Democracy Machiavellian style as option
Ever since we got independence in 1947, we have been trying various known systems of governance to establish “rule” and writ of “law” in our country.
We tried the Presidential system, Parliamentary system, military rule, mixer of civil-cum military rule but none seems to have worked.
We have been facing the “Governance” dilemma since inception. The democracy of the kind we have been and are practicing perhaps doesn’t suit us.
Though Democracy is an excellent system of running a political system of a country as we have seen in the West, yet there are certain “essentials” and fundamental requirements for democracy to succeed.
Among these are high education level, political awareness, freedom, laws and rules which protect the weak and powerful equally which create a conducive atmosphere for democracy to take roots and succeed.
Unfortunately, we don’t see these important factors present in our system and hence we continuously encounter political turbulence, while other countries in the region-even those who got independence much after we did- have become politically and economically, role models of success and prosperity.
Like a winning team, who has a leader who inspires the team mates, we too need a selfless, dedicated, honest, intelligent, upright leader with a vision to steer country out of quagmire we are in today.
Democracy, as it is practiced today in the West, may not be the answer to various issues and problems we are confronted with, today.
We need to select a political system which suits our peculiar circumstances, nature and mood of our masses who are largely uneducated and unaware of the importance of their vote.
Political leaders have to rise above personal and party level interests and think rationally and act nationally rather than igniting the sentiments of the people to suits their political agenda (which could be anti-state too), fomenting trouble, exploiting a given situation to misguide masses and stirring unrest by either using money as a tool to achieve their nefarious designs or use brutal force of votes (including buying votes) to mould public opinion to seek desired results.
We have seen this happen in our country many times. It is here where one thinks of Machiavelli and his “Prince” to rule a rowdy and corrupt society to bring order in running a country and govern ungoverned.
According to Machiavelli, the problem of democracy since the Greeks invented it, is that elites are perpetually “motivated by a will to dominate.
” The appetite for power and control by the wealthy is perpetual, and can only be tempered by the many.
Scholar John P McCormick has been instrumental in bringing Machiavelli’s ideas of democracy to the centre of political science in his book Machiavellian Democracy (2011).
In a journal article of 2001, he explains how Machiavelli argued for the necessity of a strong popular, even populist stance against elites.
McCormick characterizes Machiavellian democracy “as an institutional mix of popular representation and direct popular participation, as well as a political culture driven by an active rather than passive socio-political orientation
Machiavelli finished his most famous work, “The Prince” (originally titled “Of Principalities) in 1527.
It’s from this work that we have the adjective “Machiavellian,” for scheming and unscrupulous politicians and the ruthless politics of autocrats.
“Discourses” became Machiavelli’s great contribution to modern republicanism. “Where no equality exists, a republic cannot be created” he wrote.
Machiavelli really didn’t like elites. But in a republic, there was probably no way to get around them.
The point was to keep them honest to preserve liberty. His message is straightforward: if you are to govern, you better be effective.
Machiavelli had good reasons to occupy himself with effectiveness. Italy in general and Florence in particular in those times, were in decline, suffering from internal disarray and threatened and to some degree subjugated by foreign powers (something we are experiencing today).
That, he thought, was the result of weak and inept governing. So when he reflected on the doings of the “Prince” and the need for effective rule, what he had in mind might have been less the glory of the prince and more the standing of the state.
His message, then, was one of effectiveness for a purpose. He thought that effective rule was necessary if the rulers were to have any chance of winning the goodwill of the people and hence for the cohesion of the ruler and the ruled that would make for a solid state.
It is in the interest of those who are ruled that the rule they are exposed to, works. Otherwise, not only the state but also the lives of its citizens will be in peril.
For Machiavelli, then, effective rule is a noble ambition. “The world is not an easy place, people are not easy to deal with, the times are brutal and turbulent.
Rule in such a way as to create order, is difficult”, he writes. From this comes his many and well known recommendations for ruthlessness on the part of the ruler.
There is no escaping his cynicism on the use of hard means when it comes to govern effectively.
He was a man of the Republic, as believed that under republican rule, there is a division of power and those in power are answerable to at least some of the people, so there is ideally no need for tyranny.
He also thought that that kind of rule was the best basis for a stable state. Although republican rule is not democratic but is as close to democratic thinking as is available at the time, he observed.
Those of us who are concerned today with the future of democratic government have much the same reasons to occupy ourselves with effectiveness.
So there seems to be nothing wrong if the ruler is “hard and effective” as far as maintaining Law and order is concerned and there is no undue interference of other organs of the state in exercising his “executive” authority.
An enlightened “Prince/leader” is much better than an ignorant and unwise ruler, he meant. Democracy is challenged and in some ways is in decline in quality and delivery.
Movements of anti-politics and anger are taking hold. The core democracies of Britain and America are in crisis of identity and gridlocked governance.
Their predicament is not unlike that of Machiavelli’s Florentine Republic: the constitutional institutions function poorly, in Britain and America’s case in particular their national assemblies, (Parliament in Westminster and Congress in Washington).
Cohesion of the rulers and the ruled is much wanting, as is goodwill from people to governors.
Admirable constitutions are falling into disrespect and are weakened by internal divisions, lack of confidence and poor leadership.
External powers of non-democratic persuasions are asserting themselves. The situation in which we find ourselves today, do we need a “Machiavelli Prince” for our great country?
—The writer is former Civil Servant & Consultant: ILO and IOM.
