![]() India’s move to register almost 2.5 million non-local voters in the IIOJK triggered outrage amongst the local Kashmiris and Muslims, as it will permit voting rights to any Indian citizen living temporarily in the region. In this regard, under a well-planned hidden agenda, the Modi-led regime has accelerated the implementation of bringing demographic changes in the Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK). Under his regime, persecution of religious minorities such as Sikhs, Christians and especially Muslims has been intensified in accordance with the Hindutva ideology. Since Narendra Modi, the fanatic leader of the BJP, became the Indian prime minister, he has been following the discarded tactics of Machiavelli in the modern era. In this sense, a good ruler should be a good opportunist and hypocrite. He also suggests the use of terror to obtain goals. Image: Niccolò Machiavelli, by Lorenzo Bartolini (c.In his book, ‘The Prince’, Machiavelli advises rulers to have a lion-like image outwardly and act upon the traits of goats inwardly. You could send us a message or fill in this form. What do you think? Feared or loved – which is better for a leader? Let us know in the comments.Īnd, as always, if you have a question for the Armchair Philosophers, don’t hesitate to get in touch. But perhaps Machiavelli sees citizens as too ungrateful, or rulers as too corrupt, for this to be a likely scenario. Orders and statements issued by such a prince may sound naturally convincing. A prince may be loved by his subjects because he is perceived to be wise, responsible, just, or caring for his people (why else would we love him?). In politics, does love really exclude listening? One could also say, against his position, that a loved prince is a prince who does not need the threat of force to have his orders obeyed. Thus, if fear is a necessary ingredient to keep a political community in line, it does not seem that unreasonable to consider it a valuable political asset, if not the most enchanting one.īut I am not sure Machiavelli is right about the risks of love. Nowadays, such goods would include, for instance, the protection of our rights, infrastructure such as roads or water systems, education, public health systems, or social aid for those who need it (at least this is what we tend to expect from governments). If Machiavelli is correct, fear is not only good for the prince, but also for everyone benefiting from the goods he provides. Tyranny is usually not tolerated long by subjects, who had better resist it than endure it, unlike the rule of a strict, but fair prince. ![]() Note that Machiavelli hastens to add that such fear should not turn into hatred. ![]() ![]() Machiavelli also thinks that if subjects love their prince without being afraid of him, they will be more easily inclined to “offend” him by disrespecting his orders, for instance, or abusing his clemency. As an illustration, let us take taxes: a lot of people pay them, not because they’re happy to, but because they fear the punishment of the state if they refuse to, which would mean losing even more money, maybe even going to jail. Machiavelli assumes here that fear is the most effective motivation for us to do something that we don’t naturally desire to do, like obeying authorities. Otherwise, if subjects just do as they please, what’s the point of having a ruler? There is, arguably, another reason that lies in the nature of authority: a prince needs his subjects to be compliant with his orders to be able to govern. ![]() This is not only for the ruler’s own interest in keeping rivals and rebels away to stay in power. Machiavelli advises rulers to inspire both fear and love in their subjects but if they cannot obtain both, fear would be the safer bet. Your question is discussed by Machiavelli in his famous book, ‘The Prince’. Thank you, Joshua Genovea, for such a pertinent question. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |