Machiavelli's Assertion and Dirty Hands in Politics - Essay Example

Machiavelli's Assertion and Dirty Hands in politics Introduction The leaders nowadays are using force or violence when the situations that do not favor them arise. This is very dangerous especially for a leader who wants to retain power in his state. Any leader or prince who wants to retain his own power must know how to use violence throughout but not when the emergence situations arises. Doing wrong is not encouraged for leaders but how to do it is what matters. Most present leaders use various tactics for their survival in power. They preach good faith and peace while at the same time they are hostile within themselves. It is very likely that if they keep peace and good faith in their leadership, they may end up being deprived off the reputation and even their kingdom or power. Machiavelli’s Assertion and modern politics According to Machiavelli, Angelo, William, Allen and Arkes (1997), Justice is the opposite of the violence, deceit, domination, aggression and conquest. Machiavelli believes that a city cannot survive by justice alone. He says that justice cannot secure the city’s survival in any political life. Machiavelli argues that it is useless and even irresponsible for any man who holds office or rules any country to avoid the use of violence, deceit and even treachery in defending the state when it is necessary. Cases of using violence and cruelty measures would ever arise unavoidably due to some emergencies that may occur in any state. This is important for defending the state’s security. It is very dangerous for a man who is not always prepared on such measures as he is likely not to remain in power. However, if he remains in power he puts his country at a risk of security failure. De Lamar (1960) argues that it is important that the leaders should rule with justice in their country. Justice is all that people fight for as well as democracy. If these two can prevail in a country, then its people feel comfortable and also part and parcel of it. I agree with Machiavelli that the leader of any state should use the power to suppress the opposition at moments without hesitation. Frederick (2004) argues that, the leader should remain strong and ruthless. Many people despise leaders who are weak and admire or like those who use power to rule their state without fear. Paul (1994) maintains that a strong ruler is always assuring to people rather than a weak one who is not cunning, cruel or even effective towards destroying those who try to challenge his power. Generally every leader should try at all moments to be feared rather than being loved. Being cruel sometimes bring a problem to the country the leader rules. People may even start protesting against it. If at one point people realize that the leader is too ruthless, then they try to ask for their rights. At the same time if the leader is too soft, the people may go ahead to even rule him and not recognize him as a leader, therefore a politician should know what to do at the right time on to his people according to Sheldon (2004). I agree with Machiavelli that any political leader who wants to be successful should be loose in his thinking or rather flexible. Machiavelli and Wayne (2003) assert that the leader should not at any time be bound by theories or principles or his own intentions. He should be able to change the direction whenever something comes against his way so as to be able to survive. It has been impossible for a leader to survive obligations and duties of justice and fairness because they cannot make him to survive the political challenges in his state or regime. It is therefore very important for any leader to weigh his goodness as he rules his people. It is hard for any political leader to be committed to fair dealing or even to give justice under all circumstances and be able to retain power and protect his countries interest at the same time. Martin (1973) argues that such a leader is ever impotent and ineffective and he hardly retains his powers as a leader. Although fair dealing is hard to keep for the leaders, it is important for them to be fair to their people. Fair treating of people is of paramount in any state. This is goodness that should not be denied people at any moment. According to Machiavelli, it is true that the use of force and injustice, treachery and deceit are essentials towards effective exercise of political power. Although people are guided to political innocence by their own talents and temperaments, there is always a room for changing to fit in a way that makes one to survive. In a case whereby the minority is victimized and denied some of his rights to avoid risking the security of a nation and the suffering of the whole population, then the injustice is justifiable. This is a situation where the leader needs to balance between the evils. The leader’s decision is fair if it favors the people’s rights and his so as to make him to remain in power. To some extent injustice and use of force on the people are not encouraged on any nation as some times it makes the people to suffer either physically or even emotionally when practiced by the politicians. John, Adrian and Christopher (2000) say it has always been that morality and politics are incompatible. If these two can become compatible, then the issue of the politics and morality becoming contrary to each other becomes an issue of the past. Honesty in politics is seen as only theoretical and very hard to be practiced in the politics. A leader of moral cannot achieve a lot in his regime but rather he has to be a bit harsh and injustice in the ways of ruling his people. Although honesty is a virtue that is hard to be maintained by a leader, it is hard for any leader to practice honesty in politics. Honesty is very vital to a leader who wants to be