Machiavelli depicted the republic as a body of many different classes with conflicting interests. To keep this 'body' healthy, reform and and founding principles are needed to survive. Because of this, for the common good, checks and balances are essential to keeping stability and freedom. There needs to be both the elite and the populace for the republic to survive. I think the creation of the tribunes played a fundamental part in giving the populace a chance to share administration in their cities. The tribunes allowed for more citizens to participate in politics, but where there is more people there is more conflicting interests. How do people protect freedom and stability where there are more principles to consider?
I interpreted some of the reading as Machiavelli saying that conflict was a contribution to stability in society. Whether it is bloody or bloodless, it shapes how people act and and take into account how they want their society to function. Today, it seems that any kind of conflict is discouraged and is seen as a threat to stability and security in political life. Again and again, we see that Machiavelli states that men are more likely to do evil than good. If men are to be evil, how can they provide freedom for the state? The clash between the ruler, the nobility and the populace on protecting liberty or freedom is interesting to see because one cannot be successful without the others. Conflicts obviously bring up issues that need to be considered, but is constant conflict a driving force in maintaining the stability of the state?
I hear what you are saying, however; I think in many ways conflict really is encouraged within a republic especially when you take a look at a place like United States. We expect our leaders to be in conflict with other states, if they are not or if they make too many concessions they are viewed as weak. We expect our politicians, our society's elite, to be in competition with each other at least in terms of differing political parties. It is not uncommon to heal politicians to make comments along the lines of "the republicans are trying to sneak this on the ballot" or "the democrats are ruining this." We also expect the population to be in conflict with elites such as the tea party movement and also with leaders. This conflicts not only bring up issues but this is a way that we expect to see the different elements of the republic interacting. I wouldn't say that this conflict brings stability and I think it can be very detrimental at times, but it is also a part of our society that is consistently reinforced.
ReplyDeleteAs far as your statement goes that conflict is encouraged in regards to political parties, I would argue that the parties weren't created to suit the republic, we formed a republic because we had such different ideologies. For example, we take the Constitution as the supreme law, ideal in every way (for the most part), but it just barely passed through confirmation and no single Founding Father or delegate had all of their desires met. We have been plagued by conflict and compromise since the outset.
DeleteMachiavelli argues that by mixing the three types of government together in the Roman republic (the monarchy in the consuls, the aristocracy in the senate, and the democracy in the tribunes and the common people) brought forth an ideal balance. This helped make Rome politically stable and the conflicts help preserve older traditions and institutions. Similar to the US legislature which is full of conflict, it is to preserve the status quo, rather than to hastily embrace new legislation that wasn't thought out. This preserves stability by literally staying stable. Not moving forward, not moving backwards. Just staying there. I'll admit that it can be frustrating and indeed 'very detrimental' at times, but unbearably slow change is necessary when only 51% of the country can agree to any given subject at a time. Anything more would leave a huge portion of the country left out as a tiny majority would easily make expansive changes to society and government, only to have it undone if their majority drops to 49%. All in all, I think the Framers argued the same sore of points when setting up our government and, in their opinion, a republic that utilized the existing conflict was the most stable form.
You bring up a good point about conflicts and stability. In my opinion, I think constant conflicts occur not only in unstable states, but in stable states as well. We see conflicts everywhere around the world especially in unstable states such as Syria, Thailand, and Egypt, but also in stable states such as Russia and the United States. A constant conflict could be a driving force in maintaining the stability of the state, however, to maintain a stable state does not require constant conflicts either. And as you point out that Machiavelli argues that "men are more likely to do evil than good," which is a good statement from him to point out, but I completely disagree with him. Today, our living standards are better than ever because we have those who do good more than evil. However, the most important conflict that we should focus on is how to create better living standards in other states as well. Our society has access to beyond advanced technology, yet there are billions of those who don't even have access to clean water. Now I'm just complaining, but I find it so frustrating to see billions of people starving to death all around the world while we fight about whether or not we should legalize marijuana. Therefore, I don't think people do evil more than good, I think people do good and then become selfish.
ReplyDelete