Blog 3-- Machiavelli paints a portrait of a ruler who must always be prepared to do whatever it takes to maintain his (and for Machiavelli, it's always "his") power. Is this an accurate portrayal of contemporary ruling elites? Should rulers follow Machiavelli's advice, even under contemporary conditions?

Within the constraints and ideals of a democratic world, the Machiavellian style of rule is neither conducive to peace nor social justice. Conversely, governmental systems that are oppressive tend to be more representative of Machiavellian ideals, particularly concerning the more violent aspects of his ideology. The side of Machiavelli’s theory that remains prevalent in politics throughout the world is the cultivation of a both noble and intelligent image.

In the U.S. it is undeniable that an important part of any politicians campaign is promoting a public image that citizens will either respect or relate to. Americans look to the President as a good representation of maintaining a public image in a way that Machiavelli would condone; in the case of President Obama, it is accurate to say that he has established a perception of himself as a remarkable human being, much like a prince would have to do. However, in a democratic society there is not the promotion of a leader as a deity, or a being of superior moral construction. Unfortunately in some cases this thesis doesn’t hold true, for example Glenn Beck’s self-promotion as a savior of American freedoms and all of the people who believe that to be true. Despite this, like Machiavellian theory, the idea of a strong public image is very important.

The prime example in modern politics of a ruler who typifies Machiavellian principles is Kim Jong Il. He has power and glory, he is a lion and a fox, he is feared and loved, and he is almost a medical midget, but in the eyes of his people he has become a Machiavellian Prince. The basic premise of Machiavelli’s theory is one of dictatorship, in modern terms. Kim Jong Il has complete sovereignty over his people. Through methods of cruelty and an odd sort of charisma, he commands a nation of obedient and docile followers. He does this in a way that violates an innumerable number of modern day human rights, but is that not what Machiavelli suggests as effective? Morality aside, it is difficult to argue that Kim Jong Il is not an ideal ruler. When one considers the ability to simply have both power and glory in a nation-state, he certainly possesses it. However in the world today, the virtue of individualism and freedom can simply not be overlooked.

This is why a Machiavellian ruler is unacceptable in international society. Certainly the method of ruling still can prove efficient and beneficial to the ruler, but it disregards contemporary thoughts on humanitarianism, and therefore does not have a place in modern governance.