There comes a time when we retreat to what is familiar to us. A play-list, an artist, a film or a book. My familiarity is The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran. I was first introduced to Gibran at a neighbours house, after scouring her fathers eclectic and most interesting collection of books when I was fourteen or fifteen. I read it, enjoyed it, and put it back. My father then gave me this book as a Christmas present in 2007.
As usual, the first page proceeding the inside cover reads' Jol '07. Selma,
Read, Enjoy' followed by something utterly illegible and signed with 'Pabbi'.
Since 2007, I have probably read each passage of this book between 20-35 times, and it always reveals more and makes more sense - for that one moment, because it relates to how I feel or how I view the world at that very particular point in time. And as if its the first time I gaze at the book, the next time I read the various passages, it means something else and I pick up on other aspects of Gibrans writings. This, in essence, is brilliant writing and brilliant literature. When an author can write something that the audience draws from differently overtime, as they grow, mature or change (or all three:) ), you can rest assured you are privileged to be exposed to one of the greats. I will probably always return to Gibran throughout the course of my life - as my grandfather did at his recent 50th marriage anniversary party with my grandmother, where he read Gibran's passage of 'marriage'. Eloquent, beautiful, simple and true.
Now, I have recently moved to Dublin to complete my Masters studies at Trinity College Dublin. I thoroughly enjoy the student aspect of my life, and feel both grateful and privileged to carry on my studies at such a renowned and old university. HOWEVER, anyone who knows me, knows how much I enjoy working. The buzz, the stress, the post-work beers, complaining customers, good and bad bosses, inside jokes with your colleagues, the satisfaction of doing it right, making people smile and being thanked for your service by genuinely satisfied clients - as well as the evil looks (and sometimes evil words ha ha) of the displeased clients - all makes the weeks go by faster and enrich my life with (awesome) anecdotes. It is fulfilling and gives an added dimension to productivity that is different then studying and preparing for lectures. I have scoured the city of Dublin for part-time work, with no avail, and have become disillusioned. While down in the country this weekend, I re-read The Prophet and came across the passage on work (pg 25).
"Then a ploughman said, Speak to us of Work.
And he answered, saying: …..
……. Always you have been told that work is curse and labour a misfortune.
But I say to you that when you work you fulfil a part of earth's furthest dream,
assigned to you when that dream was born,
And in keeping yourself with labour you are in truth loving life, and to love life through labour is to be intimate with life's inmost secret.
…Work is love made visible.
And if you cannot work with love but only with distaste, it is better that you should leave your work and sit at the gate of the temple and take alms of those who work with joy.
For if you bake bread with indifference, you bake a bitter bread that feeds but half mans hunger" ..
Kahlil Gibran, The Prophet,
pg25-26
Reading this gave me a great zest, I feel hopeful and energised and I am determined to join the labour market. Christmas temp, shiet hours, shiet pay, I don't care ... I will print my CV tomorrow and hopefully return home employed ;)
Wednesday, 12 October 2011
Constrained Intervention
On October 5th, I attended an event at the Institute of International and European Affairs (IIEA) in Dublin, to hear Lord David Owen speak about 'constrained intervention'. To begin, I think it is valuable to offer some information on Owen to establish his credibility, or as you may find, his lack there of.
Lord Owen has a CV of encyclopedic lengths, but to be brief, he is amongst the founders of the Social Democratic Party in Britain, which he was deputy leader and leader respectively in the eighties. Owen has also served as Minister of Health (he is a trained surgeon) and the youngest Foreign Secretary in Britain. He is/has been a member of various bodies, ranging from disarmament, preventing deadly conflict, humanitarian cooperation and arms trade.
He also found the time to be the Chancellor of University of Liverpool from 1996-09, and now, at the age of 73, spends his time as a crossbencher in the House of Lords for Plymouth. In his speech at the IIEA, he mentioned, on several occasions, his business interests in Guinea and Russia. This is clearly a very busy, and accomplished man. It was exciting to be at the IIEA, and hear him speak. So, to move on, Owen discussed 'constrained intervention', in relation to Libya.
His main point was that we are entering a new era of intervention, one that is slightly different from the unpopular liberal intervention style of putting men on the ground and taking control from a military standpoint. The scars remain tremendously visible in the U.S. after the Somalia affair in the 90's, with the image of the American soldier being dragged on the streets remains ingrained in the memory of many politicians and citizens. As Owen pointed out, Rwanda and Bosnia paid the price for that. His argument was that constrained intervention, whereby, outsiders (the West?) offer assistance to groups, without putting occupying forces or men on the ground. This, in effect, allows the citizens to fight, and resolve, their own battles but with 'legal military action' that 'tilts the balance'. Owen stresses that constrained intervention must be utilised on a human rights basis, and not to install democracy, it must be sanctioned and practiced within the realms of the UN Charter. In the case of Libya, it was a cooperation between France and UK (main players) and approval of the U.S. It was a NATO operation given thumbs up by the UN. Pretty perfect, with the absence of key player Germany and other allies. Owen, despite describing himself as an eternal optimist, said that EU, NATO and other international organisations always acting together is a broken dream - and it just not going to happened.
