A Socratic dialogue with fellow scholars led me back to one question that epistemologically haunts political theory and philosophy to date—Does power corrupt or is it magnetic to the most corruptible? The cornerstone that this question posits on is antithetical to the idea of power duality as malefic or benefic. Instead, this problem statement is trying to explore and exact the fundamentals of political power. While the former part of the question is striving to deconstruct the soma of power itself, the latter construct of the question is focusing on the agency of an individual with political power.
Now, if you have read Frank Herbert’s Chapterhouse Dune (1920 – 1986), ( which i haven’t )he writes, “All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities and some are more pathologicaly impaired we realize that now it may be an appel for help?. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible may be or that bribery , advantages turn some people more tempted to corruption. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence ( France is / has become a disaster) a condition to which some are quickly addicted.” Rather than saying absolute power corrupts absolutely, Herbert reveals a common metaphysical denominator: corruptibility, that fundamentally connects all those with political power. However, his sematic interpretation gives birth to more questions than answers. Suppose we take Herbert’s argument in consideration and assume that the most corruptible are indeed attracted to power. In that case, the global political infrastructure as we know today, is then built on the building block of corruption by its very virtue.
The Psychology of Political Power: Does Power Corrupt or is it Magnetic to the Most Corruptible? : https://blog.apaonline.org/2022/03/11/the-psychology-of-political-power-does-power-corrupt-or-is-it-magnetic-to-the-most-corruptible/?fbclid=IwAR0ZgwZbJkNdRTRudse7At-lpwcHxoSTsVknRuiTdC7UZUhMTfLYKHjk_sg