In January 2011, the world started to witness and experience a catastrophic series of revolutions in the Arab world known as the Arab Spring. The series of revolutions and acts of rebellion started in Tunisia and branched out to countries like Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain and other countries in the Arab World. In Libya, the main reason for protest involved the Libyan people who were against long-time Libyan Dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Protests began in Libya on February 2011, causing chaos and destruction within the nation until October 2011 when Gaddafi was killed, thereby officially having Libya liberated by the NTC. The uprising in Libya was a mass public reaction by the people, thinking and openly showing their hate and negative feelings towards Gaddafi, who has dictated the nation for over 40 years. The philosophies of known political theorists Thomas Hobbes and John Locke can be easily applied to this case study, a case study that involves and looks at rebellion in a dictatorship, and how both work differently and together. In one corner, you have Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) who wrote Leviathan in 1651. In Leviathan, Hobbes states that power is key, that a leader must gain his power through force of any kind. Hobbes also dabbles into human nature, explaining how we humans are very selfish and are willing to do anything to earn power of any sort, even if it means killing other people. In the other corner, you have The Father of Classical Liberalism, otherwise known as John Locke (1632-1704), writer of the book Two Treaties of Government, who believes that there is no one order or one sole figure of authority when it comes to political power, and that power should be shared between the people and the government. If that sharing connection of power were to be broken, people then have the right rebel and start a revolution. Looking at the events of the Libyan uprising, it is clearly visible to see that the Libyan uprising can be easily connected with the theories of John Locke.
In February 2011, the stir of Libyan uprising started with a human rights campaigner who was arrested, the arrest sparked controversy which then lead to violent protests in the eastern city of Benghazi. The violence spread to other cities, authorities responded by attacking protesters with aircraft's, Gaddafi responded saying he will not quit and will remain in power. Gaddafi continued to fight back against protesters by arresting and killing them, and using high amounts of police and military force. The protesters can be seen as going against the main values and points of Hobbes thesis in Leviathan. In Leviathan, we look into the element of the true dark nature of humans, much like Joesph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, which tells the story of how we are truly evil. In this case, the mass amount of killing and rioting can be seen as a path towards Hobbes, Gaddafi is being greedy with his power and is taking serious levels of measurement to keep his power, by continuously pushing the protesters and freedom fighters to the ground as they question, challenge and go against him and his Hobbes like attitude towards power. Although, the peoples dislike of living under a ruthless dictator like Gaddafi can be seen as more of a Lockeian case. Gaddafi has spent years on end killing and torturing the Libyan people, when applying this to Locke, you realize that the fine line of sharing power between the government and the people has been broken. After years of Gaddafi flaunting his power everywhere, the people finally had enough, so the people took a stand and followed their right to a revolution. Locke says that no two people have authority over each other, one person may expand his power and authority to another party (in this case the general public), and when that expansion is broken, people will wonder whats going on and will revolt, resulting in violence, riots, death and destruction. Basically take all of that and match it with the case in Libya, a simple equation if you may... people's dislike towards Gaddafi, breaking the line of shared power = protest and right to a revolution. The end result of Gaddafi being overthrown and killed proves that there is and should be a social contract between the people and the government, and if that contract gets destroyed or is not properly followed, people rights will be lost and violated and they will revolt as they have a right to if it were the case. This proves that the situation in Libya is well connected with the works and theories of John Locke.
As the riots and protests continued in Libya, Gaddafi still refused to surrender. The rebels plan involved taking over the entire nation, city by city, with their final mark being Tripoli, Libya's capital. The plan was continuously thwarted by opposing pro-regime forces. In relation to Hobbes, this case shows that it can be mandatory to use force against people to enhance a power that can strengthen the minds of others, much like those who support Gaddafi and have formed the pro-regime resistance that is fighting back against the rebels. The ideals and philosophies of Gaddafi managed to be instilled in the minds of many in Libya while others are still against him. Gaddafi now knows that at least some portion of the public are behind him during all of this. But, in relation to Locke, it all roots back to the idea of social contract, if any person has their rights violated, the role of government is questioned and possibly leads to revolution. The old social contract between the Libyan people and the government is worth nothing now, the people demand for a new one that follows the rights and needs of today rather than living in the past which lacks those rights. That's what Gaddafi is trying to do, keep the people in the past and follow the old ways, while the majority are against that and want change. This proves that the situation in Libya is well connected with the works and theories of John Locke.
