Margaret Kohn's article on
privatization and protest during the "Occupy" movements addresses the
question, "how can democracy be both a way of legitimizing the state and a
practice of dissent and critique?" Kohn suggests that a state defined by a
constitution and liberal democratic principles allow for both to coexist.
Further, opposition or dissent to the state is what creates a legitimate
sovereign nation. Citing Machiavelli's Discourses,
regarding the actions of the elites in power and the commoners, it is clear
that Kohn agrees with Machiavelli's view on the importance of contested
dialogue between the two factions. If the nature of those in power is to seek
more power and influence, they become a threat to the general public, similar
to the debate on Wall Street and the Toronto Occupy movements. Under threat to
the greater republic, according to Livy's History
of Rome, common people then rise up against the injustices of the elites,
"naturally promoting a free way of life" as Kohn suggests.
Machiavelli strongly regards the act of dissent as important to the survival
and the honesty of a republic. At the same time, Machiavelli believes that
satisfying the needs of the elites leads to a better possibility of protecting
the common peoples' interests for the republic. In these two interpretations,
Machiavelli opens up the discussion on class conflict as a means for the
development and stability of the republic.
The
use of this particular Machiavellian belief in Kohn's article suggests that
during current day domestic affairs, the people can choose to act in such a way
that expresses dissent against those in power. How does Machiavelli's support
for political demonstration and debate relate to present citizens in the United
States that participated in the Occupy movement? What does it say about those
who did not participate? For those who are not participating, do they act as hindrances
to a true and just state?
I found Machiavelli's approach to class conflict extremely interesting - as you noted, he sees it more as a positive, proof that individuals within a society are striving for a stable, just republic. While I think this illustrates Machiavelli's realistic approach to how social events influence politics, I think using the Occupy movement as a legitimate example of this may be a bit farfetched, for a few reasons in particular. Most importantly, I wonder if social discontent (specifically mass protests) are still a valid form of "promoting a free way of life" in the US? I don't think the Occupy movement was taken seriously by a majority of Americans because it was largely unorganized and lacked a clear end-goal. In order for the relationship Machiavelli describes to be successful I think the general public has to remain both unified and goal oriented, which I don't see as very likely within the US (with such a diverse population). I don't think there are distinct classes within the US, other than the mega rich and the mega poor, as the middle class is such a diverse group of people with extremely different priorities. So maybe Machiavelli's approach is less realistic in that way - as it relies heavily on the distinct separation of two classes which have two distinct set of interests.
ReplyDelete