In many systems it seems, paradoxically, to be the case that only rulers/managers generally opposed to a certain development can actually execute it.
- In my old pre-school district of Gentofte, traditionally highly conservative, they are now using freakish therapy techniques on young school children.
- In Danish politics, large welfare cuts have almost always been executed by left-wing governments.
- In Israeli politics, only hardliners (often former generals) have stood much of a chance of convincing the Israeli people that the decision to surrender land is tenable.
I suppose you only trust the integrity of rulers when they are seen to work against their supposed “interests”. Wonder if this phenomenon has some fancy name…
Oh, I just thought of a nice Machievellian variation: In the (poor) movie The Siege Bruce Willis is a gun-happy general. He’s in a meeting with the chiefs of staff (of whoever) and they are debating whether to send the army into New York City. Willis, looking sincere, comments: “I urge you to reconsider. The army is a broadsword, not a scalpel”. To which someone replies “That is exactly why you are the man for the job”.
Quoted from memory.