And so, the Libyan revolution saw the fall of a very old regime. Although this case can be applied to that of Thomas Hobbes, you have issues within the case such as protests and war among people that can easily be applied to John Locke. Therefor, the Libyan uprising can easily be applied to that of John Locke and his idea that ties all of these cases together, the idea of a social contract and what happens when that contract is broken, as opposed to Thomas Hobbes and his idea of doing anything to gain power.
Sources
Books
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. 1651. Print.
Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. 1690. Print.
Web Document
"Libya." The Guardian . Guardian News and Media Limited, 10 June 2012. Web. 10 Jun 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/libya>.
"Libya Profile." BBC News Africa . BBC, 22 May 2012. Web. 2 Jun 2012. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13755445>.
"Libya protests - as they happened ." The Guardian News Blog. Guardian News and Media Limited, 20 February 2011. Web. 1 Jun 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/20/libya-protests?INTCMP=SRCH>.
"Libya - Revolution and Aftermath." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 14 May 2012. Web. 30 May 2012. <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html>.
"The World Factbook: Africa: Libya." CIA - The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency, 29 May 2012. Web. 2 Jun 2012. <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ly.html>.
Tuesday, 5 June 2012
Monday, 4 June 2012
Thomas Mulcair: The NDP's new Machiavellian Prince
Thomas Joesph "Tom" Mulcair born on October 24, 1954 in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Graduate of McGill University in 1977 with degrees in common and civil law. Lawyer, university professor and now politician.
A brief profile on the NDP's new leader who has some big shoes to fill as the leader of Canada's Leader of the Official Opposition, and the shoes of the legendary and deceased Jack Layton.
A brief profile on the NDP's new leader who has some big shoes to fill as the leader of Canada's Leader of the Official Opposition, and the shoes of the legendary and deceased Jack Layton.
The NDP legacy that Mulcair must continue can be applied to the works of Italian philosopher and contributor to political science, Niccolo Machiavelli and his popular political guide known as "The Prince". The Prince, in some ways, acts as the bible for all modern day politicians, with "The Prince" politicians will learn to rule and rise with power in an efficient and authoritarian manner. With Mr. Mulcair having to be new to the world of political leaders, I feel that "The Prince" will do well in terms of guiding Mr. Mulcair if he were to read, or at least apply one or two of Machiavelli's words of political wisdom. Here are a few examples from "The Prince" that can apply to a "new prince" like Mulcair who is new to being in power, "The Prince" can help Mulcair run the NDP Party efficiently during his time on the NDP throne.
Chapter XVIII: Point 5 - How a Prince Should Keep His Word
"How praiseworthy it is for a prince to keep his word and to live by integrity and not deceit...."
The NDP have much to offer in terms of political change, things they would do if they were in power. When Thomas Mulcair was running, he had a solid platform that satisfied and kept NDP followers happy, a platform that can be followed in order to make the changes that can help Canada today. Some of the following issues that Mulcair touches on with this platform include:
- Improvement on family health services
- Looking into the climate change issue
- More of a leadership role in the country
- More involvement on the international stage
These issues also branch out into further issues and things that Mulcair and the NDP would change. The following platform was written by former NDP leader Jack Layton who has done a tremendous job in getting the NDP far in their political legacy. Many Canadians admired Layton for his dedication and hard work, which are a good reflection of a man who remains loyal and keeps his word. With Mulcair replacing Layton as NDP leader, he must follow the similar path in terms of dealing and communicating with the people. Machiavelli states that a prince who honors his word is generally praised by others. With much to learn as a new leader, Mulcair as the NDP's new prince must live up to those expectations that were left by Layton, to fulfill the wishes of the people. Layton was considered to be a people person which made more Canadians trust in him and what he stood for as the NDP's leader. Also a prince should present the appearance of being a compassionate, trustworthy, kind, guileless, and pious ruler. Although it is hard and almost impossible to fulfill those wishes all the time, as long as a prince acts that way and at least shows some of those qualities towards the people, people will virtue you as a prince. Mulcair must present that image in order to communicate and present himself well to Canadians, it is those virtues of courage, devotion, trust, kindness and other positive qualities that a prince must use to attract the minds of the general public in order to have a unit of public support. In conclusion, Mulcair must follow the same attitude and idea that Layton followed which will ensure the trust of many as he continues to promote the NDP platform which he'll use to the best of his extent to create change in Canada, change that will ensure that the vast majority of people will remain safe under NDP rule.
