SCRIPT 1 :

In his book "Politics," Runciman explores various aspects of politics, offering insightful perspectives
through numerous examples and explanations. From the start, readers can observe that there is a political
divide between Syria and Denmark. The contrast is not limited to politics alone; it also opens up
numerous opportunities for Denmark to grow in various sectors, including industry and science. In other
words, it has the ability to amplify or moderate the impact of the features involved. It serves as a reminder
of how politics can create that distinction and whether or not we truly comprehend it. Runciman presented
an overview of three key topics: sovereigns, justice, and technology.
In part one, Runciman highlights violence as the primary aspect to focus on in any political institution.
According to him, there are typically two ways in which it occurs: through the use of violence as a means,
or by exerting control over that ambiguous entity. Residents can play a crucial role in preventing violence
by engaging in open discussions and collectively determining the circumstances under which the
government may need to employ violence, as well as identifying the appropriate individuals or entities to
respond to such situations. Nevertheless, the use of force remains essential in upholding the agreement.
One example is that Denmark appears to be a society with a strong consensus. However, it is worth noting
that Denmark does indeed possess an army, a police force, and a prison system. These can be referred to
as the link between consensus and coercion. Politics is present in every society, and the key question is
whether coercion hinders consensus, as seen in Syria, or vice versa, as seen in Denmark. It is important
for them to coexist, with one side being more dominant. Balancing those figures is challenging for a
simple reason. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who personally experienced and observed the war in
England, wrote about the inherent competition that exists among humans, regardless of political systems.
The most common reason is often associated with trust. He mentioned that it is impossible for us to
protect ourselves from anyone we encounter. Consequently, civil wars are occurring in various regions,
leading citizens to actively engage in politics.
The government should employ political strategies to prevent violence, ensuring that rulers do not
possess absolute power comparable to that of God. I believe that the reason why capitalism and socialism
emerged as the next revolutions after feudalism is because they both aim to distribute power among
leaders. Hobbes's viewpoint suggests that there is a risk that residents may not have the ability to improve
their current government. The reason is that no government met his expectations at that time. In today's
world, we understand that truly stable politics is transformative. This means that the dynamic forces of
modernity are provided with opportunities to flourish and bring about changes in politics. We believe that
politics should be more than just a mechanical system in which leaders create rules and residents simply
follow them. We are eager for the opportunity to demonstrate our abilities through engaging in thoughtful
debates, constructive arguments, and navigating both confrontations and compromises.
However, it is important to note that this carries potential risks. Every political argument has the potential
to challenge and potentially disrupt the existing political order. Therefore, Hobbes made an effort to
minimize the gap between coercion and consent. This event symbolized the shift from the pre-modern era
to the modern era in politics. He stated that his political philosophy was self-justifying and not of utmost
importance. Sovereigns and states are inherently necessary, and the complexities surrounding them are
truly remarkable.
Regrettably, Hobbes did not provide a comprehensive answer to the question "What is it like to be the
sovereign?" during that period. Imagine yourself as the leader of a group, wielding the power to enforce
through violent means. In such a situation, you may experience a sense of having a "dual role" as you
navigate the delicate balance between enabling individuals to flourish within the confines of legal and
coercive boundaries. While it is possible to find a balance between opposing sides and promote political
progress, assuming the role of a ruler comes with its own set of risks and dangers. Unfortunately,
politicians are compelled to engage in competition with their peers in order to attain a desirable "prize"
that grants them the authority to influence and govern the public.

As a result, politicians often engage in unethical practices, such as suppressing individuals and
manipulating public sentiment. According to sociologist Max Weber, the nature of violence can be
altered when individuals excessively rely on its power without assuming accountability for their actions.

However, politicians inevitably find themselves immersed in the complexities of political engagement,
requiring them to navigate through challenging situations. Despite Obama's efforts to conduct a drone
campaign aimed at eliminating terrorist threats, it unfortunately resulted in the unintended loss of
innocent lives due to various factors. Regrettably, the act of accepting responsibility was evaded until it
became undeniable.
As long as politics exists, we will continue to see the presence of corrupt individuals. It is crucial for us
to remain vigilant about the potential risks associated with peace. Who will be responsible for monitoring
the actions of politicians? Residents often disregard politics because the presence of peace has
overshadowed their perceived importance of political matters. Benjamin Constant observed that
politicians have the ability to quietly engage in harmful actions, which can lead to chaos in the political
sphere. Additionally, he noted that unelected individuals in politics often harbor a desire for revenge. He
stated that the crucial aspect of resolving the issue is for individuals to maintain vigilance without
becoming completely absorbed.

