At some point I mentioned that perhaps there is no better work on how to exercise and conserve power than the one written in 1513 by Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, which was dedicated to the Magnificent Lorenzo de Médecis (1). Any self-respecting political leader of any era should have it as his bedside manual because "it presents as an outstanding characteristic the method of systematically leaving aside, with respect to political strategies, questions related to morality and religion. It is interested only in the preservation of power" (see the text of the presentation of The Prince, in https://goo.su/UECtYpd).
There is a very revealing chapter of this work dedicated to those who reached their Principality by means of crimes. How did they accede to power? What considerations does Machiavelli make in this case? In your opinion, is it possible to keep the Principality for a long time? Under what conditions? It is interesting to put the magnifying glass on this case, highlighting for you the story of Agathocles of Syracuse, referred to by Machiavelli in Chapter VIII, "Of those who came to the Principality through crimes":
"The Sicilian Agathocles, a man not only of obscure, but low and abject condition, became king of Syracuse. The son of a potter, he bore a reprehensible conduct at all periods of his life; nevertheless, he always accompanied his wickedness with so much spirit and so much physical vigor that entered the militia that he became, ascending grade by grade, praetor of Syracuse. Once elevated to this dignity, he wanted to be prince and obtain by violence, without owing it to anyone, what would have been willingly granted to him. He agreed with the Carthaginian Hamilcar, who was with his armies in Sicily, and one morning he gathered the people and the Senate, as if he had to deliberate on things concerning the republic, and at an agreed signal his soldiers killed all the senators and the richest citizens of Syracuse. He then occupied and knew how to keep as prince that city, without any civil war being kindled on his account."
The above shows us that in history there are many examples that, due to their resemblance to recent times, are astonishing, not only in the criminal actions of their protagonists, but also in the "dark condition", "low and abject" of those who achieved power, of their humble origins, and especially that of "their reproachable conduct in all periods of their lives". Likewise, how he colluded with others to execute his crimes, preserving his positions of power without major obstacle or "civil war".
But there is a crucial question. The question that Machiavelli himself asks: Why does that type of individual, like Agathocles, manage to retain power in spite of everything, compared to others who, using the same expedient of violence, did not succeed? Let's see:
"One might ask to what it is due that, while Agathocles and others of his ilk, in spite of their treachery and rigors without number, were able to live for a long time and under cover of their fatherland, without fear of conspiracies, and were able at the same time to defend themselves against enemies from without, others, on the other hand, not only by such extreme measures failed to preserve their state in doubtful times of war, but also in times of peace. I think it depends on the good or bad use made of cruelty. I would call cruelties well used (if the bad can be called good) when they are applied all at once out of absolute necessity to be sure, and when they are not insisted upon, but, on the contrary, it is a matter of making the former as beneficial as possible to the subjects" (emphasis added).
How interesting! The key lies in a concept not seen before: the "administration of cruelty", or as Machiavelli says, the good or bad use of it for the preservation of power if you reached it through criminal actions. And his thesis indicates that this cruelty should be applied only at the beginning and only once, without insisting on it. It was necessary to have the cold blood of Machiavelli for the study of that human baseness, and to establish the limits to where it is possible to arrive with the criminal use of force.
But the advice to Lorenzo de Médecis goes even further, by indicating how to graduate cruelty to his subjects on pain of losing power:
"The first of these procedures can, like Agathocles, with the help of God and men, put some remedy to their situation, the others it is impossible for them to remain in their States. Those who observe the first of these procedures can, like Agathocles, with the help of God and men, put, some remedy to their situation, the others it is impossible for them to remain in their States. From whence it is concluded that, in seizing a State, every usurper must reflect on the crimes which it is necessary for him to commit, and execute them all at once, so that he may not have to renew them from day to day, and, not finding himself in that necessity, may conquer men by force of benefits. He who proceeds otherwise, through timidity or because he has been ill-advised, is always obliged to be with the knife in his hand, and he can hardly count on subjects whom his continual and still recent offenses fill with distrust" (emphasis added).
That is to say, with cruelty properly administered at the beginning, a criminal can remain indefinitely in power, committing the atrocities that it is necessary for him to carry out at once in what is strictly necessary. If he overdoes it and renews it day by day, it will be impossible for him to retain the power of the State. It is incredible that in a time long before the struggle for Human Rights, Machiavelli established that a ruler cannot retain power indefinitely if "he is always obliged to be with the knife in his hand", since he will not be able to count on subjects (in this time we would call them citizens) who will tolerate them, "For offenses must be inflicted all at once so that, lasting less, they hurt less; while benefits must be provided little by little, in order to be better savored". A better explanation for a permanent and relentless struggle, impossible!
Unfortunately this advice was given at the time for the preservation in power of those who gain access to it through criminal activity, as described by Machiavelli in his work, with the example of Agathocles of Syracuse. But it is also an accurate description of evil for those who set out to fight against the scourge of the Agathocles of the world, who unfortunately still exist, exposing their despicable nature.
Ah, it escaped me: any resemblance with the reality of people and institutions, living or dead, real or fictitious in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is pure coincidence, even if the reality is surpassed by the dreadful situation of this mistreated but extraordinarily brave and heroic country, which with God's favor will finally achieve its freedom…
Caracas, August 7, 2024
Blog:
TIC’s & Derechos Humanos, https://ticsddhh.blogspot.com/
Email: luismanuel.aguana@gmail.com
Twitter:@laguana
(1) Machiavelli,
Niccolo, The Prince, Luarna Ediciones, Spain (version used in this note, in https://tinyurl.com/y55y5d3c)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario