Ideology is a term that was coined in the 1796 by Antonie Destutt de Tracy. It refers to a group of beliefs and values held by individuals over others that is purely theoretical. Over time ideology has grown to attract a whole array of definitions (Pombeni, 2006) . For instance, Louis Althusser defines ideology as the imaginary existence of things as opposed to the real existence of things. Another version of the definition includes the one developed by Karl Marx's. He adopts a corrupt form of the definition from that characterized the ideologues form of Napoleon's rule that was ironically adopted by Napoleon Bonaparte and criticized for being “A fish blooded bourgeois doctrine." The definition of ideology has however been refined to refer to become neutral. It is devoid of the original class struggle and forms a crucial part for the governmental institution functioning, mass administration and social integration (Dahan, 2018). According to Pombeni 2006), the governments of the twentieth century have refined the term ideology to mean two classical forms of governance that involve gaining popular confidence and the prediction of peoples future political problems based on belief and values even without a concrete plan of solving them . Ideology is important because it guides people in the formulation of policies, and facilitates the institution of chance. It also allows peoples true opinion to be incorporated in the political leadership and it can be intergraded with other tools of governance to make a more superior tool.
Importance of Ideology for the Society and the State
Ideology plays a fundamental role in shaping societies. It guides people when creating creates policies that govern their economy, politics, and societal interactions through its values and beliefs. Ideology has various essential facets that enable its application in governance. Its facets are; its allowance of the population and society to be governed by true public opinion. It also allows the institution of change, and guides administration on the formulation of policies (Dahan, 2018; Pombeni, 2006 ). The diverse application makes is a preferred toll of governing the masses as compare to other tools of government.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
A discussion points out that the ideology is a set of rules, believes and values that influence a society. One of the primary importances of ideology is that it allows the people of a society to be governed by their real opinion. It is the wish of the people to be governed by policies that they have contributed to during their formulation. The public participating in the formulation of policy influences that ability of the policies to address their problems directly. However, the misuse of ideologies sometimes allows leaders manipulate the honest views of society to fit the ideology being championed by a regime. Nonetheless, revolutionary leaders can champion the interests of the leader overriding any possible corruption of their true opinion (Pombeni, 2006) . Leadership that comes from within the people is more likely to solve their problem.
Another importance of ideology to the society and the state is to institute change. Different political leaders have different ideologies. However, the differences in the ideologies enable the leadership regimes of the society and state to institute change through the change from one administration to the other. A typical example is democratic societies. T he members may choose to elect their political leaders based on a preferred manifesto. The preferred manifesto must demonstrate that its ideology is in line with the view held by a majority of individuals in society. Such elections instances enable the society to either retain leadership that has revised its ideology to suit their needs or vote them out or elect a team of new leaders that have formulated a manifesto that is in line with their needs.
Another application of ideology is the formulation of the policies that govern a nation. Over time various regimes need to formulate policies that either react to the prevailing problems or are proactive to the problems that the population foresees. As such, the state formulates policies that enable the society and state handle the problems. The formulations of the policies are mainly influenced by the ideology held by the current government. The ideologies can also provide a road map that determines the overall path the development of the country will take. It therefore addresses both long term and short terms need of the society.
Finally, Ideology is self-aligning. It enables the society eliminate extinct belief. Though some philosophers argue that the changing of the ideological thinking is challenging due its entrenchment in the prevailing values and belief as opposed to scientific evidence, mechanisms of ideology can be self-governing. For example, societies that hold result oriented ideologies. In instances, when the members of the society fail to achieve the expected result out of an ideology, they query either the ideology itself or how it has implemented. In such instances, some factors such as the belief in results remain constant, but the aspect of how the ideology attains the result is corrected to address the impending need. Therefore the ideology undergoes a partial amendment that is self-aligning to the people expectation.
Why the State Has Embraced Ideology in Governing the Mass
Some of the fundamental reasons many governments and societies currently utilize ideology in governing the masses include; its ability to be integrated into other tools of governance, its provision of a link between the leadership and the members of the society and its flexibility in terms of selective amendments (Pombeni, 2006) . The presented strengths make ideology a preferred tool of government when dealing with the mass
It has been observed that the ideology has been integrated into various forms of governance to form a hybrid tool of government such as the economic ideology, political ideology, educational ideology, and social ideology among others. Whereas one ideology can be associated with one group, the other aspects can be associated with another. Furthermore, the integration allows the combination of subjective and objective policies. Whereas the mass is emotionally attached to the subjective believes and values of the ideology, the objective information is scientifically proven and stabilizes the ideology making it address the concern of the mass realistically.
