Vladimir Putin: Machiavellian Prince or Pauper?

Monday, May 28, 2012

Vladimir Putin- Machiavellian Prince or Pauper?

Machiavelli’s masterpiece, The Prince (1513), advises rulers on how best to further their interests. He recommended doing whatever works for the advancement of a country’s interests and then went on to equate the interest of a state with the interests of its governing leader. Over time, the term "Machiavellian" has become a slur, meaning a ruler who has no moral compass and only operates in his own self-interest, i.e., an unscrupulous tyrant. Like most shorthand, this is a simplification of Machiavelli's original intention.


The one ruler in current affairs who most resembles Machiavelli's Prince would be Russian President-turned-Prime Minister-turned President Vladimir Putin, who seems motivated strictly by the desire to advance his own influence over Russia and the world. He has also been quite successful at doing so, contorting the Russian constitution like a pretzel to suit his whim of coming back as President and using the country’s oil and gas reserves as currency for his global ambitions.


Machiavelli wrote The Prince as an instruction manual for all rulers to use as a manual to keep subjects in line. Machiavelli stressed the importance of stability and for the ruler to have complete control over his entire kingdom. The Prince was written mainly as a guide book for a prince to maintain his power and then to keep his throne. To Machiavelli's prince, cruelty is justified because the ends justify the means. Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli poses the question, "Is it better to be loved more than feared or feared more than loved? Ideally, one ought to be both feared and loved." A loved prince would result in people willing to do anything for him, but they could go against their word unless he was also feared. Putin, therefore, resurrected torture colonies which people are sent to when they commit a crime against their country. The colonies range from torture by holding heavy weights and running to some of them imitating Nazi Death Camps (Putin’s Russia).


Machiavelli dedicated The Prince to Cesare Borgia, the illegitimate son of Pope Alexander VI, became a cardinal at the age of 17, a murderer by 25 and went on to conquer a good part of Italy by 27. The modern-day Machiavellian prince is just as murderous and corrupt as Borgia in the person of Vladimir Putin, who has created a virtual empire for himself in Russia and rules the country much like a puppeteer.


Following Machiavelli's advice of "always maintaining himself in princedom, unless deprived of it by some extraordinary and irresistible force, and even if so deprived, will recover it,” Putin has ruled Russia uninterrupted from 2000. He was first President between 2000 and 2008, but because the constitution did not allow him to run again, decided to take a detour to the Prime Minister’s office between 2008 and 2012. Last month, he re-emerged as President, switching roles with Dmitry Medvedev in a scene more becoming of a “feigned democracy.” Even as Prime Minister, Putin took no chances with Medvedev, ensuring that he continued to control the Kremlin behind the scenes.


During the last decade, Putin has amassed power and wealth by working with oligarchs, following Machiavelli’s textbook: "nothing increases the reputation of a prince so much as great enterprises." With control over the monopolies, he was able to manipulate Russia’s finances and pick winners and losers. His trusted allies became winners, while those out of favour found themselves in jail.


After being accepted by the upper class because he did not raise taxes, Putin aimed at getting the respect of the lower class. Machiavelli states that a prince should "shower benefits upon them [the citizens], they are yours; they offer you their blood, their substance, their lives and their children," and this is exactly what Putin did. The poverty level in Russia was over 30% when Putin came to office but it dropped to below 17% when he put in place his economic reforms (Washington Post). Putin perfected the system of privileges by putting it under complete government control: A system of largesse was designed to help poverty-stricken people buy the food and goods they needed to survive (Russia Profile).


Strictly following The Prince, Putin made sure that he was considered a benevolent dictator: "It is a good thing to be considered generous. But if liberality is not openly displayed for all to see, no one will ever hear about it." Hence, Putin staged an auction to sell a painting for $1.14 million dollars, promising all of the money for the Russian government to help repair the economy or for any other use the found necessary (New York Times). Putin was able to show people how generous he was and gain more support in the process.


Putin’s desire to command and control has extended abroad as well. After a bitter argument over who committed the Katyn massacre in the opening stages of the Second World War, Putin decided to cut off all oil flow to Poland. Putin has used oil and gas to manipulate countries. Machiavelli states that "the wise prince will rely on what he can control and not on what is in the control of others." Similarly, Putin ordered a gas cut-off to the Ukraine because Kiev refused to toe Moscow’s line (Washington Post).


Putin has maintained his authority as a “false democrat” (Globe and Mail) for the past 12 years and shows no signs of quenching his thirst for power. He is power-hungry but makes it look as if he is doing it for his country. The Prince is all about how well you can deceive your people. Arguably, few leaders in current politics can claim total immunity from Machiavellian ambitions, but few come close to personifying Cesare Borgia as Putin does.

John Locke vs. Thomas Hobbes: Analyzing the Syrian Uprising

Sunday, May 27, 2012



Thomas Hobbes vs. John Locke



There has been much unrest in Northern Africa and the Mediterranean over the past two years, popularly known as the Arab Spring. Gaining its roots from the nation of Tunisia, the call for change has rippled through a great portion of the Arab world such as Egypt, Libya and Syria and further afield in Yemen, Bahrain and Oman.


The ongoing Syrian unrest was sparked on March 15, 2011, in Da’ara when a group of young boys put up anti-government graffiti and were imprisoned without the knowledge of their parents (New York Times-Syria Times). At a time when concurrent regional protests around Syria were occurring, groups of protesters who were against the imprisonment of the boys rose up to demonstrate. The army was called in to quell the resistance, resulting in a few deaths. Bashar Al-Assad, the President, sent his troops to Da’ara to restore order and emissaries offered his condolences to families of the victims. The apology was more or less disregarded, and the movement began to spread across the country to bring down the Al-Assad regime. The security forces moved throughout the country to stop the protests, and they opened fire on innocent civilians. Unfortunately, by the time Al-Assad acted upon the resistance, the number of protestors had reached the thousands and violence was escalating.

