MODERN MACHIAVELLIAN: A DIALOGUE

Florence: I’ve been trying to determine who might be Machiavelli’s ideal Prince.

Lorenzo: His ideal Prince?

Florence: Yes, a neo-Machiavellian – someone who has truly embraced the advice given by Machiavelli via his infamous treatise, The Prince, in order to create a more just and stable society. That’s what I consider to be the objective of The Prince, anyway. Although Bertrand Russell judged The Prince to be “a handbook for gangsters”, his icy analysis of human behaviour and tactics actually forces people to face essential questions about politics and morality. It sheds light on and justifies a variety of policies utilised by the politicians of today.

Lorenzo: Oh, I see. Who do you have in mind?

Florence: Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was certainly a neo-Machiavellian. The decision she made to wage war in the Falklands revealed some definite Machiavellian traits. He suggested that leaders should act on their gut feelings, to avoid problems at hand becoming more serious. Her controversial decision to sink the ARA General Belgrano in 1982 actually aided Britain’s victory in the Falklands war, by eliminating part of the Argentinian’s powerful naval force. Britain’s success certainly fired up patriotism and boosted her popularity at home, and led to Thatcher’s landslide victory in 1983. Via The Prince, Machiavelli urged decisiveness in political decisions, a characteristic which certainly defined the Iron Lady’s leadership. Resoluteness displayed strong political authority in Machiavelli’s eyes, and this resoluteness would enable security and control over a state and its people.

Cesare:  Yes she was decisive, but do remember that she was equally divisive. Her policies caused division amongst the British public, particularly those related to trade unions. After the miners’ strike of 1984-5, she was able to crush the NUM and institute various legal obstacles to industrial action. In this way, she hastened the fall of communism. However, she was responsible for widespread privatisation throughout Britain – this sort of capitalism is an important dominant feature of the world today. Nevertheless, Machiavelli highlighted the danger of being a ruler who was not liked by all. He believed opposition was harmless if the ruler could keep rebellions under control, but if not – naturally, problems would arise. Additionally, he stated, “it is safer to be feared than loved when one of the two must be lacking”. It’s fair to say that the Iron Lady was more despised than feared or loved!

Lorenzo: Hmm, that is true. Despite some Machiavellian traits, she wasn’t the ideal Prince who Old Nick had in mind. Yet I can think of a perfect example of one who was both feared and loved. Certainly a Machiavellian in character and action.

Florence: And who might that be?

Lorenzo: ‘The Incorruptible’, Maximilien de Robespierre.

Cesare: Ah yes. Arguably the most important idea revealed in The Prince is that the ends justify the means – this was certainly evident during Robespierre’s violent and bloody ‘Reign of Terror’ (1793-1794) during the French Revolution. Owing to constant threat from foreign enemies (France was at war with various countries) and the ever-present threat of internal enemies (counter-revolutionaries) in France, Robespierre deemed it necessary to restrict the freedoms that great Enlightenment philosophers such as Rousseau and Voltaire believed were natural and inherent. Ironically enough, Robespierre believed he was following their philosophies. He took it upon himself to grasp control of the ‘general will’ and shape the direction of the revolution, to deliver France from revolution to a republic of virtue. He believed virtue and terror were intrinsically intertwined. Naturally he was feared (for what a formidable character he was!) but known as ‘the Incorruptible’ for quite some time. The Parisian masses adored him.

Florence: Some historians have claimed that he was power hungry but perhaps he was a tad bit deranged. See, I reckon he genuinely had good intentions for France. But that’s an 18^th century example! Think contemporary Machiavelli!

Cesare: Barack Obama!

Florence: Don’t be absurd.

Cesare: His plan to launch a military strike against Syria, following news of its use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians, is a precise example where President Obama displays certain Machiavellianism. He was prepared to go to war despite the concerns expressed by the United National Security Council, without the general support of the American public, he lacked a NATO mandate, there was no kind of international collation backing his decision… His decision to intervene military was particularly interesting, especially considering the fact that his promises to elevate diplomacy in foreign affairs earned him a Nobel Peace Prize. Machiavelli would’ve approved of this decisiveness, surely.

Florence: Indeed he did, but that doesn’t justify Obama’s position as an international policeman!

Lorenzo:  Despite this one act of definite Machiavellianism, I think he generally lacks bold policy. Machiavelli wouldn’t tolerate public displays of indecision. That’s not part of the job description for his ideal Prince. Acts of indecision don’t lead to a more just and stable society. I suppose we should really ask, is Obama Machiavellian enough?