Compare to the Modern World Essay Example for Free

Compare to the Modern World Essay The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli is a political treatise that gives a vivid account of the means rulers adapt to gain power, or to maintain power. In the context of modern politics, The Prince has often been compared with Arthasastra by Kautilya. The relevance of the treatise goes beyond its time, and acts as a revealing paradigm for political schemes. Many critics find the book an engrossing one especially the way Machiavelli takes a contemptuous stance at established notions of morality. Reading the book often gives a feeling that the author satirizes more than he wants to advocate. The cynical outlook expressed with a secular approach was a refreshing deviation from established norms of political treatises. This article is going to focus on the impact of The Prince on western philosophy and political ideologies. As the book looks into the acquisition, perpetuation and use of political power in the western countries, we would also bring into account Machiavelli’s concept of ‘Mixed Principalities’ with regards to what the modern day governments preferred to follow (Hooker n. d. ). To elucidate furthermore on our proposed area of discussion, we need to closely examine chapter 3 of The Prince. This chapter deals with ‘Mixed Principalities’ and the difficulties in regulating them. By the term ‘Mixed Principalities’, Machiavelli provides two basic types of ruling: hereditary and new. In chapter 1 and chapter 2 of The Prince, Machiavelli asserts the basic methods of acquisition in the light of ‘Mixed Principalities’. He cites examples of both hereditary as well as new principalities: The new are either entirely new, as was Milan to Francesco Sforza, or they are, as it were, members annexed to the hereditary state of the prince who has acquired them, as was the kingdom of Naples to that of the King of Spain. (Machiavelli et al. 15) According to the author, the changes that occur as aftermaths of acquisition involve a complex process. The members of the state desire changes for their betterment, and when that does not happen, they tend to revolt against the new rulers. A new prince (allegorically represented as the new ruler) must enforce stringent protocols and laws on his subjects to keep them under his authority. Now the dilemma of a new prince is beautifully described as he faces a catch 22 situation. When the prince conquers a new country, he makes enemies galore and at the same time, he is distanced from his friends in that he is not supposed to give them everything they expects of him. He has to maintain a balance in terms of his commitment. The example of Louis XII, the king of France, is given to explicate the ideas of difficulties in retaining the power. He captured Milan twice and lost twice. The subjects who assisted him in acquisition of the Italian state left his side when they felt that they got duped into false hopes by the king of France. Now when the king, after realizing the areas he needed to work on, occupied Milan for the second time, he did not make the same mistake of disappointing the rebels. Albeit he was hesitant, he inflicted punishment on the offenders to satisfy the rebels. Now, the irony of the entire policy lies in the fact that Louis XII, by provoking ire among the mass of Milan, made himself vulnerable to his throne, which led to his downfall for the second time in succession. From this historical lesson, Machiavelli infers three likely and effective governing strategies of principalities. Machiavelli thinks of three interrelated scenarios in terms of regulating the acquired principalities to the best possible interest of the ruler. These scenarios provide a foundation for the modern day politicians to keep a hold on subjugated territories. According to the author, it helps a great deal if the acquired state shares the same cultural and linguistic identity of the ruling body. If the customs and language are same, the prince finds it easier to keep the people of the state he acquires under control. On the contrary, when states conquered differ in language, laws and customs, it becomes a challenging job to restore peace. One of the feasible solutions for the ruler is to physically relocate himself to the acquired state so that he can perpetuate his command over it. Availability at hand helps enormously when it comes to settling disputes. In this regard, Machiavelli cites the example of the Turk in Greece, â€Å"†¦who, notwithstanding all the other measures taken by him for holding that state, if he had not settled there, would not have been able to keep it. Because, if one is on the spot, disorders are seen as they spring up, and one can quickly remedy them. † (Machiavelli et al. 18) The third possibility Machiavelli suggests is to build colonies of the acquired state in different places. The wily measures that are taken by the rulers are thoroughly exposed by the author here: â€Å"The other and better course is to send colonies to one or two places, which may be as keys to that state, for it necessary either to do this or else to keep there a great number of cavalry and infantry. A prince does not spend much on colonies, for with little or no expense he can send them out and keep them there, and he offends a minority only of the citizens from whom he takes lands and houses to give them to the new inhabitants; and those whom he offends, remaining poor and scattered, are never able to injure him; whilst the rest being uninjured are easily kept quiet, and at the same time are anxious not to err for fear it should happen to them as it has to those who have been despoiled. † (Machiavelli et al. 19) As Machiavelli suggests in The Prince, theoretical as well as practical understanding of the ‘Mixed Principalities’ was best grasped by the Romans. They took a leaf out of the previous ruling kingdoms and made it a point to defend their territories tactfully. They sent minorities to colonies and maintained a friendly relation with them. They did not flaunt their power at wrong places at the wrong time. Instead, they preserved it to drive away any other foreign force trying to encroach upon the lands under their dominion. â€Å"The Romans, in the countries which they annexed, observed closely these measures; they sent colonies and maintained friendly relations with the minor powers, without increasing their strength; they kept down the greater, and did not allow any strong foreign powers to gain authority. † (Machiavelli et al. 20) Now these maneuvering techniques adapted by the Romans in Machiavelli’s times may not prove to be fruitful in the context of modern day politics. If we take into account the events in recent history of Afghanistan and Iraq, we will find that the strategy of the Bush administration did not work out as intended. The probable reasons may be the secular form of politics and society that Machiavelli recommended in The Prince is a mismatch in modern world. Besides, the author’s idea of the nature and temperament of citizens does not conform to the opinion of humanists. The idea of morality is completely shunned in The Prince, for the author felt that it acted as an obstacle for gaining supreme governance of a state. (The Prince as Foundation of Modern Day Politics 2006) Now this is highly improbable in modern society, because there are numerous human rights organizations to look after the humanistic aspects of warfare. Moreover, if we closely examine Hitler’s tenure in Nazi Germany, we will be able to find some resemblance between what Machiavelli proposed in The Prince and what Hitler did. According to Machiavelli, a prince must build an army comprising of his own countrymen. This helps gaining a sound control of the states he plans to acquire. The discipline of warfare and the single-mindedness of the prince to achieve what he wants to achieve hold the key to success. Tracing the history of Nazi Germany, one can find that Hitler built up his infamous Nazi party along with building a network of local party organizations to reinforce his administrative control over most of the German territories. (Compares Adolf Hitler to Machiavellis The Prince 1995-2008) The Prince allows the readers and critics alike to form opinions of their own. The relevance of the political ideologies propagated in the book remains to be an unsolved issue till date. Machiavelli deduced his viewpoints primarily from the turbulent socio-political situation of Italy in the beginning of the sixteenth century. But the world has changed a lot since those days. We have discussed both the success as well as failure of the policies advocated by The Prince in case of Nazi Germany and the United States of America respectively. References â€Å"Compares Adolf Hitler to Machiavellis The Prince†. Cheathouse. com. 1995-2008. 12 February 2009 http://www. cheathouse. com/essay/essay_view. php? p_essay_id=53138 Hooker, Richard. â€Å"The Way Princes Should Keep Their Word†. n. d. 12 February 2009 http://www. wsu. edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/machiavelli. html Machiavelli, Niccolo, Leo Paul S. De Alvarez, and Yves Levy. The Prince. South Carolina: Forgotten Books, 1980. â€Å"The Prince as Foundation of Modern Day Politics. † Azete. 2006. 12 February 2009 http://www. azete. com/view/3385