trusted by his people especially when it comes to keeping the promises. It is very important for any leader who wishes to hold on his own to know how to do wrong and even make use of it accordingly. It is also important for him to do it according to necessity. It is possible that if the prince or the leader follows the good things only without some vices, then it is very likely that his state may end up into ruins. On the other hand, if something else like the vice is followed, it brings prosperity and security in his regime. The cruelty by leaders according to Machiavelli has been seen to some cases unified and even restored some regimes and states. Many leaders opt to keep their subjects loyal and united at the same time they do not mind being cruel. Cruelty has been seen by many leaders as a way of protecting their political powers throughout. Cruel leaders are the foes of their followers, therefore a leader should try at all cost avoid being cruel to his people. According to Machiavelli, the leader should never struggle to win love from his people. Rather he should aspire to be feared by his subjects and citizens. He should at the same time avoid at all cost form obtaining the properties of his citizens and subjects. Michael (2000) says that it also becomes important for a leader with his army and has control over the multitude of soldiers to disregard the cruelty reputation, as this would never hold his army united or even disposed to its duties. Generally, people love on their own will but at the same time fear according to the king’s appearance or approach to issues. A wise leader establishes him on that which is in his control and not for others. A good leader should endeavor to avoid hatred among his people. Maria (2004) argues that it is unnecessary for a leader have the good qualities although it is good for him to appear like he has those qualities. Being so faithful, humane, religious, upright and merciful for a leader is dangerous and it is important for a leader to opposite according to Machiavelli. It is very important for any new leader to often look at those things that men esteem. It is very hard especially for him to observe those things that men or his people esteem. Therefore the leader should have that credit of holding his state and even conquering it as he will be considered honest and praised by everyone. Dirty hands in politics The problem of the dirty hands is another issue in the politics. It claims that sometimes the wrong things are the right things to do. According to Robin (1996) it becomes important to violate some moral principles so as to achieve some political weight on the other end. Dirty hands in politics mainly involves acts of lying, cheating, stealing and even sometimes killing as long as there are some political gain or goodness at the end of it all. The dilemma of dirty hands is a circumstance where a political actor strives autonomously and heroically to achieve the least outcomes that are evil in some groups that are well defined. Some leaders do wrong those evils in secret and they are accountable only to themselves. According to Garth (2000) the dirty hands in politics include those that perform massacres on the people. Those leaders who justify the political assassination as act of correcting the history. Leaders should try and avoid to be labeled as having the so called dirty hands in their states and periods of ruling. The leaders with dirty hands are seen as those who usually plan for massacres in their states to their followers. Politics of dirty hands are different from those that are described by Machiavelli. Machiavelli focuses on those politics that helps the leader or the prince to survive in power. Therefore, these other politics that are practiced by the leaders to suppress their followers by killing them and even taking their properties are the ones that are seen as dirty hands in politics. Michael (1990) says that the dirty hands politics are seen as oppressive ways of ruling people. It should not be at any moment be practiced by any leader. Politics of dirty hands is seen as civil disobedience in some way. It is important for those leaders who violate the rules that have been set to maintain their power. They go beyond legal or moral limit so as to do what they believe they should do. These type of leaders should accept the punishment if they violate their responsibility. Dirty hand politics usually comes with some kind of punishment being the consequence. Although in most cases the dirty hands moral rules are broken because of state reasons, there should be punishment for that. It is hard according to many leaders to govern innocently. It is not possible for leaders to govern innocently and do the right things always. Many leaders feel that one has to have dirty hands while governing other people. Most politicians lie and hustle because of their desire for the glory and power. Politicians are sometimes seen to be worse than us because they rule over us. This is because the pleasure of ruling is greater than the pleasure of being ruled. It is believed by many that no one is able to succeed in the politics without getting his hands dirty. It is possible to get hands dirty by doing what is right. Many politicians argue that it is not possible for them to keep their hands clean. They go ahead to argue that they do not have right to keep their hands clean. Sometimes it becomes hard for the politicians to avoid the dirty hands politics. A case where a politician wants to win the election but does not want to enter into dirty hands of politics, that kind of politician will have to lie, cheat and even bargain at the back of his supporters so as to win them. Those politicians who are interested in politics pretend to be moral people who always keep and adhere to the principles. They do not even look as if they