Part two highlights the interconnectedness between technology and politics in the progress of nations. As
the number of inventions and research works continues to grow rapidly each day, it is important to note
that politics, on the other hand, necessitates numerous conditions and a considerable amount of time for
significant changes to occur. During the Obama administration, there were minimal changes in the
functioning of the US government. The industrial and digital revolution have brought about significant
changes in people's lives and mindsets. However, it is essential to have politics in place to regulate the
influence of technology and ensure its optimal utilization, particularly in addressing pressing issues like
climate change.
It is evident that businesses play a crucial role in promoting economic development.
Let's take Google as an example. It has the ability to develop self-driving cars and highly intelligent
computers, which surpass the capabilities of the government. However, it is essential for staff members to
operate within the boundaries of rules and regulations, as businesses often operate within a political
framework. It is reasonable for Google to seek government protection for its legitimate interests. This
ensures that Google users can have peace of mind, knowing that the company is not misusing its power.
Over time, individuals who possess power and wealth in the tech industry often find themselves drawn to
politics, driven by various motivations. However, their common objective is to influence legislative
changes that align with their own interests. Participating in politics has numerous consequences, both
positive and negative. However, it primarily contributes to the complexity and potential dangers
associated with the field.
Script 2:

Politics is concerned with how difficult it is for societies to adjust to modern difficulties. Runciman begins
the book by explaining the importance and influence of politics (as one would assume) with an
interesting contrast of the Syrian and Danish models. Denmark sounds like bliss, whereas Syria is
currently horror on earth.

So? The difference between the two countries is politics, which tends to either temper or exaggerate
problems. Denmark's democratic system has fostered coexistence and tolerance, and the Danish have
made the political decision to live in peace. Syria's politics, on the other hand, are a whole other tale.
Whatever else is going on, the political system there is utilized to assert a sense of security.

That is, politics is not a death sentence. It is merely a tool. A sophisticated instrument. But why is it so
difficult? So, let us find out!

As is customary, this more in-depth section of the book review begins with a list of the primary topics
and questions addressed throughout the book. I'll then go into greater detail about the themes. Let's get
started!

In bullet form, the book

David Runciman delves into the following important themes:

What is the role of politics?

What's the connection between politics and power?

How might technological transformation impact politics?

Why can't modern politics contribute to peace?

He also asks several questions, including:

Why is politics so complicated, and what happens when civilizations fail to adjust their policies to
change?

What's the connection between politics, violence, and power?

What happens if there is no consensus to preserve?

What is the state's / politicians' role? Can they simply make decisions on behalf of the people when the
people don't care?

How far can we go to protect our liberties? Is it permissible to use violence to protect liberties and
peace?

What is the relationship between politics, politicians, and policymaking and technology?

What if politicians were more technologically savvy?

Can technology govern in the absence of politics?

What are the issues that technology (giants) present in terms of societal management?

Why does politics fail to ensure justice?

How can a conflict like Syria continue to exist?

What do we want?

Doesn't that seem intriguing? Now. Runciman explores three major questions as he investigates this
complication.

When one examines the relationship between politics and violence, one is led to wonder how society
can go from safety to disorder, from heaven to hell.

The second topic focuses on the intricate interactions that exist between politics, policymaking,
politicians, and technology.

The third question is about tolerance. To summarize, how do politics, morality, and society interact to
create justice? "We can't have justice without politics," adds Runciman, "but politics continues to fail the
demands of justice." Ambitious debate... Just keep reading!
despite this, I'll make you think clever

Politics - Theme #1: Violence, its control, and its use to gain control.

David Runciman begins by investigating the relationship between politics, violence, and power. His point
here is that the primary job of political clothing is to regulate violence, which is both dangerous and
powerful.

Power

As a result, the starting premise here is that politics is about regulating violence and gaining power.
Obviously, we see a peacekeeping aspect here. However, violence is power, and whoever controls
violence controls power.

Uh, uh. Of course, yes, of course.

There's more to it than that. Politics, in and of itself, is a sort of violence. Politics, as Runciman puts it, is
"violent because it consists in applying the necessary amount of pressure to obtain the desired results."
Consider this. If violence can influence or coerce a range of actions, shouldn't the threat of violence be
even more potent? The same rationale applies to politics, which frequently consists of establishing
regulations through compulsion. From battle to the fear of a fine for allowing your dog anywhere, kinds
of violence aimed at asserting authority are all around us.

Consensus

To summarize, politics is a complex blend of consensus-building and coercion. The people reach an
agreement, and political outfits apply pressure where necessary to preserve and enforce the agreement.

