[Essay] Is the Politics of Sentiment Permissible? | "Separation of Public and Private" and the Ethics of Leadership as Seen in Duke Huan of Qi and President Takaichi

What Lies Between Sentiment and Ethics

In the world of politics, personnel decisions are likely among the most difficult judgments to make. Especially for those at the center of power, deciding "who to promote and who to dismiss" is not merely a matter of placement, but a mirror reflecting the person's own ethical standards.
The recent personnel appointments within the LDP executive have also drawn attention for prioritizing "indebtedness" and "degree of contribution." Placing individuals who worked hard for one's own candidacy into key positions might seem like a natural act politically. However, can that truly be called a "public" judgment?

Looking back at history, there is an extremely symbolic example regarding this question. It is the anecdote from the Spring and Autumn period of ancient China, where Duke Huan of Qi, a hegemon of his time, appointed Guan Zhong—who had once attempted to take his life—as his prime minister. That decision, which transcended personal resentment to prioritize the public interest, has been passed down for over two thousand years as a "political masterstroke."
On the other hand, in modern politics, it appears that indebtedness and sentiment still influence the criteria for judgment. The right or wrong of "sentiment" in public personnel decisions—is this not a fundamental question that asks how we understand the "public" and the "private"?

The Separation of Public and Private and the Difficulty of Political Virtue

First, why are personnel decisions based on indebtedness considered a problem?
In human society, the act of repaying a debt of gratitude is instinctive and is considered to have a certain moral value. Concepts such as "repaying kindness" in Confucian ethics and the Japanese value of "giri-ninjo" (duty and humanity) have been affirmed as essential for maintaining the cohesion of a community. However, when that ethics is brought into the public sphere, a structural contradiction arises.

The purpose of a public organization lies not in the interests of a specific individual or faction, but in the realization of ideals and the public good. Therefore, judgments within an organization should follow rational criteria—not "to whom I am indebted," but "who is the most suitable." In this respect, personal sentiment and the repayment of favors become incompatible with organizational principles.

To understand this issue, it is necessary to return to the basic principle of political philosophy: the "separation of public and private." In ancient Greece, Aristotle stated in his "Politics" that "the purpose of the polis is to live well." There, it was considered ideal for individual virtue (arete) and public virtue to coincide. However, in the state systems since the modern era, the structure has shifted to one where systems and rationality are prioritized over individual virtue or emotion. Machiavelli wrote in "The Prince" that "a good ruler does not necessarily need to be a good person," presenting a political realism that values results over morality.

From this perspective, Duke Huan of Qi's decision can be considered extremely realistic. He transcended personal resentment and sentiment to appoint the most capable person as prime minister in order to strengthen the state. It can be said that political reason was at work, suppressing the "private" self as a ruler and upholding the "public."

In contrast, much of modern politics follows the opposite path. Loyalty within the party, support, and factional contributions become the axes of evaluation, and as a result, a "structure where relationships are prioritized over ability" is preserved. Politically speaking, this is a typical case of "patronage" (cronyism) and can be called the root of institutional fatigue. When an organization is operated by human relationships rather than ideals, that community gradually becomes privatized and loses its public nature.

Admittedly, even if "judgment for the public" is the ideal in theory, it is not so simple in reality. If one were to completely eliminate indebtedness and sentiment, there is a risk of losing political support and having the very foundation of one's leadership collapse. This dilemma is precisely what demonstrates the difficulty of political virtue. A balance between ethical ideals and practical management is constantly required.

From this viewpoint, the challenge in modern politics is not "to have no sentiment," but to possess the "intelligence to keep sentiment outside of the system." In other words, it is necessary to establish, both institutionally and culturally, the principle that feelings of personal gratitude and repayment should be completed in the private sphere and never brought into public judgment.

In the era of Duke Huan of Qi, the decision to appoint Guan Zhong was not merely a matter of magnanimity, but an "expression of reason that transcended the individual." Is it not the case that similar reason is required in modern society as well? Rather than denying gratitude or sentiment, the mental maturity to consciously control them and prioritize the public good—this is considered to be the condition for true leadership.

For Gradual Reform Through Reason

The modern political structure is in a situation where it is difficult to say that a complete separation of public and private has been achieved. In many organizations, indebtedness, sentiment, and factional loyalty still hold influence, and the reality is that "to whom one has served" is the evaluation criterion rather than ideals or ability. Nevertheless, if one were to deny this all at once, there is a danger that the system itself would trigger a rejection reaction and the reformer themselves would be excluded. Therefore, practical wisdom is thought to lie in choosing gradual reform through reason, rather than radical destruction.

Eliminating private sentiment is not a form of cold-heartedness, but rather a form of sincerity. Even if repaying a debt of gratitude is a virtue, the moderation of not bringing it into the "public arena" becomes the final barrier to protecting public nature. Political maturity is nothing other than having the intelligence to distinguish between emotion and reason and to take the optimal balance according to the situation, rather than speaking loudly about ideals.

What the story of Duke Huan of Qi shows is not an ancient anecdote, but a principle of governing ethics that still lives on today. Repaying a debt of gratitude and upholding the public interest. Not leaning toward one or the other, but maintaining the distance between the two through reason—is that not the only way to ensure that organizations and nations survive for a long time?