In the governance of the mass, it is easier to use a tool that the mass can associate with as compared to forcing ideas on them. In the formulation of ideology, many leaders use public participation. As such, members of the public provide their views. The leadership then refines the presented views before formulating an ideology. Some of the policies that address the prevailing problems of the people can be adopted as they were presents. In other instances, the mass looks for a person who can champion their ideology without modification. It makes the mass feel part of the policies and the ideology in general. Therefore, the governance of the mass is when ideologies that they can associate with are used (Sherr, 2013).
The governing of the mass using an ideology also offers excellent flexibility in terms of its selective amendment. Whereas a particular group of people may fault a specific aspect of an ideology, its change involves working on the specific faulted aspect. Therefore, it encourages a collaborative way of selectively amending sections of the ideology. The refinement enhances the participation of the mass in the formulation of the ideology, their association with the ideology and makes them promote what the ideology champions. As such, it is easy for the government to use the resultant ideology its governance.
Comparison of Ideology and Coercion
Coercion and ideology are both governance tools that can be adopted by a state or a society. Whereas ideology is centered on championing a set of beliefs and values, coercion base on forceful control of the society. In essence, coercion involves the society’s leadership putting in place instruments that constrain and punish as opposed to supporting cooperative behavior. Ideology can be used to promote either an enabling approach or a coercive approach. However, according to research, its participatory nature allows the enabling approach of societal governance to dominate. As such, it compares to the coercion in the following way (Sherr, 2013) .
Ideology gives room for the proliferation of opportunistic ideas in governance. The ruling political leaders spent most of its time handling different view and aligning them to the ideology of those governing society. A good example is in case of a democratic type of leadership. Even though the election of leaders with an ideology that has majority support governs the society and state, the less popular ideologies are still championed by the leaders in opposition. As such, the implementation of the ideology of the ruling regime faces challenges that include opposition during the implementation of policies. Some of the opposition ideas are opportunistic because they are politically instigated and serve no benefit to society a case that can do not manifest coercion is used. Therefore ideology gives a larger change to uncertainty as compared to coercion hence makes leaders always keen to embrace change .
The use of coercion as a tool of governance, on the other hand, instigates discipline. It features rule over the society as opposed to rule with the society that is witnessed in ideology. Leadership manages the expectation of every aspect of governance and society as a whole. Those that do not abide by the set policies and regulation are either coerced to conform to the expectation or punished. Its implementation enhances certainty within the leadership regime. If the coercion approach is aligned to benefit the members of the society it achieves, accelerated development. However, in most instances where it is used, it serves the interest of a few individuals that force their leadership on the society. The society is, therefore, deprived the benefit that coercion has over ideology as a tool of governance (Sherr, 2013) .
Comparison of Ideology and Economic
Economic governance refers to the reliance on the societal constructs that manages the market dynamics through interventions. It is arguably a new phenomenon for the economic or societal economic performance to be the responsibility of the government or even being a tool of governance. However, with the advance in time, especially in the twenty-first-century economists have established that the government can play a vital role in shaping the economy of the society. Some of the strategies being advocated include the development of fiscal policies, monetary policies, adoption of Keynesian economics and supply-side economics. Some of the significant similarities of ideology and economics as tools of government are that they seek to address the problem of society (Johnston, 2018) .
However, the two tools differ in their establishment. Whereas ideology is based on subjective believes and values, economics are based on objective information. As such, the government and society put in place economic measures based on facts and proven theories. Another distinct difference is that the economic policies emanate from the government institution that is equipped with experts in the specific field as opposed to ideologies that either come from the leadership of the members of the society (Sherr, 2013) .
Current trends of governance have however seen the combination of the two tools, of governance to form a more powerful tool called economic ideology. The essence of the combination is to utilize the objective and subjective information championed by the two tools. It, therefore, seeks to meet the emotional need of the ideologist as well as the objective need of the technocrats. Realization of both goals enhances governance positively (Johnston, 2018) .