President Bashar Al-Assad

To date, over 12,000 people have been killed, hundreds have been imprisoned in inhumane conditions, and tens of thousands have fled to nearby Lebanon and Jordan (Huffington Post). It’s in unsettled conditions such as these that the teachings of great philosophers are called on to offer an explanation and divine a way forward.


Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704) are two of history’s most prominent philosophers who have pertinent theories regarding legitimacy, authority and power. At its core, the Syrian uprising is a revolt against the Al-Assad clan that has ruled the country since 1979.


Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan in 1651, where he stated that “humans [are] organisms in motion and that they need to be restrained by authority from pursuing selfish ends.” He argues that people can never rest; they will never be satisfied with what they have because they will always crave more. A philosophical opposite, John Locke, believed in a social contract between the people and the government. In Two Treatises of Government (1690), Locke’s belief in liberalism and equality led him to assess the limits of power and authority. He believed human nature was characterized by “tolerance and reason” and individuals can avail of freedom at its best when they balance these two principles. The government’s power can be questioned and challenged to ensure that the social contract is not broken between the government and its citizens. In the social contract, people “lend” their power to the government and they can take it back whenever they find it necessary. Locke also states that people have the right to stage a revolution, and since humans are social beings, they are capable of solving their conflicts civilly.


The current revolution in Syria can be analyzed using either a Hobbesian or Lockean lens. Power is a key element that keeps citizens under control. For the last 40 years, the Ba’ath party has been in power in Syria. Initially, Hafez Al-Assad was the leader of the party, but after his passing, his son Bashar Al-Assad inherited the position. When the protests started, the government responded by appealing to the families of the victims, with an attempt at reform. When he saw an increase in the number of protests, Al- Assad fired two governors and ‘sacked’ his cabinet. Shortly after, he announced that he would grant nationality to 200,000 stateless Kurds, hoping that it would calm down the protesters. However, the Kurdish people claimed that the reforms did not go far enough. Citizens complained that he had still not lifted the 48-year-old emergency law robs the Syrian people of most basic freedoms, released political prisoners or allowed opposition political parties. After the pressure increased from the citizens, President Bashar lifted the emergency law in April 2011.


There is a “continual progress of the desire from one object to another,” all in an effort to attain felicity (Hobbes). No matter how many minor reforms have been introduced by Al-Assad, repressed Syrians are not satisfied because they expect more from their government. Al-Assad has attempted to use his power to create new reforms which would bring upon peace within Syria. There is always going to be a “hidden desire” (Hobbes) to gain as much as possible. In this case, the citizens wanted the Al-Assad regime to lift the emergency law, among other demands. The government initially had the legitimacy to intervene in the violence and put an end to the bloodshed, but as the unrest has spread and taken on sectarian overtones, the regime’s authority is in doubt. This is a typically Hobbesian dilemma. Without a government, Hobbes claimed that “the life of [a] man [will be] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” However, it is also human nature to want more and “all of mankind [has] a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that cease only in death.” (Hobbes).


On one side of the Syrian conflict is the Bashar regime which wants to maintain peace by suppressing the rebellion and offering small concessions to stay in power. On the other side are Syrians who want the government to give in to their demands for regime change, democratic reforms, expanded civil rights, recognition of Kurdish rights and more (Huffington Post). Although the government or Leviathan clamped down on the population from the very start with an ‘iron fist’, the revolution has spread and became uncontrollable. In a Hobbesian world, the power of a dubious regime is pitted against the popular will of the people.


Locke, on the other hand, offers a more sympathetic and reasonable application to the plight of the Syrians. The revolution in Syria supports Locke’s idea that people have the right to a revolution. When the government refuses to acknowledge the needs of the citizens and their common needs, the citizens “have a right to resume their original liberty” (Locke). Through the act of revolution, the violation of “the social contract between the people and the government” (Locke) becomes apparent. Since the power of the government can be questioned and challenged, the citizens have the right to overthrow the government.
Also, when one totalitarian leader passes on the baton to an equally unaccountable son, the idea that citizens are temporarily lending their power to the ‘ruler’ to protect their “liberty”, “rights”, and “property” (Locke) is breached. In regards to the Syrian revolution, the government was unable to defend the basic human right to “life and liberty,” therefore automatically giving the Syrian population the right to revolt. Initially, the citizens chose a peaceful way to approach the government, in regards to the torture of the boys, as a show of peaceful protest. After the security forces engaged in violence with the population, citizens felt that the “social contract” (Locke) was broken and they reciprocated with violence. Since people did not give “consent” (Locke) to having a tyrannical government, they set out to replace it with a government that satisfies and listens to their needs.


The ongoing Syrian uprising is a victory for the Lockean world view because it better explains the break down in the contract between the rulers and the ruled. Since the social contract between the government and the people was breached, according to Locke, the people have the right to a revolution. Impatient citizens were appealing to the government about their freedom, but when offered a combination of fig leaf reforms and a mailed fist, their struggle morphed into a full-fledged Arab Spring-type revolution. The government’s power and authority was questioned when protesters encountered violence from the security forces. The Syrians believe that if the Al-Assad regime can’t provide them with protection from the security forces, they will take the power away from him and give it to someone else. The demands and actions of these citizens are better explained by Locke’s theory over the Hobbesian belief that an unquestioned sovereign is the very condition of an ordered and lawful state (Harper’s Magazine).