Democracy Machiavellian style as option |

Since our nation gained its independence in 1947, we have attempted a variety of well-known governance models in an effort to establish "rule" and "writ of law" in our country.

We tried the Presidential system, the Parliamentary system, military rule, and a combination of civil and military rule, but none of them seemed to work.

Since our inception, we have been confronted with the "Governance" dilemma. It's possible that our current form of democracy is not right for us.

Even though democracy is a great way to run a country's political system, as seen in the West, there are some "essentials" and fundamental requirements for democracy to work.

A high level of education, political awareness, freedom, and laws and regulations that equally protect the weak and powerful are just a few of these things that help democracy grow and thrive.

Unfortunately, our system doesn't have these important factors, so we always have political trouble. On the other hand, other countries in the region, even those that got independence a long time after we did, have become political and economic success stories.

We also require a selfless, dedicated, honest, intelligent, and upright leader with a vision to steer our nation out of the current quagmire, just like a winning team does.

It's possible that the current form of democracy in the West won't solve all of the issues and challenges we face.

We must choose a political system that is appropriate for our unique circumstances, the nature of our people, and their mood, who are largely uneducated and do not realize how important their vote is.

Instead of using money as a tool to achieve their nefarious designs or using brutal force of votes (including buying votes) to mold public opinion to seek desired results, political leaders must rise above personal and party-level interests, think rationally, and act nationally. Rather than igniting the sentiments of the people to suit their political agenda (which may also be anti-state), fomenting trouble, exploiting a given situation to misguide masses, and stirring unrest, political leaders must either use money as 

This has occurred numerous times in our country. Here, one thinks of Machiavelli and his "Prince," who wanted to bring order to a raucous and corrupt society and rule an ungoverned society.

Machiavelli claimed that elites have been "motivated by a will to dominate" ever since the Greeks established democracy.

The wealthy's persistent hunger for power and control can only be quenched by the many.

In his book Machiavellian Democracy (2011), academic John P. McCormick helped bring Machiavelli's concepts of democracy to the forefront of political science.

He describes how Machiavelli argued for the necessity of a strong popular, even populist, stance against elites in a 2001 journal article.

Machiavellian democracy, according to McCormick, is "an institutional mix of popular representation and direct popular participation, as well as a political culture driven by an active rather than passive socio-political orientation." Machiavelli completed his most famous work, "The Prince," which was originally titled "Of Principalities," in 1527.

The term "Machiavellian" refers to dishonest politicians and the ruthless politics of autocrats and is derived from this work.

Machiavelli's greatest contribution to modern republicanism was his "Discourses." A republic cannot be established in an area devoid of equality, he wrote.

Elites really offended Machiavelli. However, there probably wouldn't be a way to get around them in a republic.

To safeguard liberty, it was important to maintain their honesty. His message is clear and concise: If you want to lead, you better be good at it.

There were good reasons for Machiavelli to focus on efficiency. In those days, Florence in particular and Italy as a whole were in decline, suffering from internal chaos and being threatened and, to some extent, subjugated by foreign powers (as is the case today).

He thought that was because of inept and weak government. Therefore, when he thought about the actions of the "Prince" and the need for effective rule, he might have thought more about the state's standing than the prince's glory.

Therefore, his message was one of purposeful effectiveness. He believed that effective rule was necessary for the cohesion of the ruler and the ruled, which would result in a stable state, and for the rulers' chances of gaining the support of the people.

For those who are ruled, it is in their best interest that the rule they are subjected to work. Otherwise, not only will the state be in danger, but so will the lives of its citizens.

Therefore, Machiavelli regards effective rule as a noble goal. People are difficult to deal with, the world is difficult, and the times are harsh and turbulent.

It is challenging to rule in such a way as to establish order, "he writes. This is where his many well-known suggestions for the ruler's ruthlessness come from.

There is no escaping his cynicism regarding the effective use of force in government.

He was a republican because he believed that under republican rule, power is divided and those in power are accountable to at least some of the people, eliminating the need for tyranny.

Additionally, he believed that the best foundation for a stable state was that kind of rule. He made the observation that although republican rule is not democratic, it is as close to democratic thought as was available at the time.

We who are concerned about democratic government's future today have a lot of the same reasons to focus on efficiency.

Therefore, if the ruler is "hard and effective" in maintaining law and order and other state agencies do not impede him from exercising his "executive" authority, then there appears to be nothing wrong.

He meant that an illiterate and imprudent ruler is superior to an enlightened "Prince/leader." Democracy faces difficulties and, in some ways, is experiencing quality and delivery declines.

Anger and anti-politics movements are gaining traction. Britain and the United States' core democracies are experiencing identity crises and impasses in governance.

Their predicament is comparable to the Florentine Republic of Machiavelli: In both Britain and the United States, particularly with regard to their national assemblies (Parliament in Westminster and Congress in Washington), the constitutional institutions perform poorly.

Cohesion between rulers and ruled is severely lacking, as is goodwill toward governors.

Respectable constitutions are being disrespected, and internal divisions, a lack of confidence, and poor leadership are weakening them.

Non-democratic external powers are establishing themselves. Given our current circumstances, do we require a "Machiavelli Prince" for our great nation?