More Lessons from Machiavelli

A few months back, I had written about the positive side of Machiavelli’ism. More recently, I read this article by Michael Ignatieff, who pointed out that when it comes to Machiavelli’s book, The Prince:
“The outrage has not dimmed with time.”
This is one of those hidden in plain sight questions: why is the book still considered so relevant today? Doesn’t every politician pretend they are un-Machiavellian? And isn’t it true that every citizen “knows that politics is one of those realms of life where you put your soul at risk”?

Michael Walzer, a Princeton philosopher, once said:
“We want our politicians to be…lying awake at night, wrestling with the conflict between private morality and the public good.”
Modern thinkers call this the “problem of dirty hands”. Machiavelli’s take on that? Don’t think about it!
“He believed not only that politicians must do evil in the name of the public good, but also that they shouldn’t worry about it.”
Because:
“In politics, the polestar must be the health of the republic alone.”
Besides hasn’t (religious) morality not become a dirty word anyway?
“Someone who believes he has God on his side is capable of anything.”
On the other hand:
“Machiavelli also understood that a politician, unlike a gangster, could not play fast and loose with the law. The law mattered because in republics, the opinion of citizens mattered, and if a prince put himself above the law too often, the people would drive him from office. Machiavelli was no democrat, but he understood that popular anger in the lanes and alleys of his city could bring a prince’s rule to a bloody end.”

In any case, Machiavelli realized that:
“The people in the lanes and alleys cared more about whether the prince delivered peace and security than whether he was an authentic or even an honest person.”
And that is why I fully agree with Ignatieff when he says:
“All of this looks like cynicism only if we fail to see its deep realism.”

And if you can’t deny all these arguments entirely, then you can’t dismiss Ignatieff ‘s (half) tongue-in-cheek question to ask about anyone in governance:
“Is he Machiavellian enough?”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Europe #3 - Innsbruck

The last city we visited in Europe was Innsbruck in the Austrian Alps. After the cold and windy experience (at times) of Paris and Netherlands, Innsbruck was a wonderful change – it didn’t feel that cold, it was not windy all of which made it easy to walk around. Something absolutely necessary given how scenic the place is.   Since the hotel check-in time was much later in the day, we left the baggage and went to the Swarovski HQ-cum-museum about an hour by bus from Innsbruck. The crystal exhibits were brilliant – colorful, bright, shiny. Jewellery aside, it was a display of what one can do with crystals. While my wife and daughter loved the jewellery, I liked the superhero themed exhibits of Batman, Spiderman, the Hulk, and Star Wars. We didn’t buy anything there, though we did buy stuff in the Swarovski store in Innsbruck – jewellery, not the superhero stuff.   Innsbruck is a major tourist attraction during the skiing season but now in summer, we saw many groups of ...
Read more

Why we Deceive Ourselves

In their book, The Elephant in the Brain , the authors describe this weird aspect of deception that we practice: deceiving ourselves! That is so weird: “If our minds contain maps of our worlds, what good comes from having an inaccurate version of these maps?” The Sigmund Freud school of thought treats self-deception as a defense mechanism, “a way for the ego to protect itself”. The mind seeks to protect itself from anxiety and other negative emotions. Many object to this reasoning: since accurate information is so critical to our survival, surely distorting information would be dangerous. Wouldn’t the goal of protecting our self-esteem have been better achieved by making the brain’s self-esteem mechanism stronger instead? The new school of thought explains self-deception as “primarily outward-facing, manipulative, and ultimately self-serving”. This is based on Thomas Schelling’s work on game theory: “In a variety of scenarios, limiting or sabotaging yourself is the winn...
Read more

Chess is too Boring

“Chess has problems at the grandmaster level...They're not getting a great game”, wrote Christian Donlan . Amen to that: Anand and his challenger, Magnus Carlsen drew their first game in just 16 moves. It gets worse: games between the top 20 end in draws 60% of the time. And Donlan adds that “games often end in resignation when an actual victory starts to loom on the distant horizon.” That often means that the average player (or fan) often has no clue why one guy won (since he can’t see that far ahead)! Then there’s all that memorization (of openings, of end games and everything in between). All that memorization is sort of against the spirit of the game, says Zachary Burns, “We want it to be a game of creativity and positional play.” Many have tried to change the rules of the game in the past for these exact reasons, including Bobby Fischer with his Chess960 variant. More recently, David Sirlin tried to make things interesting via his variant, Chess 2. So what are his c...
Read more