Comparison of Ideology and Propaganda
Propaganda is a tool in leadership that is implemented through the sharing of non-objective information to influence a specific perception. The information can be false or have selective truth that is keenly grouped to have a specific impact on the recipient. It has been used as one of the most powerful tools in leadership. Some researchers credit the world war on it. The strength of propaganda is derived from its psychological effect on the emotions of the recipients. Although there are no direct links of psychological theories to propaganda it is catastrophic to analyze is without a psychological consideration as witnessed by the Germans in World War II (Gullace, 2011) .
From the discussion above on propaganda, it is evident that it has some similarities with ideology. The first common aspect of propaganda and ideology is that they are based on non-objective information. The earlier discussion of ideology indicated that ideology is based on non-scientific information. It means that an individual can choose to promote their views or believes, popularize it, and it has an effect on individuals. The same applies to propaganda (Nagel, 2004) .
Secondly, propaganda in most cases seeks to address long term effects on the people. Once propaganda has been put across, it is highly rallied. The target group champions the propaganda further after it has obtained the desired emotional effect. As such, it has a long term effect on society. The ideology, on the other hand, can also have a long term effect. Some of the best examples are the ideologies that are result-oriented. Whereas the lack of delivering the desirable results amount to a self-regulation process, the means of implementing the policies stated by ideology are reviewed, but its basis remains to have a long term effect on the society. It is also worth noting that one's ideology can hardly change just like the recipient of the propaganda hardly changes or doubts the information obtained from the propaganda (Nagel, 2004) .
Despite the similarities, one of the significant differences between ideology and propaganda is that propaganda is used in war. The level of war differs. However, it involves an individual or society fighting against another society or individual. Ideology, on the other hand, can be enabling or coercive. As such, it is used by both the leadership and the members of the society. It is also important to note that in most cases propaganda seeks the influence of one party over the other. Therefore, the information instigates action that is not from the source of the propaganda (Nagel, 2004) .
Ideology has been widely adopted across different platforms as compared to propaganda because it can be intergraded into other tools. Ideology is effective when combined with other governing tool. It however does not fit when combined with propaganda. Similarly propaganda has no known record of being combined with other governing tool. The difference makes ideology a tool of choice in the governance of the public, propaganda mostly features in military leadership.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this essay discusses ideology as a tool of government by focusing on its importance for the society and the state, why the government uses it in the governance of masses, its comparison with other government governing tools that include propaganda, coercion, and economic, and its effectiveness in mass application. Ideology has different importance that includes enabling the members of the society to participate in leadership through the formulation of the ideology, enabling the leadership to institute chance; it is self-realigning and enabled the formulation of policies. It is therefore important in the governance of the mass because they can easily associate with it and can effect partial or complete amendments. The tool compares to other tools such as propaganda, coercion, and economics by sharing similarities and differences. It is similar to propaganda because they are both based on subjective information and are aimed to provide a long term effect. It, however, differs because ideology can be used constructively. On the other hand, it differs with economic because economic is objective as opposed to the subjective ideology. It can, however, be combined to form a powerful governance tool. Finally, it differs with coercion because coercion champion leading on people whereas ideology leading with people. Ideology is, however, a widely adopted leadership toll and with the current integration with objective tools enhances its success. The advantages of ideology clearly explain why it has gained application in public governance across the nation. Although it has its negative sides, concentration on its merit is likely to enhance the success of public governance.
References
Dahan, Y. (2018). Community-based organizations motivated by religious ideology as a driving force behind shaping urban governance: The Israeli case. Politics, Religion & Ideology , 1-30. doi: 10.1080/21567689.2018.1554478
Gullace, N. (2011). Allied Propaganda and World War I: Interwar Legacies, Media Studies, and the Politics of War Guilt. History Compass , 9 (9), 686-700. doi: 10.1111/j.1478-0542.2011.00798.x
Johnston, C. (2018). Authoritarianism, Affective Polarization, and Economic Ideology. Political Psychology , 39 , 219-238. doi: 10.1111/pops.12483
Nagel, C. (2004). Propaganda, Ideology, and Perceptual Critique. Glimpse , 6 , 51-59. doi: 10.5840/glimpse200469
Pombeni, P. (2006). Ideology and government. Journal Of Political Ideologies , 11 (1), 61-76. doi: 10.1080/13569310500395933
Sherr, J. (2013). Hard Diplomacy and Soft Coercion: Russia's Influence Abroad . London: Chatham House.
