective in the short term, such tactics undermine social cohesion and stall progress on critical challenges like climate change and economic inequality. [18]

Ultimately, reliance on opportunistic tactics reduces politics to reactive pragmatism, focused on preserving the status quo rather than addressing systemic issues or advancing collective goals. This not only stifles innovation but also weakens the ability to mobilize public support for meaningful change. [18]

References

  1. "Opportunism".
  2. "Definition of OPPORTUNISM". www.merriam-webster.com. 2024-11-11. Retrieved 2024-11-21.
  3. Compare for example: Aisen, Ari (2004). Money-Based Versus Exchange-Rate-Based Stabilization: Is There Space for Political Opportunism?. IMF Working Paper. Vol. WP/04/94. International Monetary Fund. p. 3. Retrieved 26 January 2020. Political opportunism is broadly defined throughout the paper as the policymaker's choice of a particular policy taking into account the timing of elections.
  4. See e.g. Caroline B. Glick, "Column one: Israel's premier opportunist". In: Jerusalem Post, 22 July 2011.
  5. For example: "Pragmatists say, "I would rather be an opportunist and float than go to the bottom with my principles around my neck." The message of the European elections for the left says exactly the opposite: It's your broken principles that sink you." - Daniel Singer, "As Europe Turns". The Nation, 4 May 1992.
  6. Jürgen Habermas accused Angela Merkel of opportunism in the following terms: "Since the Greek crisis erupted in May 2010 and Merkel's Christian Democrats lost the state election in North Rhine-Westphalia, she has subordinated each of her considered steps to the opportunism of staying in power." Der Spiegel English edition, 9 August 2013.
  7. Playboy magazine, February 1973 issue. Quoted in The cynic's lexicon: a dictionary of amoral advice by Jonathon Green (Routledge 1984), p. 77. The interviewer, Michael Laurence, asked "Aren’t you saying that there’s been a large element of political opportunism in Nixon’s reversals?" and Friedman replied: "One man’s opportunism is another’s statesmanship. There is a very delicate balance between the two in our society. Good politics is what we should demand from our politicians—to a degree. We don’t want our leaders to charge off in every direction trying to satisfy the latest public whim, but neither do we want them to completely ignore the will of the people. I think Nixon acted properly. The real problem is educating the public, and there he was unsuccessful." The interview is reprinted in Milton Friedman, There’s No Such Thing as a Free Lunch. La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1975 and in: Milton Friedman, Bright Promises, Dismal Performance: An Economist’s Protest. (ed. William R. Allen). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1983.
  8. A famous text by Fidel Castro is titled "History will absolve me". More recently, Tony Blair and George W. Bush defended the invasion of Iraq to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein stating that history would prove that this was the right thing to do. See: Roland Watson, "Bush echoes Blair with 'history will prove me right'", The Times (London), 31 July 2003.[ dead link ]
  9. Inaugural speech of the thirty-fifth President of the United States, Washington, D.C., January 20, 1961, reprinted in Profiles in Courage (1961, reprinted Harper/Collins, 2006)
  10. 1 2 E.g. Chris Arsenault, "Nicaragua's Ortega: Socialism to opportunism?". Al Jazeera English, 8 November 2011.
  11. E.g. As'ad AbuKhalil, "Yusuf Al-Qaradawi and Political Opportunism". Al Alakhbar English, 28 March 2012. Archived 2014-02-09 at the Wayback Machine
  12. Marc Tracy, "Congress cuts P.A. aid; 'political opportunism'". Tablet, 4 October 2011.
  13. 1 2 Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals. New York: Random House, 1971, p. 76.
  14. Saul Alinsky, op. cit., p. 13.
  15. 1 2 The mask of command. Penguin edition, 1988, p. 89.
  16. David Brooks, "The upside of opportunism". New York Times, 29 October 2012, p. A27.
  17. Walter, Stefanie (2009). "The limits and rewards of political opportunism: How electoral timing affects the outcome of currency crises" . European Journal of Political Research. 48 (3): 367–396. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2008.00837.x. ISSN   0304-4130.
  18. 1 2 3 Pierce, Glenn L.; Holland, Curtis C.; Cleary, Paul F.; Rabrenovic, Gordana (2022-10-28). "The opportunity costs of the politics of division and disinformation in the context of the twenty-first century security deficit". SN Social Sciences. 2 (11). doi: 10.1007/s43545-022-00514-5 . ISSN   2662-9283.