EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
If there is one thinker who has been brave enough to speak openly about the nature of civil protest, it is Niccolò Machiavelli. In his reflections on the first ten books of the Roman historian Livy, he calls protesters an “uncontrollable mob” that sweeps away everything in its path, whether or not it is useful to society.
It is characteristic of protesters to ignore possible compromises with the authorities and to insist on a categorical and immediate change. On the other hand, however, Machiavelli specifies that people have a flair for the right path to this change. Without coordinating their ideas in advance, citizens reach a common opinion, which in most cases has a correct direction. The problem, according to Machiavelli, is that protests can easily be neutralized by the authorities if they manage to divide them into separate groups, which sooner or later start to quarrel among themselves.
To prevent discord, the protest needs a leader. His role is to channel ideas and maintain the morale and organization of the people. If he is stubborn enough, and the demands of the protesters are realistically achievable, it is difficult for a government to cope with the situation without resorting to absurd cruelty. The latter is unthinkable in an EU country like Bulgaria, where the authorities rarely resist a persistent and stubborn crowd anyway.
The Republican Idea
After discussing the mechanics of protest, Machiavelli attempts to analyze why civil protest can be the source of a better beginning. In a just protest, the Italian philosopher sees the only way to overcome the corruption of the then political system, marked by the dominant oligarchy of the Medici family. Before Machiavelli's eyes, the banking family seizes all important positions in power and gradually destroys the democratic foundations of the Florentine republic. Machiavelli himself is dismissed from his post as foreign secretary and sent into exile. There he sets out to analyze the different types of government and indicate which, in his opinion, is in the interest of the public good.
His conclusion is that a republic is the best form of government because it manages to balance the interests of the main factions in the state with those of the people. The Italian philosopher points out that when power is in the hands of a few, economically influential individuals, the state easily stumbles towards oligarchy, in which the public good is neglected. The most extreme form of this government is tyranny as a result of the dominance of an absolute monarch. Machiavelli emphasizes that a republic in no way excludes the emergence of conflict between citizens and people's representatives. On the contrary, it is necessary in order to achieve the necessary balance of interests. Only in this way is the progress of a country possible and thus the consolidation of power in the hands of a small number of people is prevented.
Bulgaria through the eyes of Machiavelli?
The protests in the country show precisely this conflict between the ruling groups in society and ordinary citizens. In Bulgarian political life over the past 23 years, strong ties between the deputies and the sovereign have not been built, which has prevented the emergence of a mechanism for civil control. In the classical sense of the republican system, the main building block is representation. It ensures adequate communication of the demands and interests of voters and their pursuit in the legislative bodies of the state. Instead, the people's representatives had and have only the goal of representing the interests of influential economic circles around them. By the way, between these so-called "hoop" one or another representative of big business should not be excluded. All of them to one degree or another have managed to manipulate the parliament in their favor.
In American political thought, and to some extent in Machiavelli's ideas, lobbying is not a problem in itself. On the contrary, it ensures a plurality of interests, which, if allowed to express themselves freely, are self-neutralizing in a kind of balance of power in parliament. The problem in Bulgaria is that this balance is rarely achieved, because the different economic groups do not oppose each other, but rather cooperate in achieving the maximum number of benefits for their businesses - at the expense of the individual in society.
This is how the effect, called by Ivan Bedrov, "the parceling of Bulgaria", occurs. When big business works in a combine for the distribution of economic territory, it becomes almost impossible for new participants to enter the market. The oligarchic structure of Bulgarian economic life is consistently reborn into an oligarchy of the political space, where the same ideas and principles rule, and new ones are not given a chance to appear. Thus, in Bulgaria it de facto does not matter whether GERB or BSP governs, because the models they offer are rather mirror images. The idea of a political pendulum in Bulgarian politics does not exist, which leads to a vacuum in the discourse and from there to a standstill in political development.
This phenomenon, by the way, is currently typical for most of Europe. Lack of ideological polarization and the use of populist ideas dominate the political engineering of the Old Continent. The result is the emergence of left and right extremist political formations that take advantage of the voters' fatigue of electing the same people. In moments of crisis, of course, the desire for quick, magical solutions increases, which are promised by utopian leaders with hard views. Extremism in Bulgaria, however, is not so dangerous, partly because of our national character, to look skeptically at all politicians.
But the real solution to the political crisis can only come if the citizen-government relationship is strengthened in order to improve the mechanism of representation in parliament. Naturally, this also requires the emergence of new figures in politics who can inspire confidence in citizens that their demands will be heard. However, it remains questionable whether the new leaders will not be yet another response from economic circles, which prefer to protect their interests through appointed persons in parliament.
If I understand correctly, the author approves of Machiavelli's views. This same Machiavelli who said that "The end justifies the means," with which I categorically disagree.
"It is characteristic of protesters to ignore possible compromises with the authorities and to insist on categorical and immediate change. On the other hand, however, Machiavelli specifies that people have a flair for the right path to this change. Without coordinating their ideas in advance, citizens reach a common opinion, which in most cases has the right direction."
