The State is still King

Today's world is a very different world from the days of Machiavelli. Or is it? Despite all the talk of globalization and the rise of ideological groups. Things are moving along a line that is much like what Samuel Huntington points out as a cultural clash occurring through a world still dominated by nation-states. (Clash of Civilizations par.2) I would agree with him that the territorial state is still the dominant and only recognized form of government in our world today. While many groups have become blurred the primary apparatus through which political will is projected is the state. That being said, Machiavelli's suggestions and "rules," upon how a successful ruler should conduct their affairs is still relevant.

If you look at contemporary history states have acted in a manner most consistent with realism. While there have been moves to a more liberal approach, such as the establishment of the U.N. and other multi-national organizations, states still act in their self interest. For example the United States joined an alliance in NATO because it served our self interest to protect ourselves from communist expansion. Also while organizations like the U.N. serve as a place for certain standards and regulations to be established, states like the U.S. will only oblige them if they are in their self interest. Machiavelli talks about forming strategic alliances as they are necessary. (The Prince Ch.7 pg. 25) Essentially there is definitely a level of cooperation but it is done as a legitimizing force for the government of a nation trying to convince its people that it is doing right. Especially in a largely democratized world that we have today, rulers and governments are forced to gain the favor of their peers and the common people, which Machiavelli says is key.

The way in which governments and rulers do this is very much in line with Machiavelli's suggestions. Governments/rulers often will conduct bold feats militarily or politically to establish their dominance. (The Prince Ch. 6) An example may be the Gulf War and the more recent Iraq War. It could be seen as an example of showing the how much "virtu" the United States possesses. In today's world I would say that these moves are done to establish a reputation of dominance and strength on the international stage rather than domestically.

Under contemporary conditions, I think if a state is to be successful it must act with the principles outlined in The Prince. I think that the amorality in Machiavelli's writing comes from his belief that to rule your state in an irresponsible and unstable manner to which you do not put forth the best interest of you and your people, is more immoral than committing some disagreeable acts to instill order or establish dominance. I would tend to agree with this because to allow your state to fall into anarchy and disorder will lead to much more evil and wrongdoing than using force to establish stability. However, we have made progress in international cooperation so I would hesitate to become too absorbed by self-interest. The bottom line is that I feel as time goes on there will be circumstances where being cooperative and peaceful is in the best interest of the state and one should make these alliances. However there will always be times when this is not the case as well. As long as state is still king, Machiavelli's rules will be very applicable and helpful to governments and rulers.



Sources: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/48950/samuel-p-huntington/the-clash-of-civilizations

Machiavelli, The Prince. Translated by David Wootton. Published by Hackett Press 1994. Print.