Chapter VIII. Friends and enemies for the president
… The wise prince has, when circumstances allow, to skillfully creating enemies for himself that, having won over them, to be in even bigger greatness.
Far in the past there were times when sovereigns on joint feasts found out who whom respects. There are no already dynastic marriages turning sovereigns of the different countries into relatives, and their troops in allies. Structured the principle of a choice of enemies and associations for fight against them became thinner, so, the relations the friend — the enemy too changed.
"Friend" and "enemy" for the president — not the same that friend and enemies for the ordinary person: the friend of the ruler is a rival, and the rival is an enemy. But they should not be personal; in actions of the president there has to be as little as possible personal because in the Supreme power at first it is necessary to choose as to be at war, and then — the enemy, and that only because what war without opponent?
If the president correctly chooses the wars, and enemies, and — that is very important — enemies of enemies too will be chosen correctly. In general, enemies play too significant role lives of any person to leave their choice on will of a case. But it is necessary to remember: war and president's enemy Become, war and enemy for all the country or, at least, for that part of society which supports him. On the first time, society cannot share opinions of the president, but it has to define the opponent and, having come to the power, to start fighting against it. When the president uses for this purpose the state institutes, the enemy becomes public enemy.
Love, friendship, respect don't bind as good as common hatred.
It happens, however, that society chooses or in other way allows to the power of the president to be at war with the evil, which was already defined by former rulers. In this case, it is necessary to find such party of this famous enemy who is not familiar to fellow citizens yet. Then it is possible to struggle with the opponent new means that the president chooses.
The enemy is not necessarily a person. The certain far, but spiteful enemy allowing keeping the country in, so to speak, sports suspense too is very necessary. For example, for the USA the Soviet Union in the years of Cold war was it. It just that enemy whom many American presidents received, so to tell, by inheritance. Different administrations differently battled to the USSR — both policy of "nuclear control", and local wars, and "star wars"; his image changed from Truman to Kennedy, from Nixon to Reagan.
Choosing the enemy, the ruler should remember that the basic rule here same, as in a choice of wars: has to seem to all that the enemy can bring losses more, than will leave on fight against it. It is good if it is associated with threat for life or enslavement. Against such evil, of course, it is not a pity for neither forces, nor money.
In former times individual enemies were destroyed morally and physically; modern political realities allow to destroy them morally, for example, using sex scandal. All remember affairs of the director of the International Monetary Fund Strauss-Kahn or the founder of WikiLeaks Julian Assange (everyone can remember other similar cases for himself irrespective of, in what country lives). Each representative of electorate that provides full success to similar political and public murder has primary and secondary genitals. Such compromise — the strong weapon, and, just as an atomic bomb, is more reasonable to leave it only for threats.
Both political enemies and enemies as political associations it is good to accuse in corruption, help to terrorism, lack of talent or in communistic ideas. Charges are now more pertinent than the two first as modern policy and corruption — things very close, and helped terrorists or all help, depending on war of this or that president for these or those purposes. Here the main thing not to be trapped: it is impossible to accuse of the help to terrorism of proteges of presidents of the countries — world leaders. So, Bin Laden and his first group "Black Stork" was in the eighties supported by CIA. Also not a secret that the rebels who were at war against the Libyan tyrant for democracy proteges of Al-Qaeda often operated. Fight for the western values in Syria went and goes in many respects under the leadership of successors besides of Bin Laden. The same personality can be both the terrorist, and the fighter for freedom, and at the same time.
Of course, the former ruler has to be the enemy surely. Politically it is necessary to destroy the former masters, differently they will quickly return. They, generally, and so will return: eventually that group (party, financial group, army) which brought the former candidate to power, will make new attempt. Why to simplify it a task?
Eulogizing democracy, it is necessary not to forget that initially it was created for equality of misters in the slaveholding state.
Even if the old ruler was succeeded by the person from the political group, the critic is required, and with instructions of persons. It is not obligatory to criticize the former president, but at least his careless advisers, and it is better, as I already said, reformers. For example, Obama found very successful whipping boy: the chief economic adviser Larry Summers became responsible for failures at recovery from the crisis. The guru of economy declared the resignation in the middle of 2010, he was replaced by less famous Gene Sperling. It is clear to everyone that if the excellent economist did not cope with a situation, and you should not blame the president too much.