But what happens when there is no agreement to keep? Politics would then become an issue. Again, the
examples of Denmark and Syria are instructive. In Denmark, the political system serves a cohabitation
and peace goal determined by society. In Syria, on the other hand, the society has no unifying aim. As a
result, politics in Syria does not serve; rather, it worsens the fractures.
[addthis_relatedposts_inline" tool="addthis_relatedposts_inline"]

The state and politics

After explaining the complicated operational model of politics, Runciman investigates the function of the
state (or, more specifically, politicians) in the construction and maintenance of a society.

To do so, he examines how earlier thinkers interpreted the role of politics. He focuses on the work of
Thomas Hobbes, who is most known for his theories on the Leviathan (1651).

Because violence was out of control at the period, the Leviathan is an interesting reference here. So
Hobbes envisioned a model in which a single tough (yes, tough) leader took control of society.

The concept sounds alarming today, yet it was promoted as a bold extreme answer at the time. Take a
look at it! After all, how can society progress if people cannot trust one another and have no common
goal?

Politics is not about deciding together when the people refuse (or fail) to decide. Politics becomes a
matter of refusing to reach an agreement; politics is about non-politics. In turn, a society guided by non-
politics is governed by a'state of nature,' which is defined as a form of perpetual battle in which the
stronger decides for the others.

So, instead of going nowhere because there is no shared aim, why not entrust a leader to take control
and establish what the consensus is and what peace means? Isn't it true that no one is doing the job?

The argument was obviously provocative and hazardous, and Runciman does an excellent job of
expressing it. Apply similar logic to Syria: Would you rather have a terrible government or no
government at all? That is a difficult question.

Freedoms

So, what about individual liberties?

Nowadays, peace has become so normal that freedom has become the inevitable next step of politics.
States and politicians have taken on new tasks and obligations over time. As a result, politics has become
a widely accepted tool. We are aware of its presence, and we expect politics to provide results in the
shape of a balance that protects everyone's interests.

Nonetheless, liberties were not even a consideration under Hobbes' reign. The stakes were not with
liberties, but with bloodshed and peace. Politics has changed, and new expectations have emerged.

But how far can we take liberty?

The actual difficulty, though, is what the new expectations are. Politics and politicians play a role. Which
one, though? How far can politics go to maintain our personal equilibrium? As previously said, fear of
state authority is a weapon that aids in the prevention of violence. But how far should politics go, in our
opinion?

Runciman turns to another thinker, Machiavelli, to answer that question. For Machiavelli, ruling is about
retaining power, and hence politics allows for the use of violence to maintain tranquillity and order. Put
that argument in a Syrian setting once more. Violence seeks to maintain the existing order. Does this
sound familiar?

First, wash your hands.

Runciman, on the other hand, believes that modern politics goes beyond Machiavelli.

Power and violence were in sync at the time. Fine. In any case, no one would dare to question.
Nowadays, however, our cultures have found ways to justify some forms of violence and aggressive
politics. Democracy, in particular, has legitimized violence in some circumstances.

In sum, violence has become an accepted "monopoly" that we allow our rulers to utilize as long as it
keeps us safe from the ugly and filthy. By the same token, the people have utilized the democratic
process to insulate themselves from responsibility. We vote, we make decisions, and we elect politicians
to do the right thing. However, political violence is beyond our grasp. Our hands are still clean.

Drones are a good example of this, as Runciman points out. Drones are nothing more than political
violence, but that violence occurs so far away that we cannot be held accountable.

>> For more on drones and state-sponsored violence, see World politics: Noam Chomsky asks, "Who
Rules the World?"

The topic of peace and its hazards.

As a result, citizens are willing to tolerate certain types of political violence as long as it provides them
peace, stability, and peace of mind. Runciman observes that peace and stability pose a threat to this
extent. Citizens are disengaged, and liability is reduced to "background noise."

We now have technology and information, he adds. Still, there are riots and other excesses that our
authorities must deal with through force. And, at the end of the day, we don't say much. So, are we back
to square one? The debate is really interesting. If you want to go deeper, get the book; you'll like it.

[ls_content_block 534]

despite this, I'll make you think clever

The second theme in politics is politics and technology.

The second major theme of David Runciman's book is the interaction between politics and technology.
This is intriguing because, while there are many books and discussions about how technologies will
effect our society, there isn't much written about the impact of technical transformation on politics.

>> Are you interested in technology? Read my technology and trendy book reviews and food for thought.
The revolution in technology.

Runciman begins with the few political revolutions that have distinguished the last few decades.
Consider the Arab Spring, for example. However, he believes that technical advancement will usher in
the greatest political change.

In his view, "technology has the power to render politics obsolete," if only because "the rate of change
renders governments appear slow, cumbersome, unwieldy, and frequently irrelevant." But wait, there's
more. Change in technology raises problems about the value of ownership and the use (and limitations)
of information.