Initially, I was awe-struck by the idea of constrained intervention and supported what Owen was saying. It wasn't until discussion with my colleagues where the skepticism began to arise. Is constrained intervention a way to ensure blood is not spilled on the hands of the West? We can always blame the men on the ground, which are not our own. Is it a simple way for western powers to steer, or, ahem .. 'balance', the conflict to a suitable agenda without being responsible for the blame when it goes tits up? We know from the past that interventions are heavily criticised, and often fall short of peoples expectations. In a time of economic downturn and the deeply unpopular Afghanistan and Iraqi invasions on part of the UK and US, sending troops to fight 'another mans battle' is out of the question, and a really good way for Obama and Cameron to say goodbye to their jobs, respectively. The truth is, I don't know. Just as I don't know much of anything, I certainly don't know about some new military/aid/intervention strategy that is just being put to the test now - I can say, whole heatedly, however, that it is far too early for Owen to declare Libya a success. He approaches the situation as if it is a done and dusted affair. Civilian lives, in great numbers, were lost by our air strikes and we are yet to witness the new leader of Libya. Who said the devil that we know is sometimes better then the one we don't? This is an unfinished story, but I'd be very interested in keeping up with this concept of constrained intervention. My hopes are that it will not be some new half-arsed method of 'saving the world' from an arms length, which provide an immediate and easy exit strategy for those involved.
Lord Owen has a CV of encyclopedic lengths, but to be brief, he is amongst the founders of the Social Democratic Party in Britain, which he was deputy leader and leader respectively in the eighties. Owen has also served as Minister of Health (he is a trained surgeon) and the youngest Foreign Secretary in Britain. He is/has been a member of various bodies, ranging from disarmament, preventing deadly conflict, humanitarian cooperation and arms trade.
He also found the time to be the Chancellor of University of Liverpool from 1996-09, and now, at the age of 73, spends his time as a crossbencher in the House of Lords for Plymouth. In his speech at the IIEA, he mentioned, on several occasions, his business interests in Guinea and Russia. This is clearly a very busy, and accomplished man. It was exciting to be at the IIEA, and hear him speak. So, to move on, Owen discussed 'constrained intervention', in relation to Libya.
His main point was that we are entering a new era of intervention, one that is slightly different from the unpopular liberal intervention style of putting men on the ground and taking control from a military standpoint. The scars remain tremendously visible in the U.S. after the Somalia affair in the 90's, with the image of the American soldier being dragged on the streets remains ingrained in the memory of many politicians and citizens. As Owen pointed out, Rwanda and Bosnia paid the price for that. His argument was that constrained intervention, whereby, outsiders (the West?) offer assistance to groups, without putting occupying forces or men on the ground. This, in effect, allows the citizens to fight, and resolve, their own battles but with 'legal military action' that 'tilts the balance'. Owen stresses that constrained intervention must be utilised on a human rights basis, and not to install democracy, it must be sanctioned and practiced within the realms of the UN Charter. In the case of Libya, it was a cooperation between France and UK (main players) and approval of the U.S. It was a NATO operation given thumbs up by the UN. Pretty perfect, with the absence of key player Germany and other allies. Owen, despite describing himself as an eternal optimist, said that EU, NATO and other international organisations always acting together is a broken dream - and it just not going to happened.
Initially, I was awe-struck by the idea of constrained intervention and supported what Owen was saying. It wasn't until discussion with my colleagues where the skepticism began to arise. Is constrained intervention a way to ensure blood is not spilled on the hands of the West? We can always blame the men on the ground, which are not our own. Is it a simple way for western powers to steer, or, ahem .. 'balance', the conflict to a suitable agenda without being responsible for the blame when it goes tits up? We know from the past that interventions are heavily criticised, and often fall short of peoples expectations. In a time of economic downturn and the deeply unpopular Afghanistan and Iraqi invasions on part of the UK and US, sending troops to fight 'another mans battle' is out of the question, and a really good way for Obama and Cameron to say goodbye to their jobs, respectively. The truth is, I don't know. Just as I don't know much of anything, I certainly don't know about some new military/aid/intervention strategy that is just being put to the test now - I can say, whole heatedly, however, that it is far too early for Owen to declare Libya a success. He approaches the situation as if it is a done and dusted affair. Civilian lives, in great numbers, were lost by our air strikes and we are yet to witness the new leader of Libya. Who said the devil that we know is sometimes better then the one we don't? This is an unfinished story, but I'd be very interested in keeping up with this concept of constrained intervention. My hopes are that it will not be some new half-arsed method of 'saving the world' from an arms length, which provide an immediate and easy exit strategy for those involved.
Tuesday, 13 September 2011
Monday, 29 August 2011
Yeats
Wine comes in at the mouth,
& love comes in at the eye;
That's all we shall know truth
Before we grow old and die.
I lift the glass to my mouth,
I look at you, and I sigh.
& love comes in at the eye;
That's all we shall know truth
Before we grow old and die.
I lift the glass to my mouth,
I look at you, and I sigh.
Friday, 5 August 2011
Er ekki löngu kominn tími á nýja byltingu?
