Machiavelli’s internet

Niccolo Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) was an Italian historian, politician, diplomat, philosopher, humanist, and writer during the Renaissance. He was an official with responsibilities in diplomatic and military affairs. He was a founder of modern political science, and more specifically political ethics. He pre-dated the internet.

His writings have been interpreted in many different ways in the five hundred years since he was active. But he is generally thought of as the first author to describe the reality of what must be done by those who seek to establish and maintain political power.

My copy of his book The Prince is well thumbed and replete with margin marks highlighting the more challenging ideas. I have returned to it often when, as an education advisor, I found myself dealing with politicians seeking to justify and promote particular policy options.

Machiavelli’s key message is that there are two types of morality – one for ordinary people and one for a prince-like politician. Ordinary people keep their promises and do not murder those who disagree with them. Politicians may need to be otherwise. Think of what is happening to the recent ‘Vow’ made to the Scottish people by the Westminster elite. Think of the collateral damage by bombing in the Middle East. Who profits?

I was brought up to believe that the people running the country (the economy) were the good and great and my elders and betters. Noble, trustworthy, scrupulous, ethical, honest and with the greatest good of the greatest number firmly in mind. But it sometimes seems to be otherwise.

Because of my upbringing I feel guilty when I conclude that the supposed pillars of society are in fact small minded, selfish, greedy, right wing, free market, Westminster Tories who have their purses packed for promoting the business interests of the military industrial complex, the banking sector, and Big Pharma etc.

But I intellectually appreciate that my guilt is a product of hegemony and elegant power. By taking thought I can rise above the cowdung and remove the illusory ball and chain. But this exposes me to the existential vacuum. What’s it all about Alfie?

If the surrogate father figures are dethroned from the status quo – who will be in command? The people? The lumpenprolitariate? The petty bourgeoisie? The middle classes? The upper classes? – God forbid. God?

But anyway – I am inclined to say a few words in support of political science and ethics in the 21st century.

The facts may speak for themselves in the physical sciences and bridge building but not in the social sciences and nation building. In the latter case decisions have to be made in the absence of incontestable facts; in the absence of robust evidence; in the absence of widespread consensus. Nettles and thistles have to be grasped so that policies, programmes and projects can be served to citizens on silver platters by silver tongued devils supported by media savvy special advisors, spin doctors and speech writers.

It is dirty work but someone has to do it. But surely we can clean it up a bit? Might it not be different in an independent, computer-age Scotland?

The three unionist political parties could be voted out of existence making room for a more participatory and engaged approach to the political process. MSPs would solicit and act upon the views of their constituents rather than being bribed or whipped into following a remote, elitist national party line masterminded from Wastemonster.

And alternative media could provide user friendly, trustworthy and unbiased news and views. Several media units that cut their meritocratic teeth on the run up to the referendum are quickly institutionalising themselves to harness crowd sourced facts, feelings and funding.

I cannot help but feel that the Scottish enlightenment which began in the 18th century remains an unfinished business. We can be hard nosed, rational, just and green and move away from polarising win/lose debate towards inclusive win/win discussion.

And I also like to feel that, while Machiavelli may have been right about the realities of politics in 16th century Italy, he was not describing innate human nature. What might he have said about political science and ethics if, in his day, there had been the internet and crowd sourcing?