* * *
I will tell the following about presidential friendship: as the wife after a wedding has to be on friendly terms first of all with the husband if wants to keep marriage, and the president has to be on friendly terms only with the power if wants it to keep. Here the president can have different allies.
As they say, a politic stacks different people in one bed. However, that in your political bed did not appear foreign, unnecessary and even harmful people, you should realize clearly, who from the powers that be, known and unknown to general public, can become your allies and why.
I see three options. Those who sympathizes the president or it is obliged by something to him personally; those to whom the course chosen by the president is favorable; and, at last, enemies of enemies of the president whom any person in power has enough.
Whether it is worth approaching to yourself the first and to lean on them in daily works? As on electorate, of course. They should noting, not to forget be thanked, invited especially to official celebrations and other. However, it is not necessary to share with them daily cares: the permanent hard work in power, not on the first roles, will quickly erase gilding from them attachment chains to the president. Besides the former friend can be more terrible than the enemy can.
After intoxication with a victory the feeling of great loss always arises: our enemy, our enemy is dead! Even about loss of the friend we are sorry not so deeply, as about loss of the enemy.
Allies at the general course are more convenient as a support, but in real life, there is a problem: how to operate them? Continuous verification of desires, balance of interests even in the small is necessary. Many of them — direct competitors to the president and if he gives them the chance to solve important tasks, they can have a chance anyway to replace the power, to push aside the president's supporters from real government. Whatever developed was the democracy, whatever rigid was authoritarianism, big money and forces should be spent that that part of elite which supports the president (and it — it), returned after "friendly" revolution on administrative positions.
Therefore, for a support the president still has the enemy of the enemy. His right choice — the most reliable. Always it is necessary to remember that, choosing enemies, you choose also allies. The same rule extends and on a choice of allies by foreign policy: and here the enemy of enemy can only be the friend.
When, for example, the president declares ruthless war to terrorism, the countries anyway affected by this illness of a civilization declare themselves allies of this president. If in modern conditions, the ruler declares a crusade against communism or, we will put, will begin fight for peace around the world, it will appear in difficult situation. In the first case, it should deal with China and quickly developing Vietnam. In addition, the majority of the countries, which are trade partners of these socialist states, will not understand it. In the second case the president should react to wars which conduct the USA, and to be let in frank backscratching, explaining as far as peaceful is their Cruise Missiles, or to criticize wars in general and by that to set up himself under criticism of a pro-American lobby in the country.
If the president positions the foreign policy like if around there are only friends, only enemies will soon surround him. Of course, it is possible to speak about friendship to all around, especially when you go to the power, but it is impossible to follow these own words by no means. To speak: "Around friends" — means to make concessions to the former opponents and concessions do not happen much. Them happens a little, and it causes rage. Moreover, here the ally, seeing that the enemy of the enemy becomes the friend of the enemy becomes if not the obvious, then potential opponent.
I expect objections that it was earlier that the democratic countries (if it is about them) are not at war. As! Hot war between them, maybe, is also not present, but wars other: trade, for resources, migratory, financial — though take away. It is in the developed democracies what to speak about the countries that are not among world leaders?
Let's assume that the president of a certain North African country, having been delighted with the European democracies, will decide to help new friends with their war with illegal emigration. It will bring to police officers and even to army operations on his southern borders, from where there is a flow of illegal immigrants from "black" Africa. Further, to stop their transportation on the South of Europe, the president should strengthen boundary fleet, and it is violation of military balance. Such actions will cause strain of relations with the African neighbors. Moreover, it will be necessary to return the caught migrants, and means, there will be refugee camps. The European states will accuse the president of cruelty and creation of prerequisites for a humanitarian disaster with migrants, — so the fan of friendship a circle will be guilty.
The choice of enemies and allies is, thus, one of the most important actions of the president defining a course of development of the country.