Kristjana Björg Sveinsdóttir, a teacher in Iceland, recently wrote an op-ed in an Icelandic news publication. I discovered the article when many of my countrymen shared the link on facebook and expressed, with great enthusiasm, how much they agreed with her point of view. The title of the piece of writing is 'Iceland! Only for the rich'. This is a clever, controversial and thought provoking title; the article itself is ten fold that. It is a good summary of what the majority of Icelanders are talking about at their kitchen tables every night with their spouses, in the canteen with their colleagues and at the pubs with their friends.The article, I believe, was written as a response to the numerous articles in Icelandic media about nurses, doctors, lawyers, teachers and builders emigrating to Scandinavia. According to reports, 380 Icelanders have moved to Norway in the second quarter of 2011. This is a hefty number, for such a small nation. Sveinsdóttir captures the nations sentiment when she opens the article by asking the rhetorical question of weather Icelandic people can continue to afford residing in their own country. She then brings up the question that rides upon every politically conscious person, and that is the battle between the ruling (rich) elite and the struggle for power, and survival, of the ordinary working citizen. Classic, 101 Marxist theory, of course, but never to be underestimated. Hurrah to Sveinsdóttir, and here is to the solidarity and continued fight (revolution?) of the people of Iceland to make a better nation for themselves and for the future.
The original article can be found here: http://www.visir.is/island,-einungis-fyrir-audmenn!/article/2011708049995?fb_ref=under%3Bunder%3Bunder%3Btop&fb_source=home_oneline . However, I (lazily) ran i through Google translate and will reproduce it in English here:
Have we afford to live longer in Iceland? This question must be burned in many of their citizens. The development of the economy in this country is of great concern for families and come out of proportion to the cost of living in Iceland today. It does not need experts to come to this conclusion, this is what we see everywhere you look. The average working person does no longer make ends meet and the loss of Icelandic families seems no end will be.
It is sad that it appears to be no satisfactory vision in the formulation of government services for workers in the country, and though it is available to the public debt was and is still around because of the crash are himinháar are real consequences of the collapse of the people in the country still In many respects, very vague. The layout is black to say the least and unfortunately it is a fact that the exodus from the country is still increasing dramatically.
The group of people most likely to end the run is well-educated people who do not receive wages in accordance with the work that it has made up with many years of college and struggle to achieve their goals in life. For these people, the costs become too great to live in Iceland. With these people go and entire families left behind families who often are in the older wing and would have liked to have his descendants near it. Not all chipper and come to the grave consequences of the collapse remains to be seen. Can such anyone imagine how the Icelandic society will look like in 10 years?
Have we afford to continue living here? Many now come to the conclusion that it's not. People who were "honest way" to see their families support themselves and have a payout in apartments, is now left with huge losses and has to accept that everything streðið to come under his feet was meaningless in economic terms. The result of all It is more difficult, and no mutant loans, student loans and unfavorable external conditions are a heavy burden on families, where the salary normally teldust acceptable, no longer suffice to discharge the pack comfortable. struggle has become a big question mark and it is very discouraging for the individual to put themselves under these circumstances. The vision is limited, and in the community, there is increasingly at war and disruption. People do not just have to accept that in many cases have lost their savings as it worked to hard, but occurs extraordinary injustice where some get write-offs and others do not and the choice of the government on who can get write-offs seem a coincidence and luck are the decision makers. The situation, already bizarre, deteriorates steadily and reward middle-class people do not work anymore for minimum expenditure. It is Unfortunately, the fact that this class is to fall into a group of poor people in the community. The purpose of Harkin's seen the problems, whether looking back or forward and easy to understand why middle class exodus grows continually.
The loss after the crash was enormous, but it has drawn from her óhug is that apparently no limits. Loss of the population is, among other things increasingly unfavorable living conditions, continued corruption and lack of vision. Government has failed the very important role in giving people hope for a fair progress, harmony and development of welfare in this country and the only thing obvious is the continuing loss of people in the country.
Is not a long time for a new revolution?
It is sad that it appears to be no satisfactory vision in the formulation of government services for workers in the country, and though it is available to the public debt was and is still around because of the crash are himinháar are real consequences of the collapse of the people in the country still In many respects, very vague. The layout is black to say the least and unfortunately it is a fact that the exodus from the country is still increasing dramatically.
The group of people most likely to end the run is well-educated people who do not receive wages in accordance with the work that it has made up with many years of college and struggle to achieve their goals in life. For these people, the costs become too great to live in Iceland. With these people go and entire families left behind families who often are in the older wing and would have liked to have his descendants near it. Not all chipper and come to the grave consequences of the collapse remains to be seen. Can such anyone imagine how the Icelandic society will look like in 10 years?
Have we afford to continue living here? Many now come to the conclusion that it's not. People who were "honest way" to see their families support themselves and have a payout in apartments, is now left with huge losses and has to accept that everything streðið to come under his feet was meaningless in economic terms. The result of all It is more difficult, and no mutant loans, student loans and unfavorable external conditions are a heavy burden on families, where the salary normally teldust acceptable, no longer suffice to discharge the pack comfortable. struggle has become a big question mark and it is very discouraging for the individual to put themselves under these circumstances. The vision is limited, and in the community, there is increasingly at war and disruption. People do not just have to accept that in many cases have lost their savings as it worked to hard, but occurs extraordinary injustice where some get write-offs and others do not and the choice of the government on who can get write-offs seem a coincidence and luck are the decision makers. The situation, already bizarre, deteriorates steadily and reward middle-class people do not work anymore for minimum expenditure. It is Unfortunately, the fact that this class is to fall into a group of poor people in the community. The purpose of Harkin's seen the problems, whether looking back or forward and easy to understand why middle class exodus grows continually.
The loss after the crash was enormous, but it has drawn from her óhug is that apparently no limits. Loss of the population is, among other things increasingly unfavorable living conditions, continued corruption and lack of vision. Government has failed the very important role in giving people hope for a fair progress, harmony and development of welfare in this country and the only thing obvious is the continuing loss of people in the country.
