How the Western World and the Middle East See Machiavelli

In “The Prince” Machiavelli said that it for a ruler “…it is far safer to be feared than loved.”  While we, the members of the self-proclaimed “Free World,” would like to think that this is in fact not the case and that it is this view of ruling a people with an iron fist, that leads to the revolutions and the wars that have gone on since the beginning of civilization.  The modern Western world would site examples of particular instances in which a group of people have risen to fight their oppressors, such as the Polish, French, and Jewish resistances in Europe during WW2, and the mutiny by the African slaves aboard La Amistad of the coast of Cuba in 1839.  It is through these and many other occurrences in the world’s history, appearing not only in the West, but in the East as well (anti-colonial uprisings in the early to mid-20^th century for example) that has expanded our argument against Machiavelli’s proclamation.  For most of us (Americans and the Western world), we seem to want leaders who we can look up to with awe and hope, not because we are forced to but because we admire him or her.  

Former President John Quincy Adams defended the slaves of the La Amistad in the case of United States v. The Amistad.

However, historically excluded from the majority of the world, specifically the Western world, in terms of how the leaders see is the best way to rule their people is the Middle East.  Places like Iraq, Egypt, Libya, etc., were all under the leadership of ruthless dictators, most of which had ruled for more than a quarter of a century (in large part due to the aid given by America to thwart Communist thought and rebellion).  In order to control their countries, the dictators of the Middle East headed their regimes with absolute authority knowing that it is better to be feared then loved.  In a way it also held stability within the countries, because any who didn’t follow the laws were severely punished.  As a result, the individuals of the Arab world only new an authoritarian world, so when the dictators were disposed, (i.e. capture of Saddam, Arab Spring), the people did not know what to do.  One can argue that in fact, the Middle East became more dangerous for the people that called it home.  These countries became “democracies” which was seen as a progressive step in the right direction in the eyes of the West, yet since these new leaders did not have the power that their predecessors had, they did not have the power to quell any uprisings from their citizens.  Sunnis and Shiites began insurgencies against each other in Iraq, the killing of Americans, including the American ambassador Chris Stevens in Libya, and the ever-present influence of such groups as Al-Qaida, the Taliban, and the Muslim Brotherhood offer a glimpse of a Middle East that has no fear of its leaders. 

 

The Last Dictator?

No one can deny the fact that the people of the Middle East are better off now than they were under their respective authoritative dictators.  Many of them are for the first time experiencing freedoms that they thought would never come to them.  The problem is that within an area with a volatile environment and the looming presence of extremist groups both internal as well as external, there will be no true form of stability; no fearful, commanding leader that will bring stability no matter what the costs.

 Pictures found at:

John Q. Adams: <http://www.fotopedia.com/search?q=amistad&human_license=reuse_commercial_modify>

Gaddafi: <http://www.flickr.com/photos/42448313@N03/3912702971/>