And where does it follow that in most cases they have the right direction? In my opinion, this is just an opinion. And even if there is "in most cases" the right direction, what happens in cases where they do not? For example, if citizens want money, preferences for certain groups of them, etc.? Typically, protests are attended by a certain group of people who have similar demands and these demands are usually for the state to do something more for them (their personal problem). Or maybe we should distinguish between general protests and "specific" protests?
"To prevent discord, a protest needs a leader. His role is to channel ideas and maintain the morale and organization of the people."
A good example here is Hitler and how he managed to drive a nation to madness with eloquence, personal charm, and perhaps luck. Leaders don't just "channel" ideas, they create them, convince people to accept them, and lead them (somewhere and usually at someone else's expense).
"His conclusion is that a republic is the best form of government because it manages to balance the interests of the main factions in the state with those of the people."
I agree that the republic somehow balances interests. However, where does it follow that these interests are balanced correctly? In a free market (in the Austrian sense, not that of Marx), these interests would balance themselves and in a way that would take into account the interests of each individual separately, and not of large groups of them.
"...lobbying in itself is not a problem. On the contrary, it ensures a plurality of interests, which, if allowed to express themselves freely, are self-neutralized in a kind of balance of power in parliament."
What does "self-neutralize in a kind of balance of power in parliament" mean? What in the current way of governing disrupts this "balance" (whatever is meant by the above).
"But the real solution to the political crisis can only come if the citizen-government relationship is strengthened to improve the mechanism of representation in parliament."
And what happens when the above is fulfilled and people demand "both the wolf and the lamb to be whole"? For example: "We want a guaranteed high minimum wage and no unemployment". Or: "We want income equality".
Hello, first of all I want to say that Machiavelli is quite misunderstood by most people, as his words are taken out of context or it is not understood for what exact purpose he wrote his books. Yes, this is indeed Machiavelli's opinion, which is however based on many examples from the history of the Roman Republic and that of Florence. So, like everything in history, there are various exceptions and it is right to mention them. I think, however, that our protest can hardly be compared to the crowds inspired by Hitler. Yes, it is true, protesters often want something from the state at a later stage, but it is also true that politicians are not obliged to follow every request if it contradicts the common good. The important thing is that a dominant opinion usually crystallizes, which can usually be imposed on the people's representatives.
The idea of balancing is that in reality the market is rarely completely free, so there will always be a need for public discussion of the ideas that navigate the development of the state. And here we are talking about individual ideas, not those promoted by a government. Otherwise, lobbying interests are balanced in parliament, because behind every party everywhere in the world there are certain economic interests that present their ideas through deputies. When opposing or at least competing interests try to influence a member of parliament, they self-neutralize, i.e. the deputy will not take a categorical position in one direction or another.
@Martin Vladimirov
"Yes, indeed this is Machiavelli's opinion, which is, however, based on many examples cited from the history of the Roman Republic and that of Florence."
If I understand correctly, you also support the above opinion, i.e. that morally wrong actions are justified if the goal is to achieve morally right results. Example: the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo (waterboarding and the like). The goal is to protect the population from terrorist attacks. In the same way, wiretapping of the population by any government organizations is OK for you.
"I think, however, that our protest can hardly be compared to the crowds inspired by Hitler."
I didn't compare it. My goal was to show that just because someone protests something doesn't mean they're right, even if they are crowds. Crowds don't know exactly what they want, i.e. they're not aware of the consequences of their actions in the typical case.
"Yes, it is true, protesters often demand something from the state at a later stage, but it is also true that politicians are not obliged to follow every demand if it goes against the common good."
Let me ask you the question, what is this "common good" according to you? Who defined it and how? And that politicians are not obliged to follow the will of the people - yes, they are not obliged, but this has consequences for them. For example, that they are not politicians anymore.
"The important thing is that a dominant opinion usually crystallizes, which can usually be imposed on the people's representatives."
.. and which may (but not necessarily) be completely wrong.
"The idea of balancing is that in reality the market is rarely completely free, so there will always be a need for public discussion of the ideas that navigate the development of the state."
In my opinion, you have reversed cause and effect. It is precisely because ideas are put up for public discussion that the market is not completely free. Because a "public" decision results in actions that in 99% of cases are directed against the market.
There are a lot of ideas that society was absolutely against, i.e. they would never have been accepted, even though they were correct. I am not against public discussion (letting everyone discuss and generally say whatever they want), but against imposing public views by force.
"When opposing or at least competing interests try to influence a member of parliament, they self-neutralize, i.e., the MP will not take a categorical position in one direction or another."
And why shouldn't he take it? And how does it even follow that they are being neutralized? And how can the MP even make decisions then? Without taking into account the influence of the groups?
Insightful opinion and well written. Well done, Martin Vladimirov.
I have often wondered why people don't try to debunk Machiavelli without viewing him through the prism of their own self-serving ideologies and morals, but that would then deny his very existence.
And as for strengthening the relationship between citizens and government - even if it is strengthened, there will always be a tendency to polarize. For this, it is more important that this relationship is renewed often - like a tree needs water, and like a forest needs new trees. It may sound idealistic, but it would be fair if each generation had the opportunity to determine, or at least influence, the governance structure through referendum and constitutional powers.