GUARDIAN
Thursday, March 23 , 2000
Between Machiavelli and political hypocrites
By Edwin Madunagu
AMILCAR Cabral, the founder of modern Guinea-Bissau, once recalled that the
very mention of the word, culture, had caused Groebbels, the chief
propagandist of Nazi Germany, to pull his gun. His explanation of this
seemingly irrational behaviour was that the German fascists were painfully
aware of the role of culture, or cultural consciousness, in resisting
aggression, domination and enslavement. In the same way the mention of the
name Machiavelli would, today and at all time, pull hypocrites especially
hypocritical politicians, from their seats. Why? Because Machiavelli is a
mirror before oppressors and despots everywhere, including Nigeria; and what
these enemies of the people see - which is actually themselves - is in ugly
opposition to what they say and pretend to be. Nigerian politics is
irritatingly characterised by crude Machiavellianism on the one hand and
anti-Machiavelli hypocrisy on the other. There are very few genuine
opponents of Machiavellianism. Who then was Machiavelli and what did he say?
Before I proceed, a certain possible misconception has to be removed. I am
not here to read into Machiavelli motive. I am also not concerned with his
character. This is, in fact, more irrelevant than motive. But if you press
me I would say that Machiavelli would not be my personal friend because I
believe that if the man had been in power he would have been one of
history's most cynical dictators. But this is besides the point. Machiavelli
spoke to the world and, whether we like it or not, what he said good or bad,
has remained a political theory, refusing to die despite the passage of
almost five centuries. In any case the man has many modern followers in our
land. What I am saying here is that it is necessary to avoid ad-hominem
method of argumentation which, according to the Webster Dictionary, is
"directed at or appealing to one's hearer's or reader's personal fellings or
prejudices rather than his intellect and reason" or "marked by attack on an
opponent's character rather than by answer to his contentions".
Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) was an Italian, born in Florence. He was a
public servant, a diplomat and a political philosopher. He was also a
military strategist.
Machiavelli was a keen observer and student of history and politics or, more
specifically of state power. During his years of service in the Italian
Republic of Florence, he accumulated a huge amount of information, through a
meticulous system of recording facts, events, actions and practices. To the
records of the present he added records from the past. Like Aristotle,
Machiavelli had a passion for classification: types of states and
governmental institutions, types of rulers, types of political and military
strategies, etc.
Machiavelli wrote on many subjects and tried his hands on several literary
forms: biographies, poems, plays, etc., in addition to historical and
political texts, the two best known being The Prince and Discourses, both
written in 1513. However, most of the people who have heard of Machiavelli
associate him with just one book, The Prince, a slim book not larger than a
chapter of a standard political science textbook. The historical and
political question which engaged Machiavelli and which he tried to answer in
The Prince can be summarised as follows: How do states rise and fall and how
can state power, once acquired, be retained? He did not concern himself with
morality or religion. All he said was this: If you want to retain power,
this is what you must do because that is what history and current
experiences teach. Let us isolate some of the most "embarrassing" and
"unpopular" prescriptions with which Machiavelli is generally associated.
They are taken from The Prince.
The Prince was an open letter to an Italian prince. Machiavelli offered the
contents of the letter as a form of advice from a loyal citizen to someone
who was embarking on the hazardous enterprise of controlling and ruling
other human beings. He started by telling the prince that although it was
customary for citizens who desired to gain favour with a ruler to offer him
or her precious, but material gifts like horses, arms, clothes and gold he
had been unable to find in his possession "anything which I hold so dear or
esteem so highly" as the knowledge "of the deeds of great men" which he had
acquired "through a long experience of modern events and a constant study of
the past". This introduction which exudes immense self-confidence must have
created tremendous impression on the prince for Machiavelli was telling him
that his advice was based on knowledge and was more valuable than gold or
horses which other people offered.
Machiavelli observed that only those prophets who were armed had triumphed;
that unarmed prophets had come to ruin. By "prophets" Machiavelli meant
those engaged in campaigning for, or bringing about, new social orders or
new order of things. The arming of a prophet was necessary, according to
him, for self-defence, if for nothing else. He gave a long list of
historical examples. Still on this subject, Machiavelli observed that "the
chief foundations of all states, whether new, old or mixed are good laws and
good arms", where by "good arms" Machiavelli meant effective military
machine or institution of physical coercion. His argument here is as
follows: Since there cannot be "good laws" if there are no "good arms" and
since where there are "good arms" there must be "good laws", it is
sufficient to discuss arms and leave laws alone. And that was what he did.
Machiavelli advised against the employment of mercenaries in organising and
executing national defence. He considers mercenaries useless and dangerous:
"they are disunited, ambitious, without discipline, faithless, bold among
friends, cowardly among enemies, they have no fear of God and keep no faith
with men". His conclusion was that any ruler who depends on mercenaries will
ultimately come to ruin.
The author of The Prince advised that a ruler should aspire to be believed
and obeyed voluntarily, that is, without the use of coercion. He however,
warned that even where this is the case, a ruler should still be armed so
that "when the people no longer believe, they can be made to believe by
force". He then considered the relative importance of love, hatred and fear
in the relationships between the ruler and ruled. His conclusion here was
that even if a ruler is not loved, he should aspire not to be hated or
despised by his subjects. He affirmed, however, that there was nothing wrong
in being feared. According to him, a ruler should depend more on the power
of the fear which he generated than in the love which his subject generates.
Machiavelli's argument here was that in questions. Machiavelli's argument
here was that in questions of power a ruler can only be sure of what he
controls (fear): he cannot always be sure of what is controlled by others
(love).
Hear Machiavelli: "A man who wishes to make a profession of goodness in
everything must necessarily come to grief among so many who are not good.
Therefore, it is necessary for a prince, who wishes to maintain himself, to
learn how not to be good and to use his knowledge and not use it, according
to the necessity of the case". He advised rulers who come to power in
difficult situations and who must kill to do so once, at the beginning,
rather than making state murder a permanent feature of governance. He
reminded rulers that mass murders are easier to forgive and forget than
individual assassinations. He warned rulers against stealing citizens'
possessions or wives and taking any citizen's life unless there is "a proper
justification and manifest reason for it". He however, offered his
observation that "men forget more easily the death of their father than the
loss of their property".
Here then are some Machiavellian prescriptions for the retention of
political power both for its own sake and for the benefits of the power
holders. Machiavelli wrote against the background of the Italian society of
the 15th and 16th centuries and the knowledge that he obtained from his
diplomatic contact in Europe and his reading of history. A lot has, of
course, changed over the past 500 years, but the central ideas remain in
full force. There are Machiavellians among today's power wielders of the
world. There are Machiavellians in Nigeria, many of them. There are also
opponents of Machiavellianism, but most of them are hypocrites: they are
appalled by Machiavelli's prescription but only because these ideas are
embarrassingly close to their own practices and their inner beliefs. What
the world needs, what Nigeria needs, is real opposition to Machiavellianism.
In Machiavelli's scheme, the people are mere means to an end; but in the
negation of Machiavelli the people appear as an end.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