Chapter XIX: Point 6 - On Avoiding Being Despised and Hated
"...should concentrate upon on avoiding those things which make him hated and despised..."
The last thing you need to be when in power is to be hated and despised, a prince should avoid that. Point 6 connects well with point 5, due to the fact that the way you act as a prince in terms of trust and being a people person reflects on whether you will be hated or not. Whether you will be hated or not depends on your actions and how you communicate with the general public. Machiavelli states that a prince should not be frivolous, cowardly or posses any negative quality that will reflect on how the people will see the prince in terms of attitude and actions. With Mulcair being the NDP's new leader, on all front's he's stepping into the large shoes of the NDP that were once worn by Jack Layton. Sometimes for a new prince, it is hard to live up to the previous prince, especially if the previous has done an amazing job for a long time, putting the party in a good position. Mulcair must be careful at the beginning stage of becoming a new leader, careful that he doesn't make any mistake(s) that could have his supporters, NDP supporters, hate him for life. Mulcair must continue to lead the NDP as the opposing party fighting against Stephen Harper, in order to do so, he must stick to his goal of changing Canada and helping fellow Canadians. All positive actions needed to gain more support, and to remain not despised and hated by Canadians abroad.
Chapter XXII: Point 9 - On the Prince's Private Advisers
"The choice of advisers is of no little import to a prince..."
As the new leader of the NDP, Mulcair must ensure himself that his "advisers" do their duty. By advisers, I mean other members of the NDP party, such as the Members of Parliament who represent the NDP party all around Canada. Technically, their only private to the point where they remain loyal to the party they represent and the values and morals that symbolizes the party and its actions, and how Canadians perceive them; thereby, making them public advisers in some way. Machiavelli states that "...the first error he (a Prince) makes is made in his choice of advisers", by applying this to Canadian politics, you can argue that in the case for Mulcair, he must make sure that the MP's that represent the NDP in different parts of Canada represent in an efficient manner to further influence Canadians abroad to encourage change in their government. Machiavelli also says that "... there is this way which never fails" furthering that paragraph with the idea that if the prince's advisers think more about themselves and not the prince, concerns themselves with their own interests, that type of adviser is considered unfit to be an adviser, thereby never to be trusted. Mulcair must be careful in the choice of NDP MP's in Canada and make sure they do their part in completing the deeds for the NDP and for Mulcair, thereby earning the trust of Mulcair and remain as a vital member in the NDP. Sometimes there can be the scare or potential risk of turning back on the party, public scandals (personal and political) and putting your own deeds first. As the NDP's new leader, Mulcair must make sure that the following risks do not happen. Those risks can be prevented by creating new/maintaining strong relationships with the MP's, which can ensure good relationships among members within the party and realize that their duty is to put the work of NDP first over their own needs, wants, and possibly deeds. In conclusion, in order to maintain an efficient party, you need people within that party who are committed, trustworthy, reliable and honorable if you are a man of power, in Machiavelli's sense... a prince, and in Mulcair's sense... the new leader of the opposing party in Canada, that being the NDP.
