No political decision is irreversible. There is a hierarchy in many countries of how firmly something can be enshrined which in descending order would go like this

- inclusion in a written constitution

- inclusion in an unwritten constitution (as in the UK)

- primary legislation

- secondary legislation

However, another powerful way of looking at this is how can policies be embedded outside of legislation e.g.

- by long term capital investment that is very hard to reverse e.g. nuclear power stations, airports, high speed rail; and which cannot be re-purposed

- by changing the way the market in a country functions

- by changing culture and practice

In reality these methods are probably more effective for most issues.

What makes a political decision definite and irreversible is whether this decision is the red line of that country or the other country. If a politician has made a decision along the red line of his own country and the country has taken the visible step, its return is almost impossible. He also made a decision that was in his own interest, but if it was the red lines of another country, it would be very difficult to go back. In domestic affairs, the political party programs usually indicate red lines and act accordingly. However, these red lines do not always cover the whole society. In this case, chaos may occur. So one's indispensable may be the ordinary of others. Both domestic and foreign affairs should be very careful in making decisions and taking the first step. It is the fate of the irrevocable politician or the country.

Dear Andrew,

thank you for your inspiring answer.

Well, I think your first sentence is a daring thesis: You stated all decisions are reversible. Are they really, always? - I think we should take the nature, physics and chemistry as an example which says there are reversible and irreversible processes. Same seems to be true for history and social processes …

But with your further text you come much closer to just this position: You described methods how to sanction and confirm power positions to secure a political decision and social change. With this, I agree completely.

From social history we know a lot of cruelties. Among them (or may-be all?) are actions to stabilize a social structure or balance. The most radical of them might have been the holocaust, i.e. the attempt to de-Jew Europe by their extinction to come to a pure-Aryan society.

This approach of killing people to reach a power goal, by this to enforce a decision, can also be found in revolutionary situations or processes. The Kulaks had to be killed because their bourgeois existence frighted the Bolshewiks. In China similar actions took place under Mao.

You mentioned technical and financial means to strengthen wanted structures. I this is an important aspect. Could you tell more examples together with the relevant epoches?

Myself, I am specially interested in the more subtle means to delegitimize adversaries. What about those means in the range from intended ignorance up to harassment, intimidation and defamation? Methods to isolate one's enemies and keep the power?

Dear Mehmet,

thank you for you interesting answer.

We both agree in the existence of (some, more or less) „irreversible decisions“ - … but could you define your „red lines“ in politics more precisely?

I think we (me too) have a feeling of the inevitability of a number of social actions, but we do hard always explaining why. If you could try to state more, I would really appreachiate this …

Dear Hermann,

do you mean the Americans wouldn't come back again to Afghanistan? - Or that the Taliban now will keep their country strictly for their own and make it irreversibly safe against foreign invasion? - The Americans have been so easy with invasions (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) ... Do you think they will now stay at home and be more realistic for ever, irreversibly?