Is not a long time for a new revolution?
Thursday, 4 August 2011
To those of us who inspire to be great...
Ironically considered to be a great man himself, Ralph Emerson, was one of America's most prized thinkers. Emerson leaves behind a legacy of being one of the most influential public orators and writers on this side of history. Emerson's focus was on mans individuality, freedom and the nature of spiritualism. In his essay on self-reliance (1841), Emerson writes:
"To be great is to be misunderstood."
This is a great piece of writing to a have a look at if you're in need for some inspiration. Emerson writes consistently about the importance of believing in yourself, being an individual and never aspiring to imitate or copy others, and to trust your own thoughts (the men who do, he writes, are genius).
Emerson on civilisation: (My favourite part of the essay)
"The civilized man has built a coach, but has lost the use of his feet. He is supported on crutches, but lacks so much support of muscle. He has a fine Geneva watch, but he fails of the skill to tell the hour by the sun. A Greenwich nautical almanac he has, and so being sure of the information when he wants it, the man in the street does not know a star in the sky. The solstice he does not observe; the equinox he knows as little; and the whole bright calendar of the year is without a dial in his mind. His note-books impair his memory; his libraries overload his wit; the insurance-office increases the number of accidents; and it may be a question whether machinery does not encumber; whether we have not lost by refinement some energy, by a Christianity entrenched in establishments and forms, some vigor of wild virtue."
Absolutely brilliant, and absolutely true.
(Available free to read : http://www.emersoncentral.com/selfreliance.htm )
Machiavelli, one of the greats
Il Principe
Niccoló Machiavelli’s The Prince is often read an immoral guide citing, essentially, how to become a dictatorial leader. He is a largely misunderstood author who failed to find posthumous respect from the greats, like Shakespeare, but from Hitler instead (Adney, 1986 p 51). However, advices in the book that seem ruthless can be explained by history, analysis and personal aims of the author. The Prince is not an immoral treatise and this piece of writing seeks to prove that, with evidence both from the text, as well as the perspective on renowned academics such as Skinner and Chobald. Firstly, a brief historical background will be outlined followed by the authors personal perspective and aims and then numerous examples of moral or amoral advices directly from the text with analysis by academics followed by concluding remarks.
In the time of writing, the early 1500’s, Italy was broken up several regions and unremittingly under threat of invasion. The close proximity of these regions and the wealth that was both possessed and sought after gave way to strong tactical armies prepared to acquire monetary goods and territory. Machiavelli witnessed his great state come under threat in both 1494 and 1512, which was said to leave an impact upon him and influence his writing (Machiavelli, 2003 p III). Machiavelli was a great Florentine republican who worked as a civil servant from 1498 to 1512 (Adney,1986 p51). Through his employment he witnessed inner workings of government and the corruption and nepotism that came along with it. As a result, his patriotism swelled and he found a new respect for classical Roman ideals and a confirmation of his belief in strong leadership (although not a dictatorship).
Machiavelli’s personal and work experiences are the basis of The Prince as well as the ‘very peculiar’ society, culture, and era (Grafton, 2003 p xvii). In other words, it should not be read as an advice manual and replicated in every state at any given time. The 1500’s were uncertain times with a recent fall of the republic and change of power back to the Medici family. Importantly, The Prince was written whilst Machiavelli was in exile by virtue of the addressee of his dedication, Lorenzo de Medici, and there is a large consensus that it was written as a job application, which puts to question the objectivity (Adney, 1986 p53).
Machiavelli was a new breed born out of the Renaissance called a pessimistic humanist. He believed man to be naturally selfish, fickle, deceiving and that man will only act good through necessity (Machiavelli, 2003 p54). This is made transparent in The Prince as in chapter XVII where he says a prince must not trust his men unless they are paid because men are full of broken promises (Machiavelli, 2003 p54). Machiavelli writes about nobles and how they are not his equals and should be kept to a bare minimum because they will force him to act unhonourably by asking for favours that may result in violence (Machiavelli, 2003 p33). Due to his fundamental belief of human nature, Machiavelli places the prince at a plateau that allows whatever to be done to keep the masses unified and peaceful, which includes trickery. He mentions that a prince should appear religious (p58) so the people keep their faith as well, but it can be argued that these are not harmful tricks but rather tactics to ensure the calmness of the realm.
Keeping the aforementioned information in mind, one can be more sympathetic to the sometimes harsh tactics that are suggested much in the same way civil liberties get suspended during times of war or state emergency in today’s politics. Habeas Corpus has been suspended twice in U.S. history for those reasons (Harper, 2007). After all, threats to the domain were real and with the combination of corrupt politicians and an impudent populace the prince must exert strength and use any means at his disposal to aid Florence to flourish. Machiavelli tells us in chapter XV (2003, p50) that if a prince has to take a course of action that does not illustrate virtuousness then he must not dwell on what his subjects will think, because difficult and occasionally immoral decisions must be made for the sake of the republic. In Florentine politics, immoral decisions were made regardless and corruption was abundant (McAlphine, 2000 p4). In fact, this still stands true today in much of the world so what was being presented was only shocking because Machiavelli was the first to acknowledge it whilst reserving judgment.