The following three Machiavellian lessons which are vital when looking into a new modern day Machiavellian Prince are: "How a Prince Should Keep His Word", "On Avoiding Being Despised or Hated" and finally "On the Princes Private Advisers". Thomas Mulcair acts as a perfect example of a new Machiavellian prince, being the new NDP leader since the end of March 2012. Although the NDP are not in control of Canada's government, with Thomas Mulcair as the new NDP prince, he must use Machiavellian teachings to continue to influence NDP supporters and Canadians abroad to vote NDP and make Mulcair our new leader. Mulcair also has to the big shoes of former NDP leader Jack Layton to fill, as Layton lead the legacy that took the NDP many places, Mulcair must use and apply Machiavelli to continue the NDP's success and further their road to political destiny. This grand example shows how Machiavelli can be applied to any new "prince" whether their old and have been in power for years, or is new to the political game and has many years of leading to come.
Sources:
Layton, Jack. "NDP Platform: My Commitment to you, Leadership you can Trust to give your Family a Break." www.ndp.ca. New Democratic Party, n.d. Web. 1 Jun 2012. <http://www.ndp.ca/platform>.
Machiavelli , Niccolo . The Prince. 1532. 58-78. Print.
Chapter XXII: Point 9 - On the Prince's Private Advisers
"The choice of advisers is of no little import to a prince..."
As the new leader of the NDP, Mulcair must ensure himself that his "advisers" do their duty. By advisers, I mean other members of the NDP party, such as the Members of Parliament who represent the NDP party all around Canada. Technically, their only private to the point where they remain loyal to the party they represent and the values and morals that symbolizes the party and its actions, and how Canadians perceive them; thereby, making them public advisers in some way. Machiavelli states that "...the first error he (a Prince) makes is made in his choice of advisers", by applying this to Canadian politics, you can argue that in the case for Mulcair, he must make sure that the MP's that represent the NDP in different parts of Canada represent in an efficient manner to further influence Canadians abroad to encourage change in their government. Machiavelli also says that "... there is this way which never fails" furthering that paragraph with the idea that if the prince's advisers think more about themselves and not the prince, concerns themselves with their own interests, that type of adviser is considered unfit to be an adviser, thereby never to be trusted. Mulcair must be careful in the choice of NDP MP's in Canada and make sure they do their part in completing the deeds for the NDP and for Mulcair, thereby earning the trust of Mulcair and remain as a vital member in the NDP. Sometimes there can be the scare or potential risk of turning back on the party, public scandals (personal and political) and putting your own deeds first. As the NDP's new leader, Mulcair must make sure that the following risks do not happen. Those risks can be prevented by creating new/maintaining strong relationships with the MP's, which can ensure good relationships among members within the party and realize that their duty is to put the work of NDP first over their own needs, wants, and possibly deeds. In conclusion, in order to maintain an efficient party, you need people within that party who are committed, trustworthy, reliable and honorable if you are a man of power, in Machiavelli's sense... a prince, and in Mulcair's sense... the new leader of the opposing party in Canada, that being the NDP.
The following three Machiavellian lessons which are vital when looking into a new modern day Machiavellian Prince are: "How a Prince Should Keep His Word", "On Avoiding Being Despised or Hated" and finally "On the Princes Private Advisers". Thomas Mulcair acts as a perfect example of a new Machiavellian prince, being the new NDP leader since the end of March 2012. Although the NDP are not in control of Canada's government, with Thomas Mulcair as the new NDP prince, he must use Machiavellian teachings to continue to influence NDP supporters and Canadians abroad to vote NDP and make Mulcair our new leader. Mulcair also has to the big shoes of former NDP leader Jack Layton to fill, as Layton lead the legacy that took the NDP many places, Mulcair must use and apply Machiavelli to continue the NDP's success and further their road to political destiny. This grand example shows how Machiavelli can be applied to any new "prince" whether their old and have been in power for years, or is new to the political game and has many years of leading to come.
Sources:
Layton, Jack. "NDP Platform: My Commitment to you, Leadership you can Trust to give your Family a Break." www.ndp.ca. New Democratic Party, n.d. Web. 1 Jun 2012. <http://www.ndp.ca/platform>.
Machiavelli , Niccolo . The Prince. 1532. 58-78. Print.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)