 |
Can Machiavelli's "Advice" Help Current Pressing Issues?
In Machiavelli’s book, The Prince, he writes to Francesco Vettori concerning his experiences with other rules in the area. I believe that most of the advice that Machiavelli gave has some validity to it. However, that only pertains to his time since priorities are much different now. An example of Machiavelli’s belief is that various rulers “who relies least on luck has the best prospect of success” (18). Such rules are Alexander the Great, Cyrus, Moses, Romulus, and Theseus. I agree with this statement because if you, a ruler, prove that you can acquire territory and the people without being relying on luck, then it proves that you are a skillful leader. However, in current-day politics, it is not quite the same. Since our world is more developed than 16th century Europe, world leaders need both skill and luck. Also, nowadays, countries are not seizing land rather than maintain diplomacy. For instance, with all of the erratic events, a slight decision can create a turmoil of events; hence, luck is a significant factor in current-day politics.
Another point that Machiavelli makes is that “states that spring up overnight, like all other things in nature that are born and grow in a hurry, cannot have their roots deep in the soil, so they shrivel up in the first drought, blow over in the first storm” (21). This is similar to the saying that “Rome ne fut pas faite toute en un jour.” Hence, rulers cannot immediately enforce their desires on newly acquired land for it will drastically fail. For instance, if the United States rapidly decides that there needs to be an affordable national healthcare for all citizens, it not only involves Congress, lobbyists, and medical professions but it affects the stability of the government, and it is economy. The implications of costs, resources, and approval in a short time that the United States would hypothetically desire to imply the system not only creates a problematic situation, but there is also a high percentage that it may fail. In other words, I agree that Machiavelli is correct that if a ruler—or world leader—wants to enforce a policy in a territory, it would seem successful work if he or she slowly introduce it.
Another advice that builds on the previous one is that “a ruler should, above all, behave towards his subjects in such a way that, whatever happens, whether for good or ill, he does not need to change his policies” (31). Thus, this goes along with you cannot drastically or immediately implement policies and expect to receive a positive outcome. In addition, the quote also shows that the wind must not sweep a ruler. (S)He must stand their ground and defend their people. However, I believe that Machiavelli is correct and also wrong. As I mentioned before, Machiavelli lived during a different period as ours. International diplomacy was essential, but it is much prevalent now. Consider this; the United States has suffered through countless shooting; however, they have not responded to these crimes. Under Machiavelli’s advice, this is acceptable. However, in our eyes in this day of age, the government is seen incapable. Now, where is the line between standing your ground and changing for the greater good? I do believe that some of Machiavelli’s work has some truth to it. However, it is challenging to correlate his advice to now-day issues since we are living in a modern age where acquiring land is not as prevalent as to managing world order. ☼
Another point that Machiavelli makes is that “states that spring up overnight, like all other things in nature that are born and grow in a hurry, cannot have their roots deep in the soil, so they shrivel up in the first drought, blow over in the first storm” (21). This is similar to the saying that “Rome ne fut pas faite toute en un jour.” Hence, rulers cannot immediately enforce their desires on newly acquired land for it will drastically fail. For instance, if the United States rapidly decides that there needs to be an affordable national healthcare for all citizens, it not only involves Congress, lobbyists, and medical professions but it affects the stability of the government, and it is economy. The implications of costs, resources, and approval in a short time that the United States would hypothetically desire to imply the system not only creates a problematic situation, but there is also a high percentage that it may fail. In other words, I agree that Machiavelli is correct that if a ruler—or world leader—wants to enforce a policy in a territory, it would seem successful work if he or she slowly introduce it.
Another advice that builds on the previous one is that “a ruler should, above all, behave towards his subjects in such a way that, whatever happens, whether for good or ill, he does not need to change his policies” (31). Thus, this goes along with you cannot drastically or immediately implement policies and expect to receive a positive outcome. In addition, the quote also shows that the wind must not sweep a ruler. (S)He must stand their ground and defend their people. However, I believe that Machiavelli is correct and also wrong. As I mentioned before, Machiavelli lived during a different period as ours. International diplomacy was essential, but it is much prevalent now. Consider this; the United States has suffered through countless shooting; however, they have not responded to these crimes. Under Machiavelli’s advice, this is acceptable. However, in our eyes in this day of age, the government is seen incapable. Now, where is the line between standing your ground and changing for the greater good? I do believe that some of Machiavelli’s work has some truth to it. However, it is challenging to correlate his advice to now-day issues since we are living in a modern age where acquiring land is not as prevalent as to managing world order. ☼
Hey avq! Nice post! However, I have a question about your last point. One of the consequences of being a democracy is that many institutions work together to enact a policy, so there is a time delay for the government’s response to a problem. So if there is an institutional delay inherent to a government type, do you believe democracies are prone to stagnation or that the fact that they are democracies means they are inherently prone to progressive actions?
ReplyDelete