Machiavelli clearly states in other chapters that acts of moral turpitude are not to be done frivolously. For example, in chapter VIII it is explained that cruelty must only be used when ones safety depends upon it and rejects leaders that come to power by killing, betraying and acting irreligious (Machiavelli, 2003 p29). It is important to distinguish that a prince should only do morally suspect things when it is for the good of the whole or when he must reaffirm his power over the people in order to maintain control and ultimately - peace. Testimony to that is in chapter XVII where Machiavelli explains if the sovereign is to be held to cruel repute for the sake of his countrymen to be united and loyal, then punishment of dissident, even execution, must be followed through to avoid civil disobedience. Additionally, a prince should build his state on a sound foundation that includes good laws (Machiavelli, 2003 p40) that are adhered to rigidly for all, including ministers and nobles (Machiavelli, 2003 p76). This is a breath of fresh air to the corrupt royal courts all over the continent.
Rather then describing The Prince as immoral, amoral is an adjective that does it more justice. Machiavelli is more concerned with giving genuine advice and that includes situation where one must put the country above all else, one can say he was simply a realist. Federico Chabod, an Italian scholar, says Machiavelli did not posses the talent of diplomacy and he “does not always succeed in restraining the vehemence of his feelings,’’ which can lead to misjudgment of the greater picture being portrayed (Chobad, 1958 p67). The Prince has a pagan reading, which extrapolates where Machiavelli explains a prince must be part fox, part lion (Machiavelli, 2003 p56). The Catholic Church was adverse to The Prince and remains to be so today. It’s speculative the pagan themes running through the book contribute to the aversion.
Another argument is that he is a unilateralist with theme of the end justify the means flowing continuously throughout the book. The Prince was an early example of realpolitik with chapter XVI exemplifying this. The sovereign must never be overgenerous unless it is not with his own money. The states income comes from taxation; therefore, if spending is ostentatious ultimately the people must pay. Instead, it is suggested that spending be ‘parsimonious’ to guarantee a strong army and less taxation (Machiavelli, 2003 p52). Therefore, being overly generous will eventually lead to being both despised and hated, neither of which is desirable (Machiavelli, 2003 p53). Secondly, the final chapter exposes the ultimate goal of restoring political unity in Italy. Subsequently, the advice presented in the book is presumably meant as stepping-stones for that ambition that once again illustrates the end justifies the means theme. Putting morals to one side briefly could do all of Italy the great favour of reunification and restoring the great Roman ways.
To conclude, the above evidence sufficiently proves Machiavelli’s The Prince is not wholly immoral. In contrast to immorality, textual analysis illustrate themes such as liberty like not overtaxing, sacrifice like a leader putting his reputation on the line for his country, and virtue like not practicing unwarranted cruelty. To be completely immoral is to display no figment of ethics but only sheer dishonestly, evil and nefarious behaviour. One last remark will prove the thesis outright as morality is attested with the following quote: ‘’… A prudent man [a prince] must always follow in the footsteps of great men and imitate those who have been outstanding,’’ (Machiavelli, 2003 pg19).
Adney, D. (1986) Machiavelli and Political Morals. Edited by Muschcamp, D. London: Macmillan Edu Ltd.
Chabod, F. (1958) Machiavelli and the Renaissance, New York: Harper&Row.
Harper, D. (2007) The Civil War Available online at: < http://www.etymonline.com/cw/habeas.htm> [Accessed on the 9th of December 2009].
Machiavelli, N. (2003) The Prince, London: Penguine Penguin Books.
Niccoló Machiavelli’s The Prince is often read an immoral guide citing, essentially, how to become a dictatorial leader. He is a largely misunderstood author who failed to find posthumous respect from the greats, like Shakespeare, but from Hitler instead (Adney, 1986 p 51). However, advices in the book that seem ruthless can be explained by history, analysis and personal aims of the author. The Prince is not an immoral treatise and this piece of writing seeks to prove that, with evidence both from the text, as well as the perspective on renowned academics such as Skinner and Chobald. Firstly, a brief historical background will be outlined followed by the authors personal perspective and aims and then numerous examples of moral or amoral advices directly from the text with analysis by academics followed by concluding remarks.
In the time of writing, the early 1500’s, Italy was broken up several regions and unremittingly under threat of invasion. The close proximity of these regions and the wealth that was both possessed and sought after gave way to strong tactical armies prepared to acquire monetary goods and territory. Machiavelli witnessed his great state come under threat in both 1494 and 1512, which was said to leave an impact upon him and influence his writing (Machiavelli, 2003 p III). Machiavelli was a great Florentine republican who worked as a civil servant from 1498 to 1512 (Adney,1986 p51). Through his employment he witnessed inner workings of government and the corruption and nepotism that came along with it. As a result, his patriotism swelled and he found a new respect for classical Roman ideals and a confirmation of his belief in strong leadership (although not a dictatorship).
Machiavelli’s personal and work experiences are the basis of The Prince as well as the ‘very peculiar’ society, culture, and era (Grafton, 2003 p xvii). In other words, it should not be read as an advice manual and replicated in every state at any given time. The 1500’s were uncertain times with a recent fall of the republic and change of power back to the Medici family. Importantly, The Prince was written whilst Machiavelli was in exile by virtue of the addressee of his dedication, Lorenzo de Medici, and there is a large consensus that it was written as a job application, which puts to question the objectivity (Adney, 1986 p53).
