The politics of the sage, wisdom in politics and populism: lessons from the story of Saul and Goliath

The idea that the work of governing is a serious task that must be left to philosophers, sages or scientists has been one of the important themes of debate in political science since Plato. Plato's own political experience, which ended in fiasco, his attempt at Syracuse, has in fact shown that this idea is not all that great. A philosopher of Plato's caliber, whose ideas have been a reference in all debates on politics and the ideal state to date, was thrown into confusion when it came time to apply in the field what he had said about politics, and was forced to withdraw from the field in great defeat.

On the other hand, there have also been extremely wise politicians

. Our Prophet himself is the most ideal example of this. He displayed the example of a good ruler in his most ideal form, as both a prophet and a ruler.

The Rightly Guided Caliphs,

although there are differences of style, level and success among them, each displayed good examples of

wise

(rashid) rulers.

At the end of the 20th century, in the middle of Europe, in an environment where the most cunning, most fraudulent political centers of all contemporary political philosophies and modernist narratives were committing genocide against a people while masking themselves, Alija Izetbegović, with his struggle that shone like a sun, played in the finest way, in the fullest sense of the word, the role of the "philosopher king" that Plato named but could not himself attain.

The Platonic relationship established between politics and wisdom never gives an advantage to those who have adopted philosophy as a profession in practice. Representing in politics the virtue sought by Platonic philosophy and realizing this ideal of virtue also requires, in the field, a different kind of practical wisdom. This politics may sometimes be drawn to a line that may require being willing to lose the world in order not to lose the virtues. It is reported that when Muawiya and his brother Ziyad, Amr ibn al-As and Mughira ibn Shu'ba were spoken of by opponents as "the geniuses of the Arabs," as resourceful, Ali said, "If I did not fear God, I would be the genius of the Arabs."

For this reason there can of course be no necessary relationship between success in politics and wisdom. But it is also essential for the virtuous to make the plans and strategies of a successful politics with their common reason and practices. Just because Plato returned from Syracuse disappointed, politics is not a field to be abandoned to the wicked, as if it were a curse that constantly instills pessimism and gloom about the world in people.

We have left Ramadan behind, we have kept our fast, we have grasped time and history anew. We have again caught hold of what does not change in time and history, we have tied ourselves to a single story that goes back to Adam. We met, in the same span of time, with him, with Noah, with Abraham, with Ishmael, with Isaac and Jacob, with Moses, Joseph and Jesus. Because Ramadan is the month in which the Qur'an was revealed, and to grasp this we read and listened to the Qur'an plentifully.

The story of Talut and Calut, which we have relived in this span of time, tells us much about the relationship between politics and wisdom, between leadership and prophethood. There are many striking points in this event recounted in Surat al-Baqara, but in this context there is the fact that the leading figures of the Children of Israel said to one of their prophets, "Send us a king, so that we may fight in the way of God."

The leading figures of the Children of Israel convey this proposal to a prophet. The first striking thing is that they do not ask the person they know to be a prophet to be their leader. That is, the person they turn to is a prophet, but he may not be seen as having the qualifications to be a political leader. Just as not every wisdom may give rise to a political leadership, so too it is not a sociological necessity for every prophethood, even when its prophethood is recognized, to give rise to a political authority.

But the prophet, it is clear, sees that the Children of Israel, who had lost the power they had reached in the periods after Moses and had begun to be subjected again to various oppressions at the hands of the political powers of the age, have now begun to think that they are ready for war in order to put a stop to this, and that their only lack is a king, a political leader, to govern them and around whom they could gather. But the prophet they turned to knows them very well, and sees that they may not be ready for the war they so desire, nor for the sacrifices that war requires, and he states this concern openly: "What if, when fighting is prescribed for you, you do not fight?"

Mass consciousness and demagogic fervor also strongly incite cheap heroism. Crowds that leave not an ember in the brazier, that find a wedding feast in other people's affairs, sometimes provoke their rulers, through cheap heroics, into behaving more radically than necessary; they turn demagogic fervor, and sometimes fascistic feelings, into a pressure and load it on their rulers.

For rulers to fall into the trap of these expectations through populism is a very ordinary form of politics. What the Children of Israel who wanted war would do when the order for war was really issued is not known; they have not yet been tested. To be more convincing and to create pressure on their rulers, they dramatize their situation thoroughly, saying, "Why should we not fight in the way of God, when we have been driven out of our homeland and separated from our children?", and incite the war all the more.

"But when fighting was prescribed for them, all but a few of them turned away. And God is All-Knowing of the wrongdoers." (Surat al-Baqara, 246).

It is a typical situation that most of those who criticize the war that has come about most are often found among those who incited to war the most. In some narrations, the "few" of the Children of Israel of that day, whose number reached eighty thousand, who agreed to war at first and did not turn back immediately when the order for war came, are said to correspond to one fifth. When their prophet tells them that God has appointed Talut as leader, their first reaction is, "Who is Talut anyway?" They do not like him. Because he belongs to none of the 12 tribes to which they themselves belong and for which they consider themselves distinguished. He is not noble; indeed, he belongs to a despised caste, a social stratum. They see themselves as superior to him. Yet they themselves asked for it and God sent him, and despite this they reject him because he does not belong to one of their own tribes.

This is precisely one of the greatest sociological testing grounds of leadership. The savior merit getting stuck on the barrier of lineage.

Now we too are getting stuck on the limit of this column. So we will continue later.