EDITORIAL

The Prince is a political treatise by Niccolò Machiavelli, written in 1513. A short treatise on cultivating power, constructing a state, and preserving it, The Prince characterizes Machiavelli’s exertion to steer political action based on the lessons of history and his experience as a foreign secretary in Florence. His hypothesis that politics has its laws shocked his readers that the adjectival form of his surname, Machiavellian, came to be employed as a synonym for political maneuvers marked by cunning, slick duplicity, or deceit. 

Before Machiavelli, toils in this genre recommended princes adopt the best Prince as their model. Still, Machiavelli’s version suggests that a prince bears to the “effectual truth” of things and forgo the standard of “what should be done” lest he brings about his ruin. To maintain himself, a prince must learn not to be exemplary and use or not use this knowledge “according to necessity.” An observer would see such a prince as guided by necessity. From this standpoint, Machiavelli is the founder of modern political science, a discipline based on the actual state of the world as opposed to how the world might be in utopias such as the Republic of Plato (428/27–348/47 BC) or the City of God of Saint Augustine (354–430). This second amoral interpretation can be found in works by the German historian Friedrich Meinecke (1862–1954) and the German philosopher Ernst Cassirer (1874–1945). The amoral interpretation fastens on Machiavelli’s frequent resort to “necessity” to excuse actions that people might otherwise condemn as immoral. But Machiavelli also instructs the usage of prudence in particular circumstances. Though he sometimes offers rules or remedies for princes to adopt, he does not seek to establish exact or universal laws of politics in the manner of modern political science.https://republicpolicy.com/the-politics-of-gaddi-nasheens-still-going-strong-in-pakistan/

Machiavelli divides principalities into those that are acquired and those that are inherited. He contends that the more difficult it is to control a state, the easier it is to hold on to it. The reason for this is that the fear of a new prince is stronger than the love for a hereditary prince; hence, the new Prince, who relies on “a dread of punishment that never forsakes you,” will succeed, but a prince who expects his subjects to keep their promises of support will be disappointed. The Prince will encounter that “each wants to die for him when death is at a distance,” but when the Prince needs his subjects, they generally decline to serve as promised. Thus, every Prince, whether new or old, must look upon himself as a new prince and learn to rely on “one’s arms,” literally in raising one’s army and metaphorically in not relying on the goodwill of others.

The new Prince leans on his virtue, but if integrity is to enable him to acquire a state, it must have a new meaning distinct from the New Testament virtue of seeking peace. Machiavelli’s notion of virtù requires the Prince to be concerned foremost with the art of war and to seek not merely security but also glory, for glory is included in necessity. Virtù, for Machiavelli, is a virtue not for its own sake but for the sake of reputation; it stimulates princes to cultivate. Liberality, for example, does not assist a prince because the recipients may not be grateful, and lavish displays necessitate taxing of the Prince’s subjects, who will detest him for it. Thus, a prince should not be concerned if he is held to be stingy, as this vice enables him to rule.https://republicpolicy.com/politics-of-narrative-in-pakistan/

Similarly, a prince should not care about being held insensitive as long as the cruelty is “well used.” Machiavelli sometimes uses virtù in the traditional sense, too, as in a famous passage on Agathocles (361–289 BC), the self-styled king of Sicily, whom Machiavelli describes as a “most excellent captain” but one who came to power by illegal means. Of Agathocles, Machiavelli writes, “one cannot call it a virtue to kill one’s citizens, betray one’s friends, to be without faith, mercy and religion.” Yet, in the following sentence, he speaks of “the virtue of Agathocles,” who did all these things. Virtue, according to Machiavelli, aims to reduce the power of fortune over human affairs because worth keeps men from relying on themselves. At first, Machiavelli admits that fortune rules half of men’s lives, but then, in an infamous metaphor, he compares fortune to a woman who lets herself be won more by the reckless and the young, “who commands her with more audacity,” than by those who cruise cautiously. Machiavelli cannot simply dismiss or replace the traditional notion of moral virtue, which gets its strength from the religious beliefs of ordinary people. His virtue of mastery coexists with traditional moral virtue, yet he also uses it. A prince with skill can command fortune and manage people to a degree never before thought possible.

In the last chapter of The Prince, Machiavelli writes a passionate “exhortation to seize Italy and to free her from the barbarians”—apparently France and Spain, which had been overrunning the disunited peninsula. He calls for a redeemer, mentioning the miracles that occurred as Moses led the Israelites to the promised land, and closes with a quotation from a patriotic poem by Petrarch (1304–74). The final chapter has led many to the third interpretation of Machiavelli as a patriot rather than a disinterested scientist. Hence, Machiavelli asserts that power is the ultimate cause of a prince, and he must obtain it either through good or evil practices and designs.

The politics in Pakistan has always been intricate and complex. There are always de-facto and de-jure players in the politics of Pakistan. It seems that Machiavelli wrote his famous book perceiving the impending circumstances of Pakistani politics. Power is central to the politics in Pakistan. The political values, transparency and translucence are secondary to the end of power. The politics are marred with U-turns, deceit and political compromises. Almost all the political parties, including PML, PTI, PPP and others, are bargaining the political mileage at the cost of political morality and values. The primary issue the politics in Pakistan is facing is the holding of elections. The tenue of the government is five years according to the constitution. PDM wants it to complete the tenure, whereas Ik intends to hold early elections. PDM believe they took over the government through a majority in the national assembly. In contrast, PTI claim that it was a conspiracy move by the PDM with the support of national and international forces.https://republicpolicy.com/11826-2/

Then, it is the power struggle without political values and moral bargains. How can PTI justify the holding of an early election? Irrespective of the de-facto play, the PDM proved their majority in the parliament to dislodge the IK government. PTI holds power over four federal constituents in Pakistan. They are only without power in the federal government. Then, if IK announces the dissolution of the provincial assemblies on 23rd December, he does not do it. Pervez Elahi and Q league have their political interests. Why is Ik need to be more explicit about politics? Then, why is PDM running away from holding early elections? They fear the popularity of Ik and consider early elections a political rout. Amid this political crisis, the economy and governance of the country are collapsing.

It is a matter of a few months only. Elections can only go up to October 2023. All political parties must develop a consensus to hold elections. However, it is a good practice that parliament is completing the five years term for the last four times. Completing a parliamentary term is essential for the evolution of democracy in Pakistan. Politicians are the savior of a nation. They must uphold moral and political values for the country. Machiavelli’s politics shall not earn them a proper name, especially when democracy has extraordinary challenges from the de-facto forces. Politicians must develop a consensus to hold elections. It does not matter whether elections are held in April or October.https://republicpolicy.com/from-napi-politician-to-ahsan-farmosh-pervez-elahi-continues-to-break-myths-of-imran-khan/