Julius Caesar - Act 2 Statment Response

Power always corrupts the one who holds it.

                Adolf Hitler.  Saddam Hussein.  Joseph Stalin.  What do these three men have in common?  Corruption.  Cruel, harsh, stone cold corruption; enabled and brought forth by.... power.  But these men are not the only ones who have used their power to the disadvantage of others; not by far.  It is common knowledge that through the ages countless leaders have fallen to the dishonorable practice of exploiting their power.  These men, who were supposed to have had our best interests at heart, did quite the opposite of help us.  Instead they abused their endowment terribly.  Could they not help themselves?  Did they have these hideous goals in mind before coming into a position of power?  Why must they have used their power so irresponsibly?  With these questions in mind, is power honestly a good thing for our leaders to have?

               To find out whether or not people such as Hitler could have helped themselves, we must analyze how a want or need for power arises.  Usually a need or want comes from wanting to change something, or a person may feel compelled to overcome a problem.  In other words, they feel they must create their own happiness.  Or, someone with a weak self-image may be convinced that they must use power to bolster themselves.  These thoughts may come from an over-passionate point of view, overbearing contempt, or possibly a lack in mental capacity; the person seeking this power might not be "all there".  The corruption tumbles, or rather, slams, into play when a person in power begins to let virtues and self-desires rise above the actual necessities of reality.  But where do these thoughts come from?  Wanting to create a certain, powerful image, that is what.  As well as out of greed; it might be for money, global recognition, or merely for the want of control.  So can people avoid corruption while in power?  Sure, some definitely can.  But others....maybe not. 

                 Now you are wondering, did these people have their corrupt intentions in the limelight from the moment they stepped into the power shoes?  For some, probably.  But the more likely answer is no, and  there is a reason for this.  You see, there are two different types of power: Socialized and Personalized.  Socialized power is used to benefit others, while Personalized power is used for personal gain.  Corruption occurs when the P.P. dominates.  When a leader comes into power, their intendment is, in all likelihood, more socialized than personalized.  But as time wears on, these same leaders can eventually beguile themselves into thinking they are working for the "greater good", when they are actually committing acts of wrong.  Or, their earlier goals of actual helpfulness start to grow a little fuzzy, therefore allowing room for more self perceived motives.  Out of which arises the belief that the rules do not apply to them, as they are the leader:  "It is okay for me because I have my people's best interests at heart".  As well, some leaders begin to do things just because they know they can get away with it - and the followers think what they are doing is okay because they are "the leader".  So, as you can now see, most leaders do not have their corrupt intentions from the get-go, but due to the sweetness of power, they eventually, over time, subconsciously submit themselves to such thoughts.

              So do we, as people - the ones who suffer at the hands of corrupt governments - really think our leaders should hold power?  After looking at how power breeds corruption, the initial answer would be no.  But let us pause and think for a moment.  The disadvantages of leaders having power are that, the more power they have, the more they convert to focusing on personal desires.  The power could also be used for unacceptable reasons - which would lead to yet more corruption.  But do not forget the advantages, mind you.  Having power could make a leader more confident, assertive, and certain of decisions.  So if action is needed, whatever it is gets done.  Someone might say that these advantages could also be negative factors, which they could, so let us try another angle.  If there was no power, there would be no authority.  If there was no authority, there would be a substantial increase in crime, meaning an increase in theft, destroying of property, and assault.  There would be disorder, and no one would have to obey the law, as there would be no one to enforce it.  Our country would then become dangerous, and filled with chaos and controversy.  Bad conditions for workers, gambling out of control, flourishing black markets, drugs, smuggling, foreign animal trading, you name it; we would have it.  We would BE it.  So now I ask you, do we want our leaders to hold power?
               
              "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it" - William Pitt.  We cannot deny that this statement holds within it truth.  Power corrupts.  It is a fact of life.  There have been, and will be, leaders who abuse their power.  And honestly, what can we do about it?  Some leaders definitely had the potential to be great; they could have helped themselves....but still some could not.  Many did not have intentions of being corrupt when they started, but then again, some might have.  Why must have these people used their power so irresponsibly?  That we will probably never know.  Should our leaders hold power?  Yes.  But balance is the key.  Leaders should not hold absolute power and the people under him or her should always have some say.  This is because if our voices are not heard, who knows where we will end up?  We know power causes corruption.  We know we cannot do much about it.  But that does not mean we should not try.