Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, lived and wrote his story about politics. around 350 BC, while Florentine Machiavelli's stories about Titu Libya were published posthumously in 1531 AD Aristotle takes an established position in the field of ethics, politics, metaphysics, and he created the field of natural philosophy, summarizing what was previously considered by natural philosophers ... He is the creator of modern scientific terminology, which founded and classified various sciences that exist today. (Jayasinghe 2009). The fact that the reputation of Machiavelli is somewhat more controversial and can be established from the dictionary definitions of the word "Machiavellian". The shorter Oxford vocabulary begins quite clearly with the definition of “Machiavellian” as a noun: A person who accepts the principles recommended by Machiavelli in his treatise on status; and then, as an adjective: referring to Machiavelli or his principles, or recognizing it, using unscrupulous methods; two-faced, deceitful, cunning, intrigue. Our content is that the latter explanation, although it was accepted over a period of time by popular usage, is a misconception about the actual and influential contribution that Machiavelli made to political theory and practice.
Machiavelli:
Although this is chronologically more recent than Aristotle, this essay should begin with a discussion of Machiavelli's influence on political thought and public administration, especially his contribution to the modern concept of “democratic elitism.” followed by a discussion of Aristotle’s contribution to the field, especially his central and influential concept of “politics”. as the forerunner of democratic elitism.
Machiavelli has earned a reputation and adherence to his contribution to political theory, and also contributed to the principles of warfare, literature, history and diplomacy. His negative reputation is based on his first work, written in 1513, but published posthumously in 1532, The Prince. As a realist and pragmatist, Machiavelli rejected the general opinion of political philosophers that moral well-being is the basis of political power, giving legitimacy to the exercise of power. First hand, as the second chancellor of the Republic of Florence before the Medici regained power in 1512, Machiavelli saw that the ruler’s only real concern was the acquisition and maintenance of power without taking into account the moral dimension, which he considered completely irrelevant to government.
For Machiavelli, the power of weapons is the only legitimizing tool and foundation of a well-ordered political system. Political power and legitimacy are based on force or the threat of force, and not always on the basis to which all citizens pay tribute. Machiavelli called people in general ungrateful, disloyal, insincere and deceptive, shy from danger and the greed of profit. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2005; 2009). Subjects are subject to the laws of the state for fear of the supreme power of the state. He bases his arguments on the self-interest of the majority of people who, in practice, do not agree to moral precepts without being forced due to fear of consequences. Here we find the basis for Machiavelli’s idealization for a prince as opposed to passive, lazy, and ignorant people.
What political thinkers who came after Machiavelli called “democratic elitism” (Bachrach 1967) arose directly in Machiavelli’s vision of requirements for achieving and maintaining political power, although not everyone agrees with this point of view. The concept he developed was called “not guilty,” not the same as the English word “value”; with connotations of moral fidelity. For Machiavelli, who adhered to pagan beliefs, the Christian virtues of humility, piety, and submission to God's will were not ideal, but heroism, masculinity, strength of character, and contract. What does Machiavelli mean, ... the range of personal qualities that a prince will acquire for acquisition, in order to "maintain his fortune" and "seek great deeds," two standard marks of strength for him. (Quoted from). According to Machiavelli, the ruler must take a “flexible order” where he hovers; his behavior is from good to evil and back, "because the state and circumstances dictate" (op.cit.). Machiavelli also postulated another central concept in Fortune, as the irrational, malicious, most serious threat to the security and security of the state. However, if & nbsp; and the wisdom of the ruler is equal to him, Fortune can be mastered at least to some extent, if not quite. What Machiavelli means, according to some commentator, is that in times of trouble, the ruler must take decisive, even violent actions to restore stability.
Machiavelli claims the mantle of the founder of "modern" political science, in contrast to the classical rule-making view of Aristotle on the political science of value. (Quoted from). Those politicians who considered Machiavelli as an ally stated the “cause” doctrine for actions that deviated from the accepted codes of law and wrong (Viroli, 1992). This current view of Machiavelli contrasts sharply with the way he was convicted in the 16th century as an apostle of the devil. (op. Cit). However, Machiavelli never defended evil for his own sake; it was supposed to be a pure instrument of power, which was neutral in relation to ordinary morality. There was another opinion made by Rousseau that Machiavelli was a satirist and simply exposed the immorality of most rulers. However, ceteris paribus, Machiavelli preferred compliance with moral value, rather than his opponent.
Proponents of “causes” who argue about state absolutism, argue that the good of the state takes precedence over all other considerations, but is not supported by Machiavelli himself. For him, the state was “personal wealth” almost synonymous with private property. In conjunction with the concept of "virtu", which is equated with individual initiative, skill, talent and power of the ruler, this shows that the "cause of the state" idea can not be directly attributed to Machiavelli. Machiavelli is, at best, a transitional figure in the process by which the language of the state appeared in early modern Europe. The idea of a stable constitutional rule, which reflects the tenor of modern political thought (and practice), is now considered in the Machiavelli concept of government (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2005, 2009).
Republicanism, to which Machiavelli attaches the greatest importance, separates politics from the religious and moral order. Machiavelli is said to be the first modern writer, indicating that there were no natural gods in political life. Rather, it was the task of politics to create order in the world. In "Discourses", Machiavelli reaffirms the approval of the French monarchy and the system of government. However, for him it was the minimum constitutional order in which people live safely (vivere sicuro), but not in freedom (vivere libero). The French government was strong and controlled the aspirations of nobles and ordinary people. According to Machiavelli, the goal of political order is the freedom created by active participation and content between the nobility and the people. While ordinary people have formed a democratic basis of the agreement provided, the rule of the nobility, as it is suitable for the elite. Then it became the basis of a more modern concept of democratic elitism.
