Does the End rarely Justify the Means in Politics?

In politics, the end rarely justifies the means. Describe a specific situation in which a political end might justify using questionable means for accomplishing that end. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a political end justifies the means for accomplishing that end. When one believes that the end justifies the means, he will take any action to the desired result. Morality is not a factor in that the means taken could be good or bad. Politics is, in a sense, a game where players have the desire to gain and hold onto power. Without certain checks and balances, most of these players would probably maintain power using any means. In a true democracy, the end rarely justifies the means because the government places high value on transparency, freedom and human rights. Most democratic governments feel it is their responsibility to protect the life and liberty of their people. Inevitably, nations face threats from all directions--both domestic and external. In a post 9-11 era, the United States has focused its efforts on the fight against terrorism. The government wanted to avoid another terrorist act in the homeland and has spent a huge amount of its budget on several measures--for example, from fighting wars on two fronts to enacting costly changes in airport screening procedures. The means of avoiding another 9-11, indeed, has caused much controversy. Thousands of civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan have died from drones and other attacks used to chase down terrorist suspects. People have felt their personal liberties have been compromised in more detailed screening procedures. Some have charged that the government is using 9-11 as a poor excuse to have more control over citizens per se and usher in more of a big brother-type era. Even in times of war and tighter control of national security, government should take steps to maintain the integrity of its democracy. This means being accountable to their people and making sure their means are in line with the values they seek to propagate inside and outside of the country. There are arguably situations in politics where the end might justify questionable means for accomplishing that end. For example, the capture of certain key terrorist suspects provides governments with the opportunity to get ahead of the enemy and foil plots. Mere questioning will not help an interrogator garner useful information. They must use proven techniques that coerce suspects to give up the truth. Of course, the use of torture by the US has been viewed by some as antithetical to democratic values and not helpful to the war effort in the long run. Others, though, see these suspects as having given up any right to dignity and any means of extracting information could be justified upon discovering terrorist plots. When certain countries seek to promote their democratic values worldwide, they should believe that the ends rarely justifies the means. Responding to domestic and external threats, however, makes it really easy for these countries to take actions not in line with their supposed value of freedom. Indeed, advocacy groups championing liberty and human rights play key roles in ramping up pressure for democratic governments to be accountable for the means they take to achieve a desired result.