Dr. Forqan Uddin Ahmed :
The medieval statesman Machiavelli was born on May 3, 1469, in the house of an attorney in Florence, Italy. When he was born, Italy was divided into smaller states due to political unrest. The dream of a large Italian state and love of homeland led Machiavelli to a real political philosophy. During his career, he held various important positions in the Italian government. As a result, a large part of his political theory is based on his work-experience and practical knowledge. His books include The Prince, Florentine History, The Discourse, The Art of War and Mandragola. Among these, The Prince is the one we remember most today. The most talked about and critically acclaimed book in the Western world was written in 1514 but was published in 1532, after his death. I will briefly discuss Machiavelli’s thought and its impact on current politics in Bangladesh and the rest of the world.
In The Prince, he writes: “The legitimacy of government is not bound by any moral standards; Authority and power are the main issues here. He who has power will rule, morality does not put anyone in power. Gaining power and maintaining power is the main principle of politics. The loyalty of the people has to be gained through the proper use of power. Politics is the principle of ‘acceptance and application’ of power “- no matter how hard and harsh it may sound, reality has been supporting it. In the book, he emphasizes the continuity and long rule of the government for the development of a country.
It describes how the ruler will act according to the wishes of the people in order to retain his rule. He also elaborated on the strategies used by the troops in administration and defense. The book is credited as the first work of modern political philosophy, because it has accepted practical truth instead of tangible ideas. The essence of the Machiavellian philosophy as articulated in The Prince is summed up in the phrase: “The end justifies the means.”
What is “modern” or “original” in Machiavelli’s thought? What is Machiavelli’s “place” in the history of Western ideas? The body of literature debating this question, especially in connection with The Prince and Discourses, has grown to truly staggering proportions. John Pocock (1975), for example, has traced the diffusion of Machiavelli’s republican thought throughout the so-called Atlantic world and, specifically, into the ideas that guided the framers of the American constitution. Paul Rahe (2008) argues for a similar set of influences, but with an intellectual substance and significance different than Pocock. For Pocock, Machiavelli’s republicanism is of a civic humanist variety whose roots are to be found in classical antiquity; for Rahe, Machiavelli’s republicanism is entirely novel and modern.
The “neo-Roman” thinkers (most prominently, Pettit, Skinner and Viroli) appropriate Machiavelli as a source of their principle of “freedom as non-domination”, while he has also been put to work in the defense of democratic precepts and values. Likewise, cases have been made for Machiavelli’s political morality, his conception of the state, his religious views, and many other features of his work as the distinctive basis for the originality of his contribution.
Our nation is confronted with a great puzzle. It is not alone in this situation. In many ways –political, social and economic — the entire world seems to be in a frightening stir as noted political scientist Samuel P. Huntington summed up in his controversial book Clash of Civilizations, the emerging global conflict centres round the arrogance of the West, resurgence of Islam and the rise of China. These powerful forces and trends along with military and economic growth of India make our world a place of evolving uncertainty.
Mankind is caught in an inescapable net: incertitude created by the infidelity, arrogance and disloyalty of human beings themselves. In uncertain times men break the rules that they themselves — in the pooled wisdom of centuries of socialized existence — created and swore to obey. At such times social life is in turmoil and politics becomes bereft of the sense of values which makes it something superior to a dog-fight for power. At such times the principles that make economic processes socially relevant, meaningful and profitable are cast to the four winds. Business and trade, commerce and industry become transparently veiled instruments of the self-centered and greedy minority. They thrive at the cost of the mute majority.
The way reigning legislators and their counterparts narrate and handle situations; they establish themselves as conscious followers of Machiavellian political paradigm. Our county is no Florence; there are no such political situations either. It would not be true to narrate that there is no anti-establishment conspiracy happening but not at a level to act like a Machiavellian-government. The political behavior of our legislators seems like that they are well aware of the terrible fate of Savonarola. They might have got their lessons from the political life of Savonarola, as Machiavelli had at his early age. Machiavelli thought of a ruler who will be “as cunning as a fox and as fierce as a lion” to have a good grief over his succession otherwise he would “parish.” For example, being a good man, Savonarola could not survive because he was a misfit for the socio-political situation of whole Italy of his own time.
The way politics and political behaviors have got shape in the very last 40 years in our country, it can be said that Machiavellian political ideologies have been driving for a very long time. Machiavelli and Savonarola stand far away from each other in terms of their political ideologies, but one thing is common in both: They wanted their state and people to be safe and free. They wanted objective good for everyone but here in our country, subjective good is considered as the ultimate one. The terrifying reality is that people connected with dominating political parties have considered the development they have for their own as the ultimate goal and the politics as “an instrument of oppression.” To do good for others is not considered as the ultimate goal but the way our legislators act it ‘seems’ like that they are only working to bring positive and objective good for all. It is very unfortunate that our legislators consider themselves as the masters of the country. And most importantly they (our legislators) have forgotten that they are the servants of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
The medieval statesman Machiavelli was born on May 3, 1469, in the house of an attorney in Florence, Italy. When he was born, Italy was divided into smaller states due to political unrest. The dream of a large Italian state and love of homeland led Machiavelli to a real political philosophy. During his career, he held various important positions in the Italian government. As a result, a large part of his political theory is based on his work-experience and practical knowledge. His books include The Prince, Florentine History, The Discourse, The Art of War and Mandragola. Among these, The Prince is the one we remember most today. The most talked about and critically acclaimed book in the Western world was written in 1514 but was published in 1532, after his death. I will briefly discuss Machiavelli’s thought and its impact on current politics in Bangladesh and the rest of the world.
