Politics and Authoritarian Leader

Politics is articulating various interests for / in one purpose. It is appropriate that the various interests of the existing group, accommodated by the government so that no party feels marginalized.

A good leader is not the one who has gained the dominant voice and then excludes the minority's voice so that the marginalized parties appear.

The natural law of the marginalized party will be voiced, this is the leader's policy to hear - before accomodating those interests.

Yet the nature of pride in rule is to shut the voice that disguises the ruler's decision that ultimately reaps the logical consequences of causal law; opposition and resistance to the defense of rights. Then both sides will mobilize forces to fight each other, either by the power of the direct ruler, or through the power of the proxy; parties that are in line with the powers of the ruler, not by the means of the state directly, but through ruling groups of rulers or parties that can be embraced and mobilized by the rulers, who are actually apolitical neutral groups, directed to tackle the rate of the group.

Reading the power of Disputes. What is done is to read the strength of the group of isolates from the left to the right. Trim one-wing resistance. Splitting the two groups of outsiders by embracing one side to be banged with the other. When the group of isolates can be pinched and trimmed, then the removal will be more easily destroyed.

If we try to read the correct reality in every event in politics, then we can find the fact that the state more often portray an antagonistic role. The pressure group (who only wants his voice to be heard - a requirement for a dialogical democracy) speaks only, but the unwise reaction of the ruler is to declare war on groups whose voices perceive the ruler.

The logical consequence is that the outsiders are definitely raising more support to secure themselves from the threat of the authorities. The state has all the tools to create pre-conditions and conditions.

The love of the people to the state should not be interpreted as the people's love of the regime. Because the love of the regime is temporary and often contradictory with the love of the state. Perhaps the regime, the ruler is not love of the state, but loves himself who happens to rule the country. L 'estat ce moi (country is mine) he said, quoting Louis IV's statement. In fact the state is us, the ruling group, the oligarchs, the ruling elite and the people are just the objects. Country is us and not you.