>>Learn more about the Blockchain Revolution. Don and Alex Tapscott claim to have found one!

Still, the issue is that technology cannot develop physical infrastructure or carry out governmental
functions such as peacekeeping or justice administration. That is, while technology may have an impact
on politics, policymaking will undoubtedly remain critical to our communities. Runciman provides several
instances in this section. Consider climate change, financial market regulation, R&D spending, and
so on.

>> Also see: Technology: Klaus Schwab predicts a fourth industrial revolution. Do you?

Politicians versus Tech Giants

Runciman also looks at how modern giants behave to investigate the relationship between our political
systems and technology.

There is no mystery here; Google and other technological companies have grown to the point where
political leaders must consider their impact on our communities. (Did you hear about European
legislators asking Mark Zuckerberg if he wanted people to remember Facebook as the corporation that
reduced private freedoms to zero?

Finance titans are also being discussed. Banks are powerful enough to exert control over financial
markets. As a result, financialization has become a concern, particularly when states must cope with the
instability caused by the financial industry and/or when they are forced to bail out reckless financiers
using tax payer money. Again, politicians and society must adapt to various trends and evolutions. But
how far does this go?

Technocracy, democracy, and aristocracy are all forms of government.

Runciman's examination of the link between technology and politics does not end there. It also analyzes
what would happen if technology took over democracy, if technocrats replaced politicians, or if politics
became a question of 'how' rather than 'what'.

Politicians have limited awareness of the actual world as a result of the professionalization of politics -
that is, making elections and re-elections a job. So, what if politicians were more technologically savvy?
Would the political process be different as a result? What effect would this have on the 'political class'?

>> Read Runciman's essay 'Why replacing politicians with experts is a hazardous idea' on The Guardian
(link will open in a new window) for more on this topic.

despite this, I'll make you think clever

Politics - Theme #3: Doesn't politics generate justice?

The third theme in Politics is about the relationship between our political institutions and justice.
Runciman poses more questions and provides the reader with much food for thought about what we
want for the future.

When politics falls short.

I've already indicated that Runciman uses Syria as an example throughout his work. But there remained
one more question to be asked. Why is the Syrian conflict still going on?

The question is critical, but it also demonstrates the limits of politics. Is it more important to have a
functioning state or to maintain peace at all costs? When does politics bring about justice or injustice?
When does justice cause havoc? At the end of the day, how can we assess political success?
What exactly do we want?

Do we want to make decisions, or do we believe that a 'no-politics' form of politics is sufficient? The
question is effective when applied to chaos, but it might equally be applied to values such as democracy
or liberalism. After all, we are governed by these conceptions, yet aren't they all social constructs at the
heart of modern politics? Alternatively, Runciman wonders, should we focus on a populist, Chavez-style
politics? What are our options?

>> For more on the impact of social conceptions on cultures, see Why Obama adored Yuval Noah
Harari's book "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind."

Consider alternatives.

No, 'think different' isn't limited to Apple and Guy Kawasaki. Runciman also employs the concept to
investigate more options. Could we, for example, contemplate establishing a global government that
would essentially redistribute globally? Runciman returns to Hobbes' Leviathan vision here, where the
model ultimately suffers from a 'no politics' worldview. But, as he writes provocatively, the formula stays
the same decades later. It only requires a central authority with coercive power to levy taxes and then
decide how to spend them!

The obstacle to this option is evident. Do you need a hint? You do the rest, Politi! According to Runciman,
for a no-politics model to succeed (and be accepted), "some truly cataclysmic collective threat" must
occur in order for countries to become "vulnerable" enough to give up power and "scale up" for the
common good.

Are you enjoying this article?

Pin it and spread the word!

I'll make you think like a politician, David Runciman.

The primary findings

Overall, David Runciman comes to the following findings.

Politics is a complex mix of consensus-building and consensus-implementation, which means it is about
both regulating violence and using kinds of violence to get things done.

When there is no agreement, politics becomes a matter of no-politics, which means that someone must
make the decision for everyone else. Politics, in that situation, just widens the fractures.

Individual liberties are a new political evolution, and they pose issues because people desire security
with clean hands.

Politics will become obsolete as a result of technological advancements, but they will also encourage
politicians to educate themselves and think differently. The social position of the 'political class' would be
affected as well.

The impact of technological titans on our civilizations will be significant. Societies must modify their
policies in order to change, but how far should we go?

The problem with the Syrian scenario is that we can't say exactly what we want. Would we want no
government and chaos, or a terrible government that makes decisions when no one attempts to improve
the system?