I think he wanted to unite Italy with a single ruler, but only to a point of uniting Italy and to see that Italy can see itself as one nation. Then, like he wrote on the Discorsi would build a republic of Italy, which was his main goal.
I find it amusing that Machiavelli was open to more than one form of government and that he was also a person who was quick to changing one means to another means (eg. when being cautious over others).
Zacarias Daniel A. Baricuatro
Given the state of the nation today, do you think our government would do better following Machiavelli's before government (Monarchy) to unite the people (cause admit it, we're not exactly united as a people) or his after government (Democracy, that is we'd retain)?
ReplyDeleteIt was good that Machiavelli was open to more than one form of government. He was also one who was open minded and was, as stated above, quick to changing one means to another means.
ReplyDeleteThis is an important factor, because the state and its situation is not the same all throughout history. The people of the state may change and the habits , attitudes and way of relating with one another may also change. Because of this, a lot of things in society will be affected. Therefore, it would be a good idea to be flexible. It would be a good idea to be open to changes- and in this case it would be changes in the system of government and how the government would rule.
In my opinion, the system of government we are using at present is what fits our country. If we would be using a monarchy form of government, there would be a lot of issues raised.We just need to know how to work together- the people and the government. Sometimes it is not about what kind or form of government is used, but rather the success and progress of a country is based on how the people and the government work together.
ReplyDeleteCan there be unity amidst diversity? Should there be unity amidst diversity? I've been thinking about this for a while; what kind of "unity" into a State is best: a city, a province, a nation, or a world empire? Who should be united? Those with the same language (as in nation), same culture, or same species as human beings? Revisiting Hobbes' Leviathan, and as an assessment of the weakness of the International Court of Justice, don't you think the world's nations are in "a Hobbesian State of Nature"?: It seems like an anarchy, a state of war, among nations: beat me if you can, i'll submit to you if you're stronger than me.
ReplyDeleteI think there can be unity amidst diversity. Although there are different cultures, practices and beliefs among different groups, there can be unity if we all fight for one common goal. But at present, I do not really see unity among all people but only unity within one group.
ReplyDelete@Mr. Pelias:
ReplyDeleteI agree with kim regarding unity but i think the term is not actually "amidst" but "in spite of." Because we have different beliefs and practices, we are naturally divided by them but in the hopes of a brighter future, or just a more stable nation, the people should be able to set them aside and unite towards, as kim said, "one common goal"
Although i think its possible for a lot of nations to work together, i don't think its possible for ALL the ENTIRE nations (i hope you catch my drift on this one) to be united. That is if we were to define unity as Machiavelli wanted Italy to be: under one government.
I would, therefore, suggest the "unity" at least of a nation but the the promotion of peace among nations. Racial tolerance, if i may suggest.
We are not really suffering from state disintegration, well except for the rebellious troops in Mindanao asking for their autonomy, but all in all it's not that as worse as what Machiavelli was going through during his time. But though we are not in that very same situation, i feel like we are strangely as divided as the people from his time minus the bombing and the wars against one another. To make it short, we are not really united. And yes, I guess Machiavelli's idea of having a transitional government (which would be a monarchy) would best prepare us for having an effective democracy. Because as I see it, the root of our never ending problems is discipline. And the Filipino people seem to be lacking in discipline. We can't even follow simple rules not unless we are "threatened".
ReplyDeleteSo to sum it all up, I feel like to have an effective democracy we must first learn to be responsible for it, and discipline is needed. For discipline to be instilled to every individual, a rule of one is needed.
Hi, Yralli. I agree that it is a sad fact that Filipinos seem to lack in discipline. I also agree that discipline can be instilled through a “rule of one.”
ReplyDeleteHowever, do you think that this discipline will be carried over to a democracy in order to foster responsibility?
I think that it is a difficult task to carry it over. The environment of a democratic society is very different from a totalitarian society. So people who are disciplined in a totalitarian government might not be the same disciplined person once the state shifts to a democracy. Otherwise, why would we have a discipline problem in the Philippines even after Marcos?
Furthermore, I think learning to be responsible for a democracy necessitates that you are in a democratic society where the power is in your hands. The perception of responsibility is low in totalitarian regimes because you don’t elect the leaders but high in democratic societies because your vote and your voice count. What do you think?
PLEASE BE CLEAR ABOUT THE MEANING OF "DEMOCRATIC" AND "TOTALITARIAN SOCIETY." DO NOT ATTRIBUTE LACK OF DISCIPLINE TO DEMOCRACY. AND DO NOT ASSUME THAT TOTALITARIANISM ALWAYS ACHIEVES DISCIPLINE. RUSSIA UNDER THE TSARS WAS THE MOST EFFICIENTLY AND RUTHLESSLY TYRANNICAL REGIME IN 19TH CENTURY EUROPE, BUT PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THIS, IT BECAME THE BREEDING GROUND OF ANARCHISTS.
ReplyDeleteFN
TO MS MENDOZA
ReplyDeleteI AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH YOU ON THE NEED FOR A TRANSITION FROM A CHAOTIC STATE TO A STABLE DEMOCRACY.
OF COURSE, PROBLEMS DIFFER FROM COUNTRY TO COUNTRY, FROM TIME TO TIME. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE PROBLEMS THAT CONFRONTED MACHIAVELLI ARE NOT THE SAME AS THE PROBLEMS CONFRONTING US TODAY. HE LIVED IN A DISINTEGRATED NATION (ITALY). WE IN A NATION THAT IS DISINTEGRATING. NOT ONLY THE REBELS BUT ALSO THE GOVERNORS AND MAYORS (LIKE THE AMPATUANS) ARE BUILDING THEIR OWN EMPIRES -- STATES WITHIN A STATE. THESE ARE SIGNS OF DISINTEGRATION.
FN