Political Theory: Machiavelli

Nowadays politicians and statesmen have a certain stereotype around them. They are usually classified as being greedy, ruthless, vile, shady and shrewd but while we complain about these we never ask why most politicians are seen this way and why don't they try to change. 

According to Renaissance Political Theorist, Niccolo Machiavelli politicians and statesmen have these traits not out of choice but out of necessity. A Politician has but three roles in his profession: to maintain the state, to enrich the state and to defend the state from internal and external threats. In order for a politician to be able to successfully perform these three roles Machiavelli says in his book The Prince they must know how to fight, how to read the environment and how to evaluate reputation. The Prince (the politician) should appear to the people not as a tyrant nor as a friend but instead should appear unapproachably strict but fair. 

Kindness is a virtue for the citizen while effectiveness is the virtue that all leaders require which may call upon some dark arts. It is impossible to be a good politician and a good person.

Fear was another aspect Machiavelli said all leaders should be well aware of and use effectively. This was one of Machiavelli's biggest criticism as leaders were expected to be loved not feared or at least that is what the citizens were taught. Machiavelli replied by saying while it would be ideal for the prince to be loved and feared, they must always lean to inspire fear for this will result in order, unlike love as order is essential for maintaining the state.

Another quality all leaders should possess is virtu. Virtu is described as a mixture of: wisdom, strategy, strength, bravery and ruthlessness. Fortuna, Machiavelli said are the events and obstacles that the world will hurdle onto a leader and only with virtu can the leader use these events in his favor. Say for example if there is a tragedy in the state where many lives were lost a leader with virtu would unite the state in this time of darkness and prevent it from falling into anarchy.

Machiavelli's work was banned for many years by the Church because it went against their beliefs that since leader's powers came from god that leaders should be godly men. Machiavelli responded by saying that Christian ethics and good governance do not match with each other, being a good Christian is the same as being a weak leader and a weak leader shall being chaos to the state and eventually will be replaced usually by force.

All this being said Machiavelli did not endorse leaders to be tyrannical and disregard their subject's rights. Violence must only be necessary for the defense of the state, they must be done swiftly and in the dark and should not be repeated too often. Sometimes we must make ethical trade-offs for the good of the state and therefore for the good of ourselves.

Short video summary on what was discussed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOXl0Ll_t9s

The Earth or comfort?

Recently in France a large group of protesters gathered to protest against an environmental related policy pushed by the French President Emmanuel Macron. However unlike most environmental linked protests this one has the protesters protesting against a policy that would aid the environment instead of polluting it.

This policy includes the removal of all coal powered stations and a few nuclear power stations, but that is not what these people are protesting against, no they are simply protesting against an increase in fuel tax.

This protests to me continues to show how such an important topic such as the environment hardly has any beneficial future ahead of itself, so long as we place comfort and convenience over the well being of our planet the banes of pollution shall never cease. We cannot rebuild the world in a better more Eco-friendly way by simply cleaning up trash and spreading awareness but by tackling the situation at it's core even if it means falling out of popularity. The French President seems to be the only politician with the guts to make the hard decisions for the benefit of the future and for that I hold him to the highest regard.

Brexit: The situation on both sides

Brexit, ever since the eve of Thursday 23 June, 2016 this phenomenon has dominated UK and EU relations. Day and night reports would fly on what deal has the British Parliament concocted now or which cabinet member resigned, it seems there is no end to the chaos not at least until the deadline is reached.


So let us take a step back and attempt to piece together what nearly two years of back and forth negotiations has needed both the EU and UK with.


On the UK side is where most of the debating has taken place, the initial problem the UK government faced other than the sudden resignation of the Prime Minister at the time David Cameron was that nobody quite knew what Brexit was and what it should be. The two most common terms used to describe what Brexit should be were soft and hard Brexit, soft meaning hardly and split from the EU such as staying in the common market and hard being a complete split from the EU leaving all of it's institutions. Add to this situation a snap election which reduced the current Prime Minister Theresa May's bargaining power as her party lost seats in Parliament rather than gain any, teenagers now eligible to vote protesting for a second Brexit referendum, elderly leave voters dropping like flies and the fear of a second Scottish independence referendum it seems the UK has known nothing but chaos the last few months. It is therefore no surprise that Brexit has physically, mentally and emotionally drained the country and now with only a few weeks left till the deadline it is not yet certain what Brexit will become.


On the EU side contrary to the UK all seems to be quiet as there are no debates between member states on what Brexit should be instead all states have publicly stated their concerns over the deal and entrust the EU to voice their concerns during the negotiations with the UK. Indeed the only bit of controversy from an EU member states is Spain's concerns over Gibraltar but that is currently being debated over and the result is uncertain.


As of yet both the EU and UK are uncertain on what the future holds for the two entities but let us hope that whatever the outcome the two of them remain close in both economic and defensive terms.