Thursday, May 31, 2012

Machiavelli Then and Now


Though The Prince was written several centuries ago, it is still relevant in modern times even when monarchies no longer exist as a primary form of government. According to Machiavelli, in other for a state to be successful and stable, a prince has to posses several qualities which make him admired by both the people and his army. The Prince must act in the interest of his people; in modern times, a President or leader also strives to work in the interest of his people. It is often necessary or in his best interest to have military knowledge, questionable moral and must prioritize domestic affairs above foreign ones.
Military knowledge is useful in discerning war strategies used in previous wars or used by the opposing country. According to Machiavelli, it is often advantageous for a leader to be able to navigate war plans and predict an opponent’s moves. It also grants the leader credibility and respect from his armies, since he has experience and can extrapolate decisions made then into the current situation. In the modern day, we often send spies to monitor activities in target countries and although this is frowned upon by society, it has saved the country several costly wars and terrorist attacks. Also, I agree with the author about a leader having a knowledgeable adviser or counsel. This is seen in the president’s circle as the personnel often advise the President on political decisions. Since the leader’s decisions affect the public, a bad one such as going to war unprepared may create a hazardous relationship with the people.
It is agreed that a leader or Prince’s moral is different from that of an average man. This is based upon the fact that however distrustful he acts, is in the benefit of the people. They often deal with uncomfortable decisions such as assassinations, spying and working with the enemy for the betterment of the people. The situation then was different than now. Then, a Prince often had to assassinate rivals in other to stay in power, now a leader had to assassinate an individual who poses a threat to the society. The assassination of Osama bin Laden last year was thought to have led to a reduction of the number of recruits in the al Qaeda terrorist organization. Yet this decision was not made lightly as it was thought to have broached some serious allegations of human rights violation. But above all a Leader who prioritizes domestic affairs over foreign ones is often loved and revered. Although Nicolo Machiavelli wrote this book, several centuries ago, when wars broke out often, some of the traits needed for a good leadership can still be seen in effect in modern day politics.

2 comments:

  1. The connection to spying and the bin Laden assassination made me think about the necessity, or lack thereof, of some of the policies such as the Patriot Act. At what point is something like this simply a breach of civil rights, rather than a necessary measure for the safety of the constituency?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I definitely agree that the points that Machiavelli makes are still very relevant to ruling a nation in modern times. Leaders must be judged from different morals than individuals because they need to make controversial decisions for the interest of their nation that breach society’s moral codes. As you mentioned with the assassination of Osama bin Laden and as William mentioned with the Patriot Act. Many of these decisions made by the leader on behalf of the nation receive major backlash from the citizens due to the infringement of civil rights and human rights. It is very difficult to distinguish the difference between citizens having to give up some rights for the common good of the whole nation or the government just simply violating civil rights in situations such as the Patriot Act. But Machiavelli believed that if the leader is acting for the protection of domestic affairs against internal or external forces, then the violation of civil rights and moral codes is justifiable. Based on this and Machiavelli’s theory, I believe that spying and the Patriot Act are justified as measures of protection by the government for the people.

    ReplyDelete