Machiavelli was a new breed born out of the Renaissance called a pessimistic humanist. He believed man to be naturally selfish, fickle, deceiving and that man will only act good through necessity (Machiavelli, 2003 p54). This is made transparent in The Prince as in chapter XVII where he says a prince must not trust his men unless they are paid because men are full of broken promises (Machiavelli, 2003 p54). Machiavelli writes about nobles and how they are not his equals and should be kept to a bare minimum because they will force him to act unhonourably by asking for favours that may result in violence (Machiavelli, 2003 p33). Due to his fundamental belief of human nature, Machiavelli places the prince at a plateau that allows whatever to be done to keep the masses unified and peaceful, which includes trickery. He mentions that a prince should appear religious (p58) so the people keep their faith as well, but it can be argued that these are not harmful tricks but rather tactics to ensure the calmness of the realm.
Keeping the aforementioned information in mind, one can be more sympathetic to the sometimes harsh tactics that are suggested much in the same way civil liberties get suspended during times of war or state emergency in today’s politics. Habeas Corpus has been suspended twice in U.S. history for those reasons (Harper, 2007). After all, threats to the domain were real and with the combination of corrupt politicians and an impudent populace the prince must exert strength and use any means at his disposal to aid Florence to flourish. Machiavelli tells us in chapter XV (2003, p50) that if a prince has to take a course of action that does not illustrate virtuousness then he must not dwell on what his subjects will think, because difficult and occasionally immoral decisions must be made for the sake of the republic. In Florentine politics, immoral decisions were made regardless and corruption was abundant (McAlphine, 2000 p4). In fact, this still stands true today in much of the world so what was being presented was only shocking because Machiavelli was the first to acknowledge it whilst reserving judgment.
Machiavelli clearly states in other chapters that acts of moral turpitude are not to be done frivolously. For example, in chapter VIII it is explained that cruelty must only be used when ones safety depends upon it and rejects leaders that come to power by killing, betraying and acting irreligious (Machiavelli, 2003 p29). It is important to distinguish that a prince should only do morally suspect things when it is for the good of the whole or when he must reaffirm his power over the people in order to maintain control and ultimately - peace. Testimony to that is in chapter XVII where Machiavelli explains if the sovereign is to be held to cruel repute for the sake of his countrymen to be united and loyal, then punishment of dissident, even execution, must be followed through to avoid civil disobedience. Additionally, a prince should build his state on a sound foundation that includes good laws (Machiavelli, 2003 p40) that are adhered to rigidly for all, including ministers and nobles (Machiavelli, 2003 p76). This is a breath of fresh air to the corrupt royal courts all over the continent.
Rather then describing The Prince as immoral, amoral is an adjective that does it more justice. Machiavelli is more concerned with giving genuine advice and that includes situation where one must put the country above all else, one can say he was simply a realist. Federico Chabod, an Italian scholar, says Machiavelli did not posses the talent of diplomacy and he “does not always succeed in restraining the vehemence of his feelings,’’ which can lead to misjudgment of the greater picture being portrayed (Chobad, 1958 p67). The Prince has a pagan reading, which extrapolates where Machiavelli explains a prince must be part fox, part lion (Machiavelli, 2003 p56). The Catholic Church was adverse to The Prince and remains to be so today. It’s speculative the pagan themes running through the book contribute to the aversion.
Another argument is that he is a unilateralist with theme of the end justify the means flowing continuously throughout the book. The Prince was an early example of realpolitik with chapter XVI exemplifying this. The sovereign must never be overgenerous unless it is not with his own money. The states income comes from taxation; therefore, if spending is ostentatious ultimately the people must pay. Instead, it is suggested that spending be ‘parsimonious’ to guarantee a strong army and less taxation (Machiavelli, 2003 p52). Therefore, being overly generous will eventually lead to being both despised and hated, neither of which is desirable (Machiavelli, 2003 p53). Secondly, the final chapter exposes the ultimate goal of restoring political unity in Italy. Subsequently, the advice presented in the book is presumably meant as stepping-stones for that ambition that once again illustrates the end justifies the means theme. Putting morals to one side briefly could do all of Italy the great favour of reunification and restoring the great Roman ways.
To conclude, the above evidence sufficiently proves Machiavelli’s The Prince is not wholly immoral. In contrast to immorality, textual analysis illustrate themes such as liberty like not overtaxing, sacrifice like a leader putting his reputation on the line for his country, and virtue like not practicing unwarranted cruelty. To be completely immoral is to display no figment of ethics but only sheer dishonestly, evil and nefarious behaviour. One last remark will prove the thesis outright as morality is attested with the following quote: ‘’… A prudent man [a prince] must always follow in the footsteps of great men and imitate those who have been outstanding,’’ (Machiavelli, 2003 pg19).
Adney, D. (1986) Machiavelli and Political Morals. Edited by Muschcamp, D. London: Macmillan Edu Ltd.
Chabod, F. (1958) Machiavelli and the Renaissance, New York: Harper&Row.
Harper, D. (2007) The Civil War Available online at: < http://www.etymonline.com/cw/habeas.htm> [Accessed on the 9th of December 2009].
Machiavelli, N. (2003) The Prince, London: Penguine Penguin Books.
Friday, 17 June 2011
Graduate
I graduated! Wahoo!
Time for a new chapter, and more blogging. I have so many ideas and many things I would like to read/learn/write about so watch this space!
Time for a new chapter, and more blogging. I have so many ideas and many things I would like to read/learn/write about so watch this space!
