The End of Machiavellian Politics?

PRINCES who have achieved great things have been those…who have known how to trick men with their cunning, and who, in the end, have overcome those abiding by honest principles”. The following words, written by Niccolo Machiavelli in his landmark work The Prince, are generally are taken to be the defacto standards governing a realist paradigm of international politics. The familiar saying “in politics, there are no permanent friends or foes; only permanent interests” rings true daily in the corridors of power. Deception is widely acknowledged by international diplomats and political statesmen to be part and parcel of the political game.

The revelation of US diplomatic cables then, ought not to surprise members of the political community. As a friend of mine studying at the London School of Economics quipped, “Any self-respecting academic or diplomat/defense official should know that they are the basic, core stuff of international politics. Those gossip mills and write ups - most of them marked Confidential or below Secret – are standard [fare]”. If indeed, the information that is being released are well-known secrets among those who are involved in international diplomacy, why then the political furor?

In my view, the problem is not so much the content of information that is being divulged as it is the criteria that we use in forging meaningful relationships with others – individually or internationally. In the Machiavellian world-view, the state – represented by their political leaders – is seen as the prime mover of international diplomacy and to which all other authorities that are within the geographically boundaries of the state are subservient to. The role of a diplomat then is to promote the interests of the state – at all costs – even at the expense of his own personal, inner convictions.

The idea then that one’s private opinions ought not to matter in international diplomacy is flawed for several reasons, two of which I will briefly touch on.

Firstly, ideas have consequences; to assume that political life operates only within the paradigm of economic/material interests is to severely understate the importance of ideational motivations. From jihadists to Julian Assange, financial and material renumeration seemed to matter less than their intention to propagate the superiority of their worldview and ideas. Privatized ideas have public consequences.

Secondly, as human beings, what motivate us ultimately are not the abstract ideals of nationalism or capitalism, but those that we are personally – and privately – in touch and involved with. While the advent of email and official correspondence have made the political process a technologically mediated one, no-self respecting diplomat would dare put his/her career at risk by not engaging in some form of coffee conversations or dinner diplomacy. The fact that such meetings require the presence of the diplomat suggest much more than the public face of the state is involved; the private face of the diplomat is also placed under diplomatic scrutiny – oftentimes more so than the state.

As the events of Wikileaks evinced, the cleavage between public statements and private sentiments suggest that Machiavellian politics – ostensibly state-centric – will become untenable in the long run as the number of non-state actors increase. While this is not to suggest the demise of the nation-state, it does challenge the idea that a country’s foreign policy is unequivocal – and is shared by all members of her diplomatic community. It is common knowledge among the diplomatic corp that “official statements” are often less officious – and perhaps even less veracious – than they are said to be.

Indeed if there is one key lesson Wikileaks have taught us, it is that both public and private statements matter and the greater the consistency of practice, the less the embarrassment. Perhaps it is time to rethink the Machiavellian paradigm.

Mobile Off

As some of you might know, i lost my mobile phone several months ago and decided that it would be interesting to live life without a mobile connection. Obviously i got quite a bit of flak from some of my close friends and even relatives for not being contactable (of course then again, none of us are ever that indispensable - life generally goes on pretty well, and things happen whether you are contactable or not). As i've decided to retrieve my mobile line again, here are some reflection points that have crystallized over the past few months:

1. The Tyranny of Convenience: No doubt about it; mobile phones have made life extremely convenient for many of us. There were several occasions in which I was forced to use a payphone (yes, they still do exist at MRT stations) to contact my friends. Just a few days ago, i had to borrow a mobile phone from an unknown stranger (female) who looked at me as if i was from Mars on a social experiment when i requested to borrow her phone. But having said so, I do appreciate the heightened requirement of being compelled to plan when meeting with people - this includes being punctual, being true to one's words about the meeting venue. All these may sound quite trivial in nature, but in the long run, these are the things that build up trust among friends. The price of convenience is often the loss of trust.

2. Seeing, hearing and knowing. Over the last few months, i had many good conversations with close friends and colleagues and its thoroughly amazing how these conversations become much more richer when technology is out of the way. All too often we see big groups of friends eating around a table and half (if not more) of them would be busily texting away! Without a phone as a mental distraction, i found myself being able to be much more observant and sensitive to human emotions and behavioral nuances. Its amazing how much more in tune with people one becomes when one learns to tune out of technology.

3. Last but not least, the use of pen and paper (to replace my mobile phone) has allowed me to better articulate my thoughts. i guess when we are busily SMSing, we don't usually learn to express ourselves clearly. Clarity of thought is now being replaced by fuzzy ambiguities. The power of the spoken word is now replaced by the effect of the SMS-text - which tends to obfuscate more than it clarifies.

I could go on...but that will be for more private conversations. In light of the above, there are few things that I hope to continue to do:

1. Switching off my mobile phone before I go to sleep (unless exigencies necessitate otherwise).

2. Not using SMS to arrange meetings. Its either calling the person to arrange or to pre-arrange in person. Sometimes we need to learn how to communicate, not just connect.

3. No using mobile phone when I am meeting with other people (SMS is an absolute nono) personally. The other person(s) deserves my undivided attention and I hope that he/she will also reciprocate. In a large anonymous environment, perhaps i might allow myself to do so - esp if the meeting is boring and I desperately need to keep awake!

4. Phone numbers to be stored in my diary instead of phone book. over the past few months, I've learnt to memorize the phone numbers of others - esp close friends. As such, i will resist keying other's phone numbers in my mobile phones. Again its the principle of convenience: the less convenient, the more valuable.

5. Limiting my SMSes to short ones. Seriously, if there is something so important to say, then one ought to say in person, or at least take the effort to make a phone call. I am hoping to keep my SMS responses to a minimum; ideally to these five words: yes, no, thanks, ok and noted. We shall see.

Some concluding words from two of my favourite writers:

"But when technique enters into every area of life, including the human, it ceases to be external to man and becomes his very substance. It is no longer face to face with man, but is integrated with him, and it progressively absorbs him" (Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society, p. 6 1964)

"New technologies alter the structure of our interests, the things we think about. They alter the character of our symbols: the things we think with. And they alter the arena of community: the arena in which thoughts develop" (Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, p. 20, 1992)