The marriage of money with power is a phrase that many politicians use to deter their opponents in political action. It is like a fixed rule, and there is no discussion about what can be drawn from the results of it all, which is associated with corruption. However, the marriage of money with power when used commonly as it benefits influence and corruption is the concept of violation of the operative statement that the marriage of poverty struggles with power benefits and sacrifice or uses any other meaning that lies in the marriage of money with power can result in absolute dictatorship, and the divorce of money from power can result in limited democracy (limited, because poverty is a psychological deterrent for those who exercise power). This possibility of interpreting the meaning, whether it is right or wrong for some, forces itself into the discussion and analysis of the meaning as an argument in political thought in general.
This use of the phrase must stand on the ideology of political schools using it as one of the controversial weapons (argument) to target money and businessmen entering political practice, and the main reason for this is money as a material authority that imposes itself in the main balances associated with any subject that is the subject of stumbling and discussion, which means that money is in (the inner part of its exercise of power) to be what comes next, and is associated with the substance of institutional relations that influences decision-making within the state, at the level of (the apparent meaning of its phrase, which is commonly known – authority -). This leads to a more general and better explanation to say, the marriage of power with power. Can this meaning be considered correct?
There is no difference of opinion between all the divine and man-made laws that money is the backbone of life and the elixir of its stability and permanence. The inner aspect of the people of money authority does not go beyond two levels: the first: a practical use by investing the material and moral components to recommend money and increase its abundance, and the second: a functional use that deliberately adopts a security approach. by using all possibilities to protect money. And both require the condition (means), so it is one of the internal projections on each goal to achieve it, or an act to justify it, the search for these means, and in most cases they are associated with the apparent power. The course of all this is regarded as a lawful right in terms of the nature of the causes applied, provided that the interests of others are not prejudiced.
The authority also considers procedural rules to be used as a coherent substance that mostly serves to simplify the procedures for achieving the objectives, with the legal guarantees associated with each objective separately.
Up to this point we have addressed the discussion section in accordance with the discourse of the maintenance theory (money = authority / authority = authority), and that the marriage of money with authority means the marriage of power with authority, and the argument of the marriage of money with authority does not deviate from the possibility of the four categories:
The first: the model that owns money and may own, and this model does not fall into two categories: a category that owns money and power and is dominated by the spirit of initiative that covers the general aspect in investing the profits to use it as a way to serve the country and cultivate the spirit of citizenship; This is what Morocco knew especially during the colonial era, and in what is relative in our time, where a group of families found their hand in the ruling institution to expel the colonizer and to serve the country and restructure the state in the spirit of citizenship, whether in an open or secret capacity. And a second category invested its relationship with the authority to protect its interests and exploit the transforming variables to gain more financial and authoritarian benefits, through the philosophy of (show what is hidden) and the tyranny of the narcissistic spirit use.
The second: The model that owns money and does not have power, and it is the model that is controlled by the language of numbers, by an increase in the rate of profit, production and financial expansion, and its authority is limited to what he has in his hands of contracting powers, which authorizes him to invest as an authority in opinion and decision, and these are also two categories: those who use their components Finance is an attempt by him to gain power in his capacity as a supervisor and enforcer, and whoever invests his money in weaving interest relationships with those who may possess to use it as a means of fulfilling his needs and interests under his care and supervision.
The third: The model that possesses power and does not have money, and that is the model that seeks to extend its control over everything that is allowed by the limitations of its validity in the exercise thereof, without restriction or condition, and they are two categories: whoever uses his authority in accordance with his rules of law and the moral ties he uses to extend his authority And whoever uses his authority to open the door for benefit that is incompatible with the spirit of morals and legal rules governing its area of competence, in the pursuit of expanding areas of authority as a practice, or in the pursuit of financial gain that enables the enhancement of the benefits of living in consumer systems.
Fourth: The model that has no money and may not own, and it is the model that is dependent on itself and society, and it is the one that is dominated by anticipation of the three cases, with reference to all verbal methods , in criticism, despair and the language of cursing.
The discussion of the marriage of money with power has also known work at all levels, especially those who work in politics, this employment that this rule deliberately invests as a postulate to political opponents who have the language of money in their personal lives, to strike, that is. , businessmen, where the nature of ideologies in this service differs. As a projection on the Islamic world, the Islamic current practicing politics almost claims that the dialectic of the marriage of money with power is the worst that can happen in political practice, referring to the biography of the Messenger, may God bless him and him gun. peace, for he was a man who built the state, but he was poor, and here we stand still for a moment of reflection. About this, by explaining that the Noble Messenger, may God’s prayers and peace be with him, was poor in the beginning, so God Almighty enriched him (and found you a family and became richer), and he said ( and to you were given the keys of the earth) without going into what God Almighty has set apart for him from the means that are all the elements of the universe. And that he was poor, according to the hadith narratives attributed to him, but the context was concerned with education and founding, that is, raising people to work as a role model, and educating people to to fit the system of Sunnahs and the challenges it creates. Apart from his special features, we will review the Sunan system on his biography, to see at the beginning of his message that the one who was the reason for including him (Zamlouni, Dethrouni) was his wife, Umma Khadija, who was the richest Arab woman at the time, and he was her trading partner. Likewise are the venerable companions, may God Almighty be pleased with them, Abu Bakr (one of the richest men of the Arabs) Othman bin Affan (one of the richest men of the Arabs) and his endowment is still to this day, and others. Therefore, we can not quote a matter that was peculiar to the Prophet, may God bless him and give him peace, and we work to overthrow it and destroy it in our time, to deceive people into the conviction of the corruption of comparing the marriage of money with authority religious.
There is a group that does not use the religious aspect, but its ideology, whether nationalist, left or otherwise, it accepts the corruption of the encounter of money with power; For according to her, money is a condition of equality, and that there is no class difference between people, and that what is obtained from money is the right of all, and that the combination of money and power is a combination of two means which often overshadowed by corruption. To expand power, or to use power to multiply money, or to use power to make money, and they have examples of this by quoting Joseph Kennedy the father who bought the White House for his son the president, or Cheney, Berlusconi, the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds, Yulia Tymoshenko, the billionaire prime minister, Secretary Belinda Billionaire Stronach, Aristotle Onassis, Billionaire Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatara, Khodorkovsky and many others; But these are postulates that are validated by the rule (measure by the existence of the difference) because the scientific method requires talking about the context, the specific scope of events, the nature of the components of the event in its place and area, and about the nature and history of people associated with the money industry and access to the world of power in terms of temporal and spatial circumstances.
In general, the discussion of the marriage of money with power is a measure that has died politically in the literature of high and developed countries seeking to advance their countries to the ranks of the world, and the power of money in the era of globalization is the open market, which drives moneymen to expand the circle of their power without limiting the latter in the geographical field to which they belong.
So it’s not a shame to invest money in a healthy power building; But all the error is that the power is invested in the looting of money.