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Food for Thought;
As the end is near, I would expect a reserve in unprecedented motivation and energy to kick-in which would allow me to sail smoothly toward my graduation with straight A's on all of my exams. However, I am suffering a severe case of seniorites, and absolutley cannot be arsed to do anything but sit on the couch, eat, and sleep. I don't want to leave my house, I don't want to talk to anyone, I don't want to do anything. Whats a girl to do?
For one thing, I can draw from the words of the recently deceased Howard Zinn (USA, 1922-2010). He was a professor at BU, and had a long life dedicated to activism, the political concept of socialism and academia.
Here's to motivation..
For one thing, I can draw from the words of the recently deceased Howard Zinn (USA, 1922-2010). He was a professor at BU, and had a long life dedicated to activism, the political concept of socialism and academia.
Here's to motivation..
Thursday, 24 February 2011
EU Neighbourhood Policy and Intl Aid
I expressed to a friend recently that aid should be cut for repressive states, or for states who have violated a three strike rule on corruption, misallocation of funds, or inefficiency. The way aid is given needs to be seriously reevaluated and reformed, which echoes what David Cameron announced a couple of days ago. The EU has a Neighborhood Policy for the middle east region, which gives millions of pounds annually to help countries like Egypt move toward democracy.
I think it is safe to say that none of the money has been allocated appropriately in moving toward systemetic structural reforms in how these nations are governed, and I would never accept that a drop of this money helped/encouraged/influenced/et al the protesters in recent weeks. All the money the EU has given in aid through this Neighborhood Policy programme, which is equal to about 1.4 billion GBP a year for North Africa and Middle East, has largely been an inefficient failure. For the EU to create an agency to evaluate and track down aid money is burdensome, costly, and trifle. Moreover, it takes away from the current purpose of the EU.
The EU is a selective club, with the purpose to boost and strengthen economic activity amongst its members, and ultimately to ensure
stability on the continent. The EU is not a replacement, or an arm, of the UN and there is a lot of poverty within our own continental borders. The Baltic states and indeed, many of the former Soviet states, have no welfare system; a seriously inadequate education system, no health care, or any basic provisions beyond some infrastructure. In addition to this, corruption is widespread amongst some officials, and perhaps more needs to be invested to create transparency and cooperation within the EU to create a stronger economic and social union, rather then millions of tax dollars going far abroad to fatten the pockets of horrible leaders.
I am absolutely not against aid, I believe in solidarity and cooperation amongst governments, supranational bodies, charities, and neighbors on the basis that we are all trying to get on, and get by. However, if the EU, or any contributing state, is going to aimlessly give very large sums of money to oppressive regimes, they need to understand they are enabling repression. This is an unintended consequence, an unfortunate side-effect of international aid. The moral dilemma is if all aid is cut, the regimes can resort to other (often dangerous) means of getting money. Exploiting the west’s dependency on oil, gas or whatever natural resource is one example.
The EU Neighborhood Policy is just one example, there are countless programmes with good intention but really bad consequences. I have done some research about Uganda, and there is a lot of provoking evidence to suggest the LRA conflict has been able to continue for so long (it is currently Africa’s longest active civil conflict) because whilst there is a ‘war’, the aid money pours in from the West. Therefore, there are monetary incentives to keep the conflict ongoing. This is a chilling prospect, and a harsh, ugly truth about the evils some leaders are willing to commit for luxury.
I don’t want to see all aid cut, because it will only hurt the little people, but some reform has to come about. This is a really tricky area to even blog about, let alone be the one in charge of deciding who gets what, when and how much. I am keen to see EU Commission discuss David Cameron’s suggestion to cut aid to repressive regimes, and will follow the developments very closely in the next coming weeks.
Re:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/8341458/Middle-East-David-Cameron-calls-for-radical-reform-of-EU-aid.html
I think it is safe to say that none of the money has been allocated appropriately in moving toward systemetic structural reforms in how these nations are governed, and I would never accept that a drop of this money helped/encouraged/influenced/et al the protesters in recent weeks. All the money the EU has given in aid through this Neighborhood Policy programme, which is equal to about 1.4 billion GBP a year for North Africa and Middle East, has largely been an inefficient failure. For the EU to create an agency to evaluate and track down aid money is burdensome, costly, and trifle. Moreover, it takes away from the current purpose of the EU.
The EU is a selective club, with the purpose to boost and strengthen economic activity amongst its members, and ultimately to ensure
stability on the continent. The EU is not a replacement, or an arm, of the UN and there is a lot of poverty within our own continental borders. The Baltic states and indeed, many of the former Soviet states, have no welfare system; a seriously inadequate education system, no health care, or any basic provisions beyond some infrastructure. In addition to this, corruption is widespread amongst some officials, and perhaps more needs to be invested to create transparency and cooperation within the EU to create a stronger economic and social union, rather then millions of tax dollars going far abroad to fatten the pockets of horrible leaders.I am absolutely not against aid, I believe in solidarity and cooperation amongst governments, supranational bodies, charities, and neighbors on the basis that we are all trying to get on, and get by. However, if the EU, or any contributing state, is going to aimlessly give very large sums of money to oppressive regimes, they need to understand they are enabling repression. This is an unintended consequence, an unfortunate side-effect of international aid. The moral dilemma is if all aid is cut, the regimes can resort to other (often dangerous) means of getting money. Exploiting the west’s dependency on oil, gas or whatever natural resource is one example.