Machiavelli recognized the importance of the laws and orders made by Parlement in Paris, which provided checks and balances that kept the monarch and nobles from tyranny. However, security alone is not enough to truly guarantee the freedom or freedom of the entire country. Only in the republic would both roots of political freedom take root. The French government, because it seeks security, not freedom, should have disarmed the population. Machiavelli believed that an armed civilian militia was the only guarantee against tyranny from within or from an external aggressor. Another aspect that Machiavelli emphasized in democratic elitism was that both the nobility and the tribes took an active part in the management of themselves. They can often collide, but this (“tumor”) should be expected. In Machiavelli's own words ... they do not understand that in each republic there are two different regimes: the people and the power of great people and that all laws favoring freedom arise their differences. (Machiavelli, 1965).
For Machiavelli, the elite is public. He put a large stock in the rhetorical case. the nature of his republicanism. Leaders are identified in open, open debates, and this is the cornerstone of the concept of democratic elitism.
Aristotle:
Aristotle & # 39; Politics & is a controversy on political philosophy. To some extent he was influenced by his teacher Plato, but while Plato was a great theorist pure and simple, the writings of Aristotle showed him a more reasonable and empirical mood. Although under the influence of his teacher, to some extent Aristotle breaks new ground in his studies of political philosophy.
Aristotle explores the concept of a political community (“political politics”). He organizes the household with the man as the head, and then the women, the children, and the slaves in that order and their relationship with each other. The husband, as husband, father and master, is the central political unit of the household. Natural & quot; hierarchies are thus recognized from the very beginning. Then he is engaged in the acquisition of wealth, describing the methods that he calls natural and unnatural forms of trade. He expresses some views that can be considered completely unacceptable in today's world. The male is superior in nature, and the female is inferior; and one rule, and another rule; this principle of necessity applies to all mankind. & # 39; It is clear that some people are free by nature and other slaves, and for this last slavery it is advisable and correct (“Internet-classic archive: the policy of Aristotle”). However, his lucrative idea of this "order of things is revealed in:
Breaking this power is bad for both; for the interest of the part and the whole, body and soul, are the same, and the slave is part of the master, the living, but separated part of his body frame. Here, where the relationship between the master and the slave between them is natural, they are friends and have a common interest, but where it rests on law and power, the reverse is true.
Aristotle continues to describe various forms of household management and various ways of approaching livelihoods. After discussing the moral virtues of slaves and free people, Aristotle continues to argue that the ruler must have moral value to perfection, since his function is absolutely necessary, the master artist claims, and the rational principle is such a skillful ... & 39; (op. cit.). This is largely opposed to the Machiavellian position.
The word "democracy" is traded in negative connotations for Aristotle. His ideal form of constitutional government was “Politic”, the union of the best aristocracy and democracy. Although Plato favored rule exclusively by the philosopher-king, Aristotle investigated several forms of government that exist in the real world. He found a monarchy with one head of state that could turn into tyranny. Aristocracy, ruled by some, is another viable constitutional form. This can degenerate into an oligarchy, the junta. Democracy can also become a rule of mobs. Aristotle is faced with the extreme of democracy. where the gathered mass of people falls prey to demagogue appeals and puts them above the law with horrendous consequences. For Aristotle, since a mixed and balanced form of government is illustrated by his propaganda of the "golden mean" in everything. Politicism was a healthy mix of elite and masses in a mutually supportive arrangement. This was clearly the forerunner of the modern concept of democratic elitism. For Aristotle, it didn’t matter whether the city-state was governed by one, few, or many that he had in mind when each of these forms of government ruled in the interests of the state or themselves.
Politism is defined as a rule of the constitutional majority in accordance with the law in the interests of the entire state. In accordance with his admiration for the “golden mean,” Aristotle also advocated the growth of the middle classes, which are either very rich or poor.
For this degree of wealth is the fastest reason for reason ... Here is the last class (poor) does not know how to govern, but knows how to obey a slave-like government, whereas the former class (rich) knows how to manage in a master's manner. The result is a state that is consistent with slaves and masters, not with free people, and with one class envious and another with their comrades ..... But, of course, the ideal of the state is that as many people as possible equal and similar, and this similarity is found in middle classes ...
Aristotle recognized the best "rulers"; as coming from the middle class. He quotes Solon, who was called to form laws and a constitution for Athens. It is said that he put an end to the oligarchy to establish a true Athenian democracy. Aristotle discovered that Solon created a democracy in Athens that acted in accordance with constitutional law and the result of a good mix of political elements. While Plato and Socrates tended to the opinion of experts on all issues, Aristotle saw in the attainment of Solon the validity of the majority's judgment, at least in constitutional matters.
Among the practical recommendations that Aristotle made to balance the contribution of the rich and not so rich in the state, he advocated fines for the rich if they did not attend open meetings or did not sit in courts paying the poor so that they could attend meetings and to participate in legal proceedings. He points out that ownership of property must be high for the rich and moderate for the poor. The observer concludes that Aristotle Ideal was an expression of the search for the average in political matters and thus the creation of a stronger political association capable of providing the means for cultivating ethical and intellectual virtues in relation to the good life of a citizen.
With the emergence of China as an economic superpower and liberal democracies in the West, seeking to make ends meet, questions are being asked whether a decision by Machiavell can bring stability to the current chaotic world order.
