I think that only a very little percentage of people have moral standards that are internalized enough to keep them when in power. This percent is probably the same as the one that is ready to refuse to obey authority in situations such as this:
Milgram experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This percent concerns people who have arrived at a higher state of morality as defined by the psychologist Kohlberg (
Kohlberg's stages of moral development) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. They no longer see morality as relative and internalize universal principles. I think absolute power corrupts because such a few percent of people have actually internalized ethical principles and are ready to risk their a) security, b) image, c) relations with others and d) self interest for it.
Assessing a person's morality should be a prerequisite to deciding if that person is fit to handling power. Only people who have attained this state will be able to be relied upon for exercizing "absolute" power:
In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and that a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws. Rights are unnecessary as social contracts are not essential for deontic moral action. Decisions are not met hypothetically in a conditional way but rather categorically in an absolute way (see Immanuel Kant's 'categorical imperative'[13]). This can be done by imagining what one would do being in anyone's shoes, who imagined what anyone would do thinking the same (see John Rawls's 'veil of ignorance'[14]). The resulting consensus is the action taken. In this way action is never a means but always an end in itself; one acts because it is right, and not because it is instrumental, expected, legal or previously agreed upon. While Kohlberg insisted that stage six exists, he had difficulty finding participants who consistently used it. It appears that people rarely if ever reach stage six of Kohlberg's model.[11]
While a philosopher might debate that this stance does not make sense, I think it is necessary in order to exercize fair power. Somebody who has attained such a high stage of development is in fact a rebel to society, because his principles commit him to disobeying unjust laws in favor of higher principles. Ironically, the person the most fit for handling power and with the most integrity is at risk for being outcasted by his social group at an early stage for going against the grain.
The paradox of power is that the ones the most likely to attain it are the ones less likely to exercize it properly. It takes qualities contrary to exercizing fair power to attain it. To get power nowadays, one must be ready to be political and to manipulate others. However, a person with true integrity always rubs at least some people the wrong way which prevents his progress.
The Lord of the Rings shows this very well. The only one apt at handling the ring is the one that seemed the most unfit to handling power... It is the one ready to fight for his principles, to a point where he seemed "stupid" by others for doing so.
Truly ethical behavior will often be considered as stupid by so called "intelligent" people. I am the most wary of people who consider themselves intelligent and see morality as relative. Those are generally the sharks that will manipulate circumstances and excuse their behavior with apparently rational thinking.