Kapok | Ethics?

Eric Sautedé

Max Weber’s famous 1918 lecture entitled “Politics as a vocation” is usually remembered for the very performative definition it gives of the modern state as being “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Physical force here means the capacity to maintain law and order, thus protecting the citizens who have willingly renounced the use of force to exercise justice on their own. The legitimate bit has to do with the legality as well as acceptance by society, meaning that the use of force is prescribed and henceforth limited by law, so as to make sure that the state has the means to protect its citizens while making sure that it does not abuse its power.

In the recent debate surrounding the possible passing of a Civil Protection Basic Law that would put civil protection regulations on steroids, most of the attention has focused on the extensive powers the authorities would be given to “ensure efficient dissemination of important information by the authorities” and “prevent the spread of false rumors in society” in times of crisis.

The worry is thus that the Macao government could easily become a plain and simple “police state” in which only government-sanctioned information would be allowed and any alternative source could be characterized (preventively) as dangerous for law and order.

Because it conflicts with at least two core values enshrined in the Basic Law — “freedom of speech and of the press” on the one hand and “protection of privacy” on the other — this is seen as opening the gates wide for repetitive and unsanctioned abuse of power. In simple terms, the use of force could easily become illegitimate. And here, I am sparing you the additional concern we could have regarding the “given territory” as Mr Wong Sio Chak, the Secretary for Security, appears to have a few difficulties in fixing the right physical “boundaries”.

Weber’s text is also enlightening when the sociologist starts exploring the source of power from which politicians derived their authority. He identifies three, as legitimizing the citizens’ obedience: “tradition”, “charisma” and “legality” — none existing as pure types in reality.

Traditional domination is exercised by patriarchs, what Weber also calls the “patrimonial” princes. In Macao, if you think Ho, Choi and Ma, you soon realize that we have not really left the burden of tradition.

Charismatic domination, meaning “the authority of the extraordinary and personal gift of grace”, we have had little in our SAR: some for sure under Edmund Ho’s first term, and for certain none in Chui’s two terms put together. Yet, too charismatic a leader can easily turn into a demagogue, so maybe we should not complain after all!

In the end, what we have had mostly has been a domination by virtue of “legality”, legitimized by legal statute and supposedly “functional competence based on rationally created rules”. Twisted legality (elections without choice illustrates the twisted part), we have had plenty, and regarding competence, we have remained forever hopeful, even after December 2014.

Finally, the text suggests that professional politicians should cultivate two sets of ethical virtues: the ethic of conviction on the one hand and the ethic of responsibility on the other. I was recently reminded of that distinction when France’s very charismatic Minister of Ecological Transition and long-time green activist Nicolas Hulot resigned abruptly at the end of August during a radio show, to denounce the lack of paradigm change in the overall perspective presiding over public policy design, the overpowering influence of the lobbies and the fact that small measures taken in the past year would be in vain if the whole mindset did not change. He did not want to be a cosmetic alibi anymore. Did he do it because his policies conflicted with his core beliefs or because he could no longer assume full responsibility for his acts as a sitting-minister?

When I see Cheong U roaming the world as a light- hearted tourist, then I ask myself: do these values even make sense in Macao?