In The Prince, he writes: “The legitimacy of government is not bound by any moral standards; Authority and power are the main issues here. He who has power will rule, morality does not put anyone in power. Gaining power and maintaining power is the main principle of politics. The loyalty of the people has to be gained through the proper use of power. Politics is the principle of ‘acceptance and application’ of power “- no matter how hard and harsh it may sound, reality has been supporting it. In the book, he emphasizes the continuity and long rule of the government for the development of a country.
It describes how the ruler will act according to the wishes of the people in order to retain his rule. He also elaborated on the strategies used by the troops in administration and defense. The book is credited as the first work of modern political philosophy, because it has accepted practical truth instead of tangible ideas. The essence of the Machiavellian philosophy as articulated in The Prince is summed up in the phrase: “The end justifies the means.”
What is “modern” or “original” in Machiavelli’s thought? What is Machiavelli’s “place” in the history of Western ideas? The body of literature debating this question, especially in connection with The Prince and Discourses, has grown to truly staggering proportions. John Pocock (1975), for example, has traced the diffusion of Machiavelli’s republican thought throughout the so-called Atlantic world and, specifically, into the ideas that guided the framers of the American constitution. Paul Rahe (2008) argues for a similar set of influences, but with an intellectual substance and significance different than Pocock. For Pocock, Machiavelli’s republicanism is of a civic humanist variety whose roots are to be found in classical antiquity; for Rahe, Machiavelli’s republicanism is entirely novel and modern.
The “neo-Roman” thinkers (most prominently, Pettit, Skinner and Viroli) appropriate Machiavelli as a source of their principle of “freedom as non-domination”, while he has also been put to work in the defense of democratic precepts and values. Likewise, cases have been made for Machiavelli’s political morality, his conception of the state, his religious views, and many other features of his work as the distinctive basis for the originality of his contribution.
Our nation is confronted with a great puzzle. It is not alone in this situation. In many ways –political, social and economic — the entire world seems to be in a frightening stir as noted political scientist Samuel P. Huntington summed up in his controversial book Clash of Civilizations, the emerging global conflict centres round the arrogance of the West, resurgence of Islam and the rise of China. These powerful forces and trends along with military and economic growth of India make our world a place of evolving uncertainty.
Mankind is caught in an inescapable net: incertitude created by the infidelity, arrogance and disloyalty of human beings themselves. In uncertain times men break the rules that they themselves — in the pooled wisdom of centuries of socialized existence — created and swore to obey. At such times social life is in turmoil and politics becomes bereft of the sense of values which makes it something superior to a dog-fight for power. At such times the principles that make economic processes socially relevant, meaningful and profitable are cast to the four winds. Business and trade, commerce and industry become transparently veiled instruments of the self-centered and greedy minority. They thrive at the cost of the mute majority.
The way reigning legislators and their counterparts narrate and handle situations; they establish themselves as conscious followers of Machiavellian political paradigm. Our county is no Florence; there are no such political situations either. It would not be true to narrate that there is no anti-establishment conspiracy happening but not at a level to act like a Machiavellian-government. The political behavior of our legislators seems like that they are well aware of the terrible fate of Savonarola. They might have got their lessons from the political life of Savonarola, as Machiavelli had at his early age. Machiavelli thought of a ruler who will be “as cunning as a fox and as fierce as a lion” to have a good grief over his succession otherwise he would “parish.” For example, being a good man, Savonarola could not survive because he was a misfit for the socio-political situation of whole Italy of his own time.
The way politics and political behaviors have got shape in the very last 40 years in our country, it can be said that Machiavellian political ideologies have been driving for a very long time. Machiavelli and Savonarola stand far away from each other in terms of their political ideologies, but one thing is common in both: They wanted their state and people to be safe and free. They wanted objective good for everyone but here in our country, subjective good is considered as the ultimate one. The terrifying reality is that people connected with dominating political parties have considered the development they have for their own as the ultimate goal and the politics as “an instrument of oppression.” To do good for others is not considered as the ultimate goal but the way our legislators act it ‘seems’ like that they are only working to bring positive and objective good for all. It is very unfortunate that our legislators consider themselves as the masters of the country. And most importantly they (our legislators) have forgotten that they are the servants of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
(Dr. Forqan is Former Deputy Director General, Bangladesh Ansar VDP)