can get into dirty hands of politics. This is all done to manipulate the supporters so as to win the elections. If this politician wins the election, he will start making deals with other bosses involving the contracts and the tenders. This marks the beginning of him getting onto the dirty politics. Getting into dirty hands of politics has become a routine among many politicians, this happens immediately they are able to get into politics. It has never been decided whether these politicians who get into the dirty politics should be punished or not, but according to my view they is need to punish them. There is need for the state to set some limitations by which politicians should act to them. Although it is impossible to be able to punish the politicians especially when there are in power, there is need to establish some measure so as to reduce the politicians into getting in getting to the dirt hands. Power and domination by the politicians makes the control of dirty hands politics difficult. The courts or legislators which already exist when those politicians’ gets into power are overpowered by the politician’s dominion or power hence no results of preventing those leaders from not getting into dirty hands politics. David and Paul (2000) argue that those politicians who are dirty handed always act outside the constitution. Their actions in most times takes place in the situations that are emergence. The politicians try to minimize suffering as they engage in any problem. They always try to balance on their part to avoid themselves getting into the problems. If the constitution can be set or given more powers than those political leaders, then the incidences of dirty politics can be minimized. The dirty hands’ problem is that it makes many people who are innocent to suffer due to the behaviors of the political leaders. Political leaders act in a way that only favors them in everything they do. They do not mind whether other actions they do harm other people or not. It has been clear that the actions of those leaders ends up making ordinary people to suffer in their own country due to the action of one person. It is therefore important to come up with the way of reducing the dirty politics or actions by those political leaders. If good measures can be used to reduce the dirty politics by the politicians, then people can be able to live well without fear and intimidations from those leaders. There is need therefore for the leaders or politicians who practice dirty politics to be punished the moment they do so. This can be a lesson to other politicians who may have intentions of doing the same to people or his followers. Dirty hands in politics makes the people to suffer hence anyone who may be caught doing that should not be given a chance or even forgiven. Conclusion Wrong doing or dirtying hands in politics is a habit with many politicians for their own gain or benefit. It is never justified to do wrong as a leader because their own gain. Dirtying hands is different from the survival tactics of the politicians that are referred to by the Machiavelli. I strongly agree with the Machiavelli on his support by the tactics the leaders or the prince should use so as they can be able to survive. If the politician can use the tactics of survival to be able to keep him in power with dirtying his hands, then there is no much problem with that. Although use of tactics like not being too open and justified in the ruling of a country, it is important for any leader to do that so as to maintain his power and state without threats from forces outside. I agree with the Machiavelli that justice cannot be used to rule a city or a country. Justice cannot make a leader or even politician to survive with this type of ruling. The use of violence is of great important especially for a leader who wants to survive in politics. I agree with Machiavelli that for any leader who wants to survive in power should not be too soft to his people. He should not just to his people very much. The leader who wants to survive should at some extent use violence to those who may try to oppose him in that he does. Those in opposition should be suppressed so as to discourage them from getting the power they want. References David, P & Paul, R 2000, Cruelty and deception: the controversy over dirty hands in politics, Pluto Press, Australia. De Lamar, J 1960, Machiavelli: cynic, patriot, or political scientist? Heath, Michigan. Frederick, G 2004, Hume and Machiavelli: political realism and liberal thought, Lexington, New York. Garth, B 2000, Dirty hands: Christian ethics in morally ambiguous world, Fortress Press, California. John, G Adrian, L & Christopher, W, 2000, Modern political thought: a reader, Routledge, New Jersey. Machiavelli, N & Wayne, A 2003, The Prince and other writings, Spark Educational Publishing, Chicago. Machiavelli, N, Angelo, C, William B, Allen, H, & Arkes, C, 1997,The Prince, Yale University Press, London. Maria, J 2004, Feminist interpretations of Niccolo Machiavelli. Penn State Press, New Orleans. Martin, F 1973, Machiavelli and the nature of political thought, Taylor & Francis press, Manchester. Michael, A 2000, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, St. Martin’s Press, California. Michael, S 1990, Plural and conflicting values, Oxford University Press, London. Paul, A 1994, Republics ancient and Modern: New modes and orders in early modern political thought, UNC Press, London. Robin, C 1996, People with dirty hands: the passion for gardening, University of Virginia Press, Virginia. Sheldon, S, 2004, Politics and Vision: continuity and innovation in Western political thought, Princeton University Press, London. Stephen, A 1996, Conscience and power: an examination of dirty hands and political leadership, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Read More