عقلانية الدولة وتهور المنظمة..

Politics, by its nature, is a violent conflictual behavior, centered around the concept of power, its acquisition, and retention. However, the struggle for power does not imply the perpetual expectation of its savage behavioral nature. On the contrary: the movement of the struggle for power can be tamed. This applies to the phase of reaching power and remaining in it. The possibility of taming the struggle for power is one of the most important indicators of political development in political communities. The more the movement of the struggle for power leans towards peaceful transitions, the more it indicates the political advancement of a society compared to those where the nature of the struggle (violent and material) for power has taken root, to the extent that this violence in the power transition becomes a characteristic of the behavior of reaching power and remaining in it. It can even become that remaining in power is a behavior more ferocious than the attempt to reach and seize it.

Here is a point that should be noted: the existence of institutional mechanisms to deal (peacefully) with the movement of the struggle for power does not mean the removal of the violence inherent in that struggle. The violence of the struggle for power is always present; the development of societies towards peaceful methods of taming and refining the struggle for power does not negate the violent negative behavior in the discourse of that struggle. One can expect the violence of electoral campaigns (in terms of discourse) to approach the level of violent material behavior, without resorting to the bloody violent struggle for power, without anticipating that occurrence. For example: in the electoral campaigns for high political positions within the official political system, one can expect the harshness of the political discourse of the candidates, and sometimes even resort to physical altercations, but this does not escalate to the use of weapons or the use of the state's (military and police) violence to separate candidates during the electoral campaigns. It also requires a spirit of sportsmanship, in respect of the voters' will, when announcing the results of the general elections, at all political levels (sovereign) local and general.

This is the beginning of a comparison between the values of a political system governed by the rationality of the state and the recklessness of the organization. In the first case, the state is viewed as a rational organic entity that prioritizes logic and wisdom in its political behavior, rather than recklessness and violent bloodshed and uncalculated risks, as the most important indicators of responsibility and political professionalism in holding political positions. States are not equal in levels of this precise material measure of assessing the level of political development in society. The nature of the approach to and distancing from the standard of political rationality versus political recklessness prevails.

When exercising power, the fundamental difference between rationality and political recklessness appears, allowing for a comparison between the stability of the state and the fluctuation of the organization's behavior. In the state, the level of rationality of its institutions and political symbols is evident in the responsibility to maintain the community's resources, particularly the safety of its political base represented in preserving the integrity of its territory... and the security and safety of its citizens, especially when dealing with external environmental challenges to the state's territory. The rationality of the state's institutions and symbols becomes apparent when facing existential challenges imposed by external environmental threats, especially during times of war. The rationality of the state here is manifested in assessing the state's security capabilities, away from the risks of direct engagement with its regional neighbors and international adversaries in the violence of managing the challenges posed by the external environment.

Some organizations may emerge from ideological or organizational considerations that make their priorities different from those of the state, prioritizing their own goals over the requirements of national interest. When this conflict occurs, the calculations of security, sovereignty, and territorial unity become more susceptible to influence, especially if those organizations possess the ability to impact political or security decisions. In order to maintain the challenges of the political and security organization, the organization resorts, at the extreme levels of its reckless behavior, to harming the state's sovereignty over its territory and sacrificing the safety of its citizens and the unity of its territory. The Bolsheviks, in the Russian Federation, when their October Revolution erupted in 1917, abandoned vast areas of Russian territory in the west to Germany during World War I to ensure the success of their revolution in Moscow. Hezbollah in Lebanon, these days, in fighting in a battle that has no stake for Lebanon, we see them sacrificing hundreds of kilometers and their inhabitants, in support of a regional power, exposing the state's sovereignty and the safety of citizens to risks that Lebanon (the state) cannot withstand. Furthermore, the recklessness of the organization in managing its conflict with the state may be attributed to the state itself when it shows strategic weakness by allowing the organization to challenge its monopoly on power, and its inability to defend its sovereignty, territorial unity, and the safety of its citizens. At that point, the state loses its political rationality, transforming into a significant security and political burden.

The dominance of the organization over the state's resources is one of the most important indicators of the immaturity of the movement and values of the modern national state, in some "countries" that belong to the third world or developing countries or communities of growing states.