Power and Influence

There's an old adage that those who want power ought to be the last to receive it. But in computer science we often have "benevolent dictatorships" where, for example, the original creators of a programming language retain the most executive control over it, preventing forks and resolving issues. Most governments are structured the same way: there's one person at the top as a figurehead. Even in republics, there's often a person with overall control. When parliament got control after the English Civil War, they put Charles II on the throne because there was so much factioneering and infighting after the death of Cromwell, the military dictator.

The problem with dictatorships is when the dictator does more harm than good, and this situation often comes about because a) power is corrosive and easy to abuse, and b) because hereditary power will necessarily admit bad rulers. The situation can change very quickly. Elizabeth I was an awesome ruler, and so too James I. But Charles I, the successor to James I, created the Civil War by trying to take too much power, and through to his Catholic leanings which didn't go down too well in Presbytarian Scotland.

Someone as powerful a ruler as Henry VIII is able to create their own church. Of course this isn't the only method through which denominations are created, but it's the only way to get state backing. Common-or-garden folk can start religious movements, but it takes some perseverance. If one wanted to reform the protestant church today, would it be better to be King, Archbishop, or commoner? A king would be best placed as long as they had popularity, which is the same as it's always been except now decided more by commercialism and mass media than the vox populi. Taking control of the media is one of the first things on the DIY Dictator list.

Charles de Montesquieu was the first to suggest that the imperium, the Latin name for absolute political power, be split into legislative, executive, and judicial branches to keep it in check. The legislature appoints the executive and makes the law, the executive carries the law out and does the interaction, and the judiciary interprets the law and arbitrates. The power is supposed to be evenly distributed, and may be, but the most influence appears to lie in the executive. The executive can easily run away with itself, even in a democratic society because of media manipulation, the ignorance of the public, and the years that pass between elections. The executive can even accrue power.

Power is what follows influence, perhaps the other side of the coin from influence: since influence connotes some measure of the patient having a choice and being led under their own will, whereas power connotes a structure put in place within which the patient operates, perhaps against their will. So the most influential candidate will win an election, thereby becoming the most powerful. Perhaps the key to being a benevolent dictator is to retain influence without assembling unnecessarily rigid power structures. Don't trust your sons and daughters to rule, and be wary if they govern.