Morals aside, Machiavelli offered some pretty sound advice to the average ruler back in the day. However, times have drastically changed and it simply wouldn’t be possible to execute the same ruthless techniques for acquiring power. In this age of growing globalization and interdepedence, it is almost impossible for a ruling elite to make a decision without being overlooked by another ruling body. Whether it’s the US or the UN, if a ruling elite tries to implement the same cold-hearted approach towards gaining or maintaining power they inevitably will face opposition.
In the era that Machiavelli spoke of, ruling elites could get away with unchecked brutality towards those that they governed. No other state would stand up if a ruler decided to decimate an entire village that was rebelling against oppression. Often times, the destruction would be so swift that word of the attack would hardly spread past the principality’s borders. Now, not only do human rights activists, international NGOs, and global super powers like the US heavily regulate "moral standards" for most countries, but virtually all infractions or suspicions are under heavy supervision through extremely advanced intelligence agencies. Also, any cases of gross human rights violations to acquire power usually immediately make headlines on a global level. Darfur ring any bells? Unlike in Machiavelli’s time, crushing an entire group of people doesn’t simply get overlooked and forgotten. The influence of the media, a factor that didn’t exist in his time, greatly impairs Machiavelli’s advice, especially in a world where various organizations and states act as “global policemen”.
But the question arises, what about the US? Are they not a global power many believe cannot be checked by any other state? Can’t they easily get away with following Machiavelli’s advice? The answer to this is simple. The United States simply cannot follow Machiavelli’s advice because it does not pertain to the US. Machiavelli clearly establishes that his advice in no way, shape, or form should be applied to the dynamics of a republic of any sort. He makes it clear that his advice can only successfully guide ruling elites of principalities. Though, it can still be argued that international organizations or other global superpowers would try to thwart any immense human rights violations if the US did in fact follow a Machiavellian approach to gaining power. So in reality, a ruling elite could very well follow Machiavelli’s advice in contemporary conditions, but, fortunately, they won’t get far.
My qualms with the second paragraph of this blog post stem from your argument that in the world order we currently find ourselves in is regulated by a “moral standard”. When Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” times were different, that isn’t up for debate, but the notion that now the world is ruled by a type of moral standard, I think, may be a stretch. In your post you talk about the media having influence over global issues like genocide, “Also, any cases of gross human rights violations to acquire power usually immediately make headlines on a global level. Darfur ring any bell?” But look at Darfur, this humanitarian issue has been evolving for over ten years and the greater global community has yet to do anything substantial. The genocide in the region is still occurring and arguably, it’s spreading into neighboring countries like Chad. And where has the media been? The amount of media attention given to this conflict has been minimal and has had no large effect on international politics relating to the region. From this, I would have to disagree with your statement that during this day and age one is unable to crush an entire group of people. It seems instead that the world is taking Machiavelli’s advice that if you don’t gain from intervening, don’t do it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen I refer to the "moral standard" I am not speaking of an understood or implied rules based off of shared human ethics. I am specifically addressing the fact that in world we have specific international laws and regulations created based off a global desire for moral conduct. For example, the Law of War and other international acts. This is not a stretch; it exists and those that violate its stipulations are addressed by one of the "global policemen" I addressed in my post.
ReplyDeleteWhen I referred to the media, I was not implying the media had a literal, active influence to make a change. I was addressing the fact that in Machiavelli's time, it was beneficial for a ruler to decimate a group of people very quickly and then move on. Soon, everyone would forget, and if executed well enough, the news of the massacre wouldn't spread. This influence of the media that I spoke of addresses the fact that no one can get away with executing such a massacre in contemporary times because EVERYONE will find out. If the media doesn't cover it, someone with a cell phone will, and the video WILL reach youtube. This is the influence I am speaking of. It does not exactly have the power to stop a crime, but it will bring it to light on a global scale, as I stated in my post.
And yes, Darfur's genocide is still occurring, but it is not in the same magnitude it would have been back in Machiavelli's time. Think of all the Darfur activism on the US level alone. Thousands of people have come together to make a positive impact on Darfur. Celebrities and Hollywood media have added to this immense movement to save Darfur. As I stated throughout the article, it is impossible to follow Machiavelli's advice perfectly in contemporary conditions because of exactly this kind of movement. If a ruling elite DOES act ruthlessly, people WILL band together against it, the world WILL find out, and bodies of power WILL intervene.
"The United States simply cannot follow Machiavelli’s advice because it does not pertain to the US. Machiavelli clearly establishes that his advice in no way, shape, or form should be applied to the dynamics of a republic of any sort."
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think Machiavelli says this? Why is advice only appropriate to principalities (or perhaps only to princes)? Do you think that the internal checks on government in republics are sufficient to moot Machiavelli's advice for republican leaders or is the character of republics simply different and perhaps more peaceful?
And as a bonus, some food for thought from my US Foreign Policy textbook's section on covert CIA operations (also relevant to our Spy Museum visit for EXTRA bonus):
ReplyDelete"Many of these covert operations were so incompatible with the American political culture of liberal democracy that secrecy was of the essence. Often the goal was not really to maintain secrets from enemies abroad; the existence of an operation was often exposed, sometimes deliberately, on the assumption that knowledge of a CIA operation invoked sufficient fear to promote its success. Instead, it was imperative to maintain secrecy at home for fear that leaks would trigger domestic opposition that would place the future of covert operations at risk." (218)
Rosati, Jerel A. and James M. Scott. The Politics of United States Foreign Policy, Fifth Edition. Boston: Wadsworth, 2011.