Week 3 Response -- Machiavelli

Machiavelli paints a portrait of a ruler who must always be prepared to do whatever it takes to maintain his (and for Machiavelli, it's always "his") power. Is this an accurate portrayal of contemporary ruling elites? Should rulers follow Machiavelli's advice, even under contemporary conditions?

-----------

Niccolo Bernardo Machiavelli was born in 1469, and died in 1527; but not before writing extensively on the nature of power and examining the common characteristics of successful rules and distilling these into a series of political writings that remain relevant to this day. But it is important to note that Machiavelli is principally referring to principalities, he opens by disregarding republics. Which makes sense, because it doesn't seem that any ruler would be able to rule for very long if the populace had a say in the matter. Though, there are some exceptions to this.



But nevertheless, I cannot help coming to the conclusion that no -- Machiavelli does to an extent portray an accurate picture of modern ruling elites, his advice is no longer relevant to the world at large. Machiavelli's advice simply would not stand up to a government that has to routinely be accountable to its people. With precious few exceptions, people would not seek to keep people they fear in power -- and in any rate, it's hard to "fear" a democratic ruler because people always know they have the recourse of removing him/her(!) from power. But for autocrats, Machiavelli has much more relevance, even to this day.

But the majority of the world's governments are not accountable to their people; so why does Machiavelli not hold true in any meaningful sense globally? Well, while it is true that ~80 of the worlds countries are democratic and ~30 are "true" democracies, let's look at those "true" democracies -- the US, EU, UK, Japan, ANZAC and Brazil. The center of power in the world is heavily invested in democracies, even Russia and China have some sort of elections. Thanks to Woodrow Wilson and the wars of decolonization, the idea of democracy has fully penetrated nearly every single society in the world. Even those who live under the worst conditions of repression and autocracy (rulers Machiavelli would love), are agitating for democracy (Green Movement, Muslim Brotherhood, Cedar Revolution, Orange Revolution...). Rulers who routinely repress their people cannot be fully secure in their position in a vacuum. The only reason this is not more pronounced is that there are mitigating factors, like US aid to autocrats to keep them in power.

So, while Machiavelli can have some relevance in how modern rulers conduct themselves, he is no longer relevant to modern world politics. In addition, many of the autocrats who model Machiavelli break one of his cardinal rules -- don't be hated. So, if one looks at rulers who violently enforce their own power over the will of the populace as the modern embodiment of Machiavellian values, then yes -- Machiavelli has some relevance to the modern world as that is how the majority of rulers conduct themselves. But rulers undermine their own power when they do that, autocracies are never truly stable so one would be foolish to set out to model themselves upon Machiavelli.