Politicians in other countries do not necessarily tell the truth about where they stand or what they are going to do. Politicians often do not take a position even with the intent of sticking to it, let alone because it is in the public interest. Politicians need, first and foremost, to make deals and cut bargains for everyone who counts.
So I look at the various ways politicians can and do make arrangements with each other in a given society. For example, hyperinflation is one of our most important indicators of serious trouble brewing. For one thing, it is a symptom of lack of resolve - and hence credibility - among politicians: they overspend to please their allies of the moment and then try to hide the damage by printing money. Also, people do not trust the government's promises to end inflation (as would be shown in their indexing wages, prices, etc., which enhances [though it doesn't cause] the inflationary spiral). Finally, a state of affairs in which prices rise rapidly is one in which they rise very unevenly as well. In such a marketplace, relying on today's input price/output price pattern as any indication of the profits or losses one may incur tomorrow is foolish...so businesses rely on barter more and more...and commerce becomes both heavily localized and more and more out of reach of government. All this hinders arrangements politicians can make to give economic advantage to various groups in the market, while the market itself is too unstable to provide any foundation for a laissez-faire polity (which dispenses with such bargains and maintains stability through a constitutional rule of law).
All these things mean that people know that politicians cannot say things and have them stick. But politicians cannot survive that way - their livelihood is built around saying things and having people stick by them. A politician is much like a stockbroker...including the fact that one's word is one's bond. In turn, one's bond is one's livelihood.
Politicians, like everyone else, will not give up their livelihoods without a fight. If they cannot retain their credibility by ordinary means, they will regain it by extraordinary ones: policies that may not have a steak's chance in a den full of starving tigers of "succeeding," but which will show that that their makers will not be moved to change, no matter what. Such policies may be so far out of bounds as to seem "crazy," because a policy that was within the normal realm of expectations can change just a little bit and not be noticed. The politicians want to be noticed as people who will not change under pressure, so they will choose policies so far away from the norm that any changes would be instantly noticed.
Such policies may seem irrational, because they may result in a serious military defeat for the country, or international isolation, or perhaps widespread poverty, even famine. But a politician cares about Number One, and how Number One fares in front of the relatively few people who can actually remove him (and who probably do not care any more than he does what happens to the populace).
There are many things which can cause political problems for foreign policy-makers, and for businesses and others abroad. But I think one of the most important - and all too neglected - is the lack of political credibility.
What do you think? Send me your comments at jdeutsch@rabidtigers.com.