I think the statement that a ruler must always be prepared to do whatever it takes to maintain his power is largely out of date for contemporary rulers. Most of today’s rulers do not fit Machiavelli’s definition of a ruler. “Rulers” today in first world countries are elected by the people and are expected to serve them. If a ruler followed Machiavelli’s advice today, he will most likely land in jail or be put out of power by the international community. Power today is also distributed among many people and nations instead of just one person. This distribution of power and interdependence between countries essentially keeps rulers in check. It is essentially impossible to do whatever it takes to stay in power in first world countries.
If we see the President of the United States as a contemporary ruler, then it is obvious that he should not take Machiavelli’s advice. If he told the military to invade another country just to show his citizens that he is strong and fearless, Congress would prevent it and impeach him. In countries where a ruler can be reelected, the ruler must make sure his citizens are satisfied with his style of government. What is cruel and what is not has changed considerably since Machiavelli’s time. A ruler like a president or prime minister is also limited to a certain number of years in office. That means no matter what he does, his power will not last as much as he may like. However if you just happen to be a ruler who has complete power and control over a state, then the question becomes a little subjective.
I think Machiavelli would describe North Korea’s dictator Kim Jong-il as a successful ruler. Jong-il has complete control of his state, and he has done quite a lot of things Machiavelli wants a good ruler to do. He has fortified his state in the form of a demilitarization zone. He plays the dual role of a fox and a lion. He builds nuclear weapons to keep other countries on their toes, but he doesn’t do enough to provoke a war. He has a military and population that follows him out of fear of imprisonment and torture. Even if Kim Jong-Il can be considered a successful ruler, his country suffers from severe poverty and lack of human rights. In the end following Machiavelli’s advice might make the ruler happy, but most definitely not the people who are ruled by him.
I do agree with your assessment that "contemporary rulers" can not do "whatever it takes" to stay in power because of rules enacted by the "international community" and increasing "interdependence" among countries (now we're back to globalization). Committing "atrocities," as Machiavelli describes in The Prince, would put an end to a ruler in today's world rather than assert his power as Machiavelli intended to portray.
ReplyDeleteBut I also think that not all of Machiavelli points have been rendered obsolete by the changing times. Leaders today can employ Machiavelli's principle of creating an appearance of goodness to please and keep their people loyal. In the U.S., candidates running for election often try to present themselves as good, qualified people who have the people's interests in mind during their campaigns in order to win votes. I also think leaders today can use Machiavelli's "fox and lion" principles. Leaders can portray themselves as stern and strong to reassure their people that they are in good hands and are protected, much like Obama does when he gives his speeches in a firm and commanding tone. And leaders must know how to act cunningly in the face of conflict because conflict is never eliminated by the passage of time.