Sunday, September 14, 2008

Machiavelli Madness

The main issue from class that I would like to bring up is whether or not Machiavelli’s theories are still applicable today. The whole book is based on the assumption that the only way for a state to survive is to rely only on itself and its ruler to ensure the physical integrity of the state. Machiavelli sees outside help and international relations as something that will only weaken the state. While he may have had a sound theory back in the day, and while there are still parts that are applicable today, Machiavelli is missing some points that are key in today’s global society.

One common happening today that was virtually nonexistent in Machiavelli’s time is globalization. Since so many countries rely on one another for resources, we now see states thinking about more than just physical security. A state must also consider the other states it trades with when making policy decisions because if anything should happen to disrupt the productivity of an ally, the state itself will probably be adversely affected as well. This makes countries less likely to go to war as well as less likely to see the progress of a state as a threat. The European Union is a prime example. Although each state is soveirgn, it is in the best interests of each state to trade with and assist the others.

Another thing that has changed, as mentioned in class by Dustin, is the prominence of democracies. Machiavelli viewed the common citizen as stupid and uninterested in the politics of the state as long as they were not too oppressed; therefore it was not important to put the needs of citizens first. This has changed in the age of democracies. For a ruler to stay in power in a democracy, he or she must keep the people happy.

Although I wouldn’t argue that Machiavelli’s writings are completely obsolete, I do think that there are many things that now have to be taken into account. Our class recognized the importance of the integrity of the state but took into account the importance of other factors, and I think that the majority of us recognize that this is true.

No comments: