Tap here to turn on desktop notifications to get the news sent straight to you.
The author may be reached at BorjaALA gmail. It was more like a bucket of cold water thrown at readers than an eye opener.
As a dissection of the familiar it can enable readers to analyse the underbelly of public life.
Moreover, it released political ethics from the restraints of religious morality. Whoever becomes patron of a city accustomed to living free and does not destroy it, should expect to be destroyed by it; for it always has as a refuge in rebellion the name of liberty and its own ancient orders which are never forgotten either through length of time or because of benefits received.
This endeavour is like reverse engineering.
Therefore, I utilised the following guideposts. First, The Prince, originally untitled, earned Machiavelli a place in both the pantheon of political thinkers and the Papal list of banned works. Instead, it is an application of humanist principles in politics. It also raised the ideal of national unity for a fragmented Italian peninsula.
Third, the Prince is intertwined with the state. The former takes a public form while the latter becomes partially personal. In other words, as was argued by Mansfieldthe state for Machiavelli is something acquired, shaped, and personalised.
Lastly, underlying The Prince is a warning for leaders not to underestimate the masses. They must be considered as a fickle entity with the power to make or break a prince. Guided by this reading, I laboured to produce an indirect and meaning-based translation from three English versions.
I consulted the original text for crucial passages and concepts. Glossing over the drudgery of wrestling with several drafts, the entire process sandwiched me between two worlds of understanding power.
Building a bridge between contemporary Philippine politics and Renaissance Italy was pleasurably difficult. The first two can only be understood in relation with each other. It is not only about knowing how and when to act.
It is also about the will and courage—the proverbial cojones—to control a situation and vie for power. Linguistic nuances entailed certain costs like the loss of certain contextual meaning during transfer. Such costs were balanced out and paid for to ensure a coherent flow.
I faced a similar dilemma with the concept of stato. It can be translated easily into state, but this would invoke a modern meaning that Machiavelli did not share.
Furthermore, estado is a foreign term. Rooted in a colonial past, it is estranged from everyday political discussions among ordinary Filipinos. Hence, I chose the word bayan because it is endemic, colloquial, and a bridge to pre-Hispanic socio-political organisation.
Furthermore, bayan refers to communities larger than a village barangayspecifically a town and an entire country. It can also refer to the public itself, serving as the rootword for taong-bayan the peoplemamamayan citizenand pamayanan community or polity.
These factors ensure a direct appeal to the political psyche of ordinary readers; a condition exposed to the realities of clientelism and strongman politics in the Philippines. At this point we must ask: If this is so, did the Philippines ever have one? Was it Marcos who, though serving as the prototype of a Philippine Machiavellian, pales in comparison to his contemporaries like Pinochet, Gaddafi, and Park?
Was it Arroyo who survived despite her shaky legitimacy? Was it Estrada, Binay and the myriad of local populists who appealed to the welfare of the people? In addressing these questions, let me remind the reader that Machiavelli never used the word politics to refer to the activities he exposed.
His attachment to Aristotle placed politics beyond mere power play. Moreover, his prince is an ideal type; a nameless composite of different leaders who tried to be great. Contrary to an embodiment of ruthless cynicism, Machiavelli conveyed ideals on leadership and civic life.
This moves the question from who is to who should be a Machiavellian. This notion is derived on one hand, from his revival of Roman civic ethics in the Discourses on Livy. If journalists and scholars can stop offending a great thinker by utilising a misreading enshrined in the dictionary, then we can refer to The Prince in establishing Philippine political ethics beyond civic complacency and political moralising.
It is also a matter of citizenship.ph-vs.com: the prince- machiavelli. From The Community. Amazon Try Prime All Go Search EN Hello.
Sign in Account & Lists Sign in Account & Lists Orders Try Prime Cart 0. Your ph-vs.com The Watergate Scandal Essay written by Unknown The Watergate Scandal was a series of crimes committed by the President and his staff, who were found to spied on and harassed political opponents, accepted illegal campaign contributions, and covered up their own misdeeds.
Machiavellis' the Prince. Braun Period 1 Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince In Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, Machiavelli advises leaders in the mid ’s on how to be efficient and effective leaders. - Bill Clinton's Scandalous Presidency William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States, was one of the "most popular American presidents of the 20th century", and the second president to be impeached (Dumas 1 of 15).
Niccolo Machiavelli’s most famous book, The Prince, contains the most valid information for a prince, a president, and even a king, to keep hold of their own power.
Machiavelli tells about the importance and power of political action, his opinions, and most of all philosophy at it’s finest.
Donald Trump is the American Machiavelli. The prince’s task was to create a strong state, not necessarily a “good” one. he will represent a democracy whose Constitution and .