The name Machiavelli became associated to treason, plots, king
poisoning, etc. and to a set of morals (?) that gaver him the
reputation of a
good character for Shakespeare's McBeth.
Before reading The Prince I imagined Machiavelli as a man that believed
in the use of any kind of
means in order to achieve the end, with no
concern on the
subject of right and wrong.
To my surprise he turns out to be what we call a man of principles. On
the other side, his honesty in dealing with the subject of
power is so
diamond hard that it can easily be mistaken for cinicism.
I found of particular interest the chapters in which Machiavelli deals
with the subject of how man becomes a prince. He wrote a
chapter about the ones that got to power by heredity (Chapter II), by
arms and ability (Chapter VI), by arms and good fortune (Chapter VII)
and by
wickedness (Chapter VIII).
Let us try to find out how power is achieved nowadays. Under the
risk of souding blunt I ask: by what means are the US
presidents elected?
Arms are out. Ability? Certainly! Good Fortune? By all means! If Bin
Laden had been caught before the last presidential elections,
Bush would be elected by a landslide. Had Kerry been fortunate Laden
would have suceeded in acomplishing some kind of 9/11 act.
Now comes the question: what about wickedness? Well, we could
say that
Hitler and Saddam and those Idi Amins are the ones that achieved power
by wickedness.
What about all the Washington D.C. 'little wickednessses' we all know
about and even got to accept as being OK? Is it not wicked
to think one thing and say anoter? It certainly cannot be called being
truthful. Do candidates really say what they think of what the voters
would like to hear? This makes us wonder if wickedness is an
unavoidable part of todays political scene, as long as it stays withnin
certain levels. Could it be so?
I'll give a hint: Do you want to understand better what goes on in the
political stage? Read Machiavelli's book. It's up-to date!
More summaries about the The Prince