Assassinating political figures may seem highly efficient, especially in the context of a political leader's authority, where eliminating a few individuals may be relatively straightforward. However, why is it discouraged to dispatch individuals to kill opposing leaders (especially when opposing parties have similar or equivalent military power)?
There might be several reasons for this:
- Disruption of Political Ecosystem: Assassination actions disrupt the equilibrium of the political ecosystem, rendering the political environment more tense and unstable. For instance, during the reign of Emperor Jing of Han, Prince Liang, Liu Wu, sought to eliminate his political rivals through assassination. However, the assassination plot became widely known, and almost all ministers opposed the idea of fratricide. Ultimately, Liu Wu met his demise within a few years.
- Facilitation of Greater Ideological Dissemination: Assassination actions, by violating commonly accepted moral and ethical norms in society, often evoke sympathy for the victim among the majority of people. This can lead to a wider dissemination of the victim's ideas in the public sphere, potentially threatening the reputation of one's own camp. For instance, after the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, his ideology and principles gained broader recognition and acceptance.
- Instigation of Political Turmoil: The ultimate goal of politicians is to smoothly gain the highest authority in the nation, but this is achievable only in a stable society. For example, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. led to widespread riots in the United States.
- Disruption of International Relations: If an assassination targets a foreign leader, it can potentially lead to international conflicts. For instance, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary in 1914 triggered World War I.
- Intensification of Political Opposition: Assassinations can often unite political opponents and solidify their resistance. For instance, after an unsuccessful attempt on Lenin's life, the Bolshevik party became more internally cohesive (though partly out of necessity) and could potentially lead to retaliatory actions. During the Vietnam War, the assassination of South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem did not resolve conflicts between North and South Vietnam but instead led to further instability and increased American involvement in the war.
- Inability to Address Fundamental Issues: Assassination cannot resolve political divisions and conflicts at their core. For instance, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 did not resolve the pressing issues of racial tensions and the Cold War, but instead complicated them further, sparking a series of social and political upheavals.
- Impact on Historical Evaluation: If a politician uses or encourages the use of assassination methods, their historical legacy may be negatively affected. For instance, during Julius Caesar's rule in ancient Rome, his political opponent Brutus was involved in an assassination plot against him. While Brutus may have believed it was for the greater good of Rome, this action complicated his historical evaluation. On one hand, he was seen as a brave republican, but on the other, he was considered a traitor and murderer. This is why astute politicians do not encourage the use of assassination methods to deal with political opponents, as it may have adverse effects on their historical assessment.
In summary, as a means to address political opponents, assassination not only fails to solve the fundamental problems but also may lead to a series of negative consequences, including legal repercussions, heightened political animosity, loss of public support, and potential retaliation. These are the reasons why skilled politicians do not encourage the use of assassination methods to resolve political disputes. Instead, they understand that the true solution lies in dialogue (including conspiratorial discussions), negotiation, and cooperation to handle political divisions and conflicts, rather than resorting to violence and death. This approach not only aligns better with legal and ethical principles but also promotes long-term peace and stability.