The EU Neighborhood Policy is just one example, there are countless programmes with good intention but really bad consequences. I have done some research about Uganda, and there is a lot of provoking evidence to suggest the LRA conflict has been able to continue for so long (it is currently Africa’s longest active civil conflict) because whilst there is a ‘war’, the aid money pours in from the West. Therefore, there are monetary incentives to keep the conflict ongoing. This is a chilling prospect, and a harsh, ugly truth about the evils some leaders are willing to commit for luxury.
I don’t want to see all aid cut, because it will only hurt the little people, but some reform has to come about. This is a really tricky area to even blog about, let alone be the one in charge of deciding who gets what, when and how much. I am keen to see EU Commission discuss David Cameron’s suggestion to cut aid to repressive regimes, and will follow the developments very closely in the next coming weeks.
Re:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/8341458/Middle-East-David-Cameron-calls-for-radical-reform-of-EU-aid.html
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
Let's have a drink.
"Humanity i love you because
when you're hard up you pawn your
intelligence to buy a drink."
-e.e. Cummings
I thought this was so perfectly fitting after these reports came out about Scottish hospitals admitting over 36,000 patients due to alcohol related illness or injury in 2009, and over half of all Scottish prisoners saying they were intoxicated whilst committing the crime they are serving for.
As a result of these stories, political talk is being screamed. Labour is saying if they form the next government of Scotland, then the price of alcohol will surely rise in an attempt to curb crime, illness, 'anti social' behaviour, and death.
Perhaps the Scottish, and indeed all of us, need to exercise a bit of self-control instead of having a government/economic policy force us to have empty pockets if we want a night out.
Hooray.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hOcNCUcbiA2xdCQh6P96FZVbNlvQ?docId=N0094561298375019852A
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/health/concern-at-volume-of-spirits-scots-are-drinking-1.1086697
when you're hard up you pawn your
intelligence to buy a drink."
-e.e. Cummings
I thought this was so perfectly fitting after these reports came out about Scottish hospitals admitting over 36,000 patients due to alcohol related illness or injury in 2009, and over half of all Scottish prisoners saying they were intoxicated whilst committing the crime they are serving for.
As a result of these stories, political talk is being screamed. Labour is saying if they form the next government of Scotland, then the price of alcohol will surely rise in an attempt to curb crime, illness, 'anti social' behaviour, and death.
Perhaps the Scottish, and indeed all of us, need to exercise a bit of self-control instead of having a government/economic policy force us to have empty pockets if we want a night out.
Hooray.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hOcNCUcbiA2xdCQh6P96FZVbNlvQ?docId=N0094561298375019852A
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/health/concern-at-volume-of-spirits-scots-are-drinking-1.1086697
Friday, 21 January 2011
Free Education for All! Nahh .. that was so 90's
I feel like perhaps I should be blushing, because it is always difficult to admit you were wrong. It is even more difficult to admit your failure or mistakes when it is published on the internet. I am not happy with the Conservatives, and they are 'rolling back' all the wrong things!
In the past, university fee's was 100% subsidied by the government. That was the case, anyway, until Tony Blair broke his campaign promises in 1997 and introduced some fee's to be paid by the student, and the government would pay the rest for that individual. As it stands now, UK, EU, and EEA students pay 3,225 GBP yearly for their higher education. Most people support their studies through government student loans, which must be paid back once you begin earning over 15,000 GBP annually. Personally, I think this is fair enough. I think 3,225 pound can be saved for, and that it is a manageable amount to take in loans.
However, the Browne Report made the recommendation to overhaul the system and get rid of the tuition-fee cap, and allow students to pay their loans back once they earn 21,000 pound a year. Essentially, this is creating a similar business-style system like the Americans have. This is perhaps unsurprising, considering the author of the Browne Report is Lord Browne, former Chief Executive of BP. The coalition government, on the third of November, decided against lifting the cap but increased it to 9,000 pound a year instead and on December the ninth, the House of Commons voted 323-302 for the increased cap.
But what does all of this mean for the ordinary person?
This means poorer students, those coming from a traditional trade/working-class background, or students whom are already unsure about weather they are able to hack Uni for whatever reason will be further discouraged. Above all else, and perhaps most importantly, Britain is starting to abandon social democratic principles that I believe are very important. Adopting some free-market policies in certain instances is acceptable, if not encouraged, for the sake of progress and efficiency. However, I fail to see the progress in stifling access to education for British students. Furthermore, this could lead EU/EEA students (such as myself, especially those of us who don't take out student loans or are not eligible) to other countries where we do not have to pay as much, but have the same standard of education. If a government is not willing to pay for the training and education of their citizens; which in turn will lead to a more sophisticated economy and better the welfare of the state, and community, then that is a government that I will oppose. I think it is irresponsible, and unfair, for the Cons to make this decision when there was such a serious lack of public support, and barley a majority in the House of Commons. Once a decision like this is made, it is nearly impossible to undo it, which leads me to believe it is unfair to implement a policy such as this on future students and without disclosing it in the party manifesto.
As a result of my feelings, I went to a protest in London on Nov.10.2010 with some classmates organised by the NUS (natl union of students). This protest got a lot of international publicity because of the violent turn. I was at the centre of the violence and although it was exciting and all, i firmly disagree with the actions of the students. To storm a government building, provoke riot police, damage property and then even try to harm other protesters took the light away from the mission of the protest. But, I am pleased that a point was made, although it was not no avail.
"Education is not the answer to the question. Education is the means to the answer to all questions."
-- William Allin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)