It was really interesting to read "The Prince" which I have always heard about as being one of the most influential text among the books that discuss issues of politic and power. Before I read this book, I have already heard about this book through my high school teacher, who summarized it in one sentence what Machiavelli was trying to say, which is "power must lie dominantly in the hands of the ruler." Until I read "The Prince" on my own, I accepted his summary as what the book was about, but interestingly enough, when I finished reading, I realized that this book, written about 500 years ago, is not about dictatorial rule or absolute power, but a book about democracy.
Just taken at the face value, Machiavelli outlines his advice for ruling a principality, which in Italy's case is in the form of city state most of the time. There are 4 things that I want to mention in his passage. Firstly, he emphasizes virtu, which is the leader's strength, as the most important trait of a leader, which is reflected when he says in page 35 "... a ruler who is strong and bold will always be able to overcome such difficulties." Secondly, we can see how he places importance in achieving stability and peace, as it was mentioned during our debate on Thursday, as well as on page 51 where Machiavelli states" so a ruler ought not to mind the disgrace of being called cruel, if he keeps his subjects peaceful and law-abiding." Thirdly, he believes that rulers had to pick between being feared and loved, they should choose fear, which is reflected on page 51, "I maintain it is much safer to be feared than loved." Lastly, and most importantly, he places emphasis on having the people's support whether you are a dictator or a citizen-leader.
Although our debate team agreed that Machiavelli's statements were time-bound and limited to that era, I believe there are some fundamental aspects, which includes the four mentioned above, that are not the case. Moreover, I agree with Professor Jackson's comment that what Machiavelli was saying is that everything is contextual - everything changes according to the environment, but interesting enough, the four aspects mentioned above do not fall in to this category.
The emphasis on the skills of the leader is still important in today's politics; a leader who doesn't have the ability to pull together his cabinet and exercise the executive's power (of course, this is assuming a democratic regime, but it may apply to any other regimes) will more likely swayed by the public opinion and international pressures, thus resulting in the loss of some degree of autonomy. The weakness of a leader is not likely lead to the destruction of that country, but it definitely will have an impact on the country as a whole. For example, we could talk about the current Iraqi government, which lacks power and authority because of the weak executive power, which we may equate with the term "prince" or "ruler."
Secondly, achieving stability and peace is a major goal of any government and any ruler. Obviously, Machiavelli takes it too far, in my opinion, so as to state that any means is necessary only if you could achieve stability, but his main point, that the ruler should bring about stability, applies to current new and old regimes, as it applied to city states back then.
Thirdly, rulers choosing between being feared and loved. Let's define ruler in Machiavelli's term to mean the government in the modern society. I think that the fear Machiavelli is talking about is different from fear of the ruler in the modern sense, but I believe they are basically the same concept. Today, we don't have to be afraid that the president is just going to pick random people to execute as to promote fear, but the presence of law, severe penalties, and the simple fear that the government can basically try to carry out methods that will alter our ways of lives fall in the category of fear. It is not blatant, but the fear of the ruler = government is still there, and without the fear of government, we are more likely to fall into anarchy, which is a little bit away from peace and stability that Machiavelli promotes.
Lastly, Machiavelli continues to mention throughout his book the need for "support of the people." This is interesting in that he advocates absolute power, and power centralized in one ruler, yet he emphasizes the population. Whether it is a tyrant or a republican type of government chosen by the people, without the support of the people that regime is likely to fall, which is very similar to the idea of democracy. Of course, it is not the same; in Machiavelli's sense, ordinary population do not take direct part in politics, but by emphasizing the point that rulers, whoever they maybe, need the people's support is similar to the basic idea of democracy, which is that power lies in the hands of the people.
I really enjoyed reading Machiavelli, and although these four points mentioned above are my thoughts on reading this book, I believe there are plenty of room for criticism and I more than welcome any criticism that can persuade me otherwise on those points. Moreover, after having read Machiavelli, I am inspired to take a look at the political books from back then, which are famous in scholarly circles, such as Thomas Hobbes' "The Leviathan" and Rousseau's Social Contract.
No comments:
Post a Comment