Machiavelli,
in his famous book “The Prince,” in which he ponders the qualifications
of an ideal leader, mainly dwells on Cesare Borgia. Cesare, with the
help of his father (Pope Alexander VI), acquired a kingdom, ruled it
efficiently and achieved great success. Why is Cesare an ideal prince
according to Machiavelli?
In
the book, in order to answer this question, some of Cesare’s policies
are given as examples of his success. I think that there is a parallel
between some of these policies and what is happening in Turkey today.
What would Machiavelli, who named Cesare an ideal prince, say about
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan if he were alive?
We have to ask this question in order to understand if Erdoğan is also an ideal prince for Machiavelli or not: Is there a parallel between the three steps taken by Cesare when he acquired Bologna and the steps taken by Erdoğan since he came to power in 2002.
Step 1: Cesare assigned a ruler (Remirro de Ocro) to the newly acquired Bologna as it was a disorderly kingdom. This ruler managed the kingdom ferociously so as to erase the traces of the old rulers that still existed in Bologna. In order to erase the legacy of the former rulers and make the country easier to rule, Cesare needed strong measures. These strong measures, if applied by the prince himself, would have ruined his reputation.
Erdoğan pretty much acted like Cesare. The Justice and Development Party (AKP) in its war against military tutelage got great support from the educated cadres of the Gülen movement. When we consider the fact that the Gülen movement has been investing in education for 40 years, we can understand the importance of the support of the qualified and trustworthy cadres (bureaucracy, media and business world) of the movement in the AKP’s war against military tutelage. At the beginning, nobody was sure about the success of this struggle. If the war was won, the victory was going to be owned by the government, but if it was lost, everybody was going to lose. These cadres have been used to democratize the country, to send the military to its barracks and consolidate the power of the government.
Step 2: After the fair treatment and strong measures of Cesare’s ruler, order was restored in Bologna and the legacy of previous rulers (corrupt and oppressive) fell into oblivion. It was an undeniable fact that the policies of Remirro were necessary at that time but they also brought about some public uneasiness with them. That’s why Cesare gathered his people to the city center and set up a court. The citizens of Bologna named their complaints and the prince sentenced Remirro to death.
We see that Erdoğan has also followed the path of Cesare. The cadres fighting military tutelage have been corroded by the intensity of the events throughout the years and after 2011, Erdoğan gradually started to give us clear signs that he is ready to set up a court for his former allies. All the successes were owned by the government and the government has passed the buck of the responsibility for the failures and criticisms, such as long-term prison terms and journalists under arrested, to the Gülen movement. In time, the complaints of the people have been tried by the government and the movement has been sentenced to death (we can read the decision to close prep schools as the death penalty for the Gülen movement).
Step 3: The ruler who was sentenced to death was not allowed to defend himself as it was inevitable that he would have said, “I did everything at the order of the prince.” For this very reason, the prince used a shrewd but brutal tactic. The prisoner (Remirro) who was waiting for his public hanging was cut into two pieces and left in the market place with a knife and a piece of wood beside him.
There are four aims of this savage act.
a) To not let Remirro tell the people that he was taking orders from the prince.
b) To show the people that the prince is the sword of justice, even if the one who violates the law is his close friend.
c) To not to let people think logically by confusing their minds with the violence of the murder, the knife beside the victim and the piece of wood. Let people start gossiping about the event and let them try to work out how Remirro was killed, the function of the knife and piece of wood, how Remirrro died, etc. The main aim was to stupefy people.
d) To form a respect mixed with fear for the prince.
How about Erdoğan? Was he able to succeed the same way Cesare did? I cannot say so. A psychological warfare has been conducted through the pro-government media for nearly 50 days to convince people that every crime has been committed, every mistake has been made by the Gülen movement. By his speeches, which are broadcast on 15-20 channels three times a day, Erdoğan is also blaming the Gülen movement for forming a parallel state (state within a state) and making a plot with dark forces, the US, Israel, the interest lobby, etc., to topple him. This total war against the Gülen movement in which massive media power and government resources are being used seems like trying to kill a butterfly using a bazooka. The aim and the vehicles are totally irrelevant. Although very similar steps have been taken by Erdoğan, I don’t think that Erdoğan has been successful in the third step as Cesare was. We can name two main reasons for the failure of Erdoğan in this regard:
a) With the uninterrupted flow of information thanks to the media, it is really hard to shape people’s perceptions. Especially, when we consider the fact that the Gülen movement has a huge media network, we can say that Erdoğan doesn’t have the chance Cesare Borgia had.
b) There is not a person to be executed but an idea, a community. This fact makes it nearly impossible for the government to succeed despite its massive power. It is really hard even for Erdoğan to convince people that all the things that caused uneasiness were done by the Gülen movement. This is because the scorecard of the Gülen movement is brilliant as an NGO, and because it has always been a supporter of all kinds of democratization efforts. Even a very skillful politician like Erdoğan cannot convince people that the Gülen movement is trying to form a new kind of tutelage over the government.
We have to ask this question in order to understand if Erdoğan is also an ideal prince for Machiavelli or not: Is there a parallel between the three steps taken by Cesare when he acquired Bologna and the steps taken by Erdoğan since he came to power in 2002.
Step 1: Cesare assigned a ruler (Remirro de Ocro) to the newly acquired Bologna as it was a disorderly kingdom. This ruler managed the kingdom ferociously so as to erase the traces of the old rulers that still existed in Bologna. In order to erase the legacy of the former rulers and make the country easier to rule, Cesare needed strong measures. These strong measures, if applied by the prince himself, would have ruined his reputation.
Erdoğan pretty much acted like Cesare. The Justice and Development Party (AKP) in its war against military tutelage got great support from the educated cadres of the Gülen movement. When we consider the fact that the Gülen movement has been investing in education for 40 years, we can understand the importance of the support of the qualified and trustworthy cadres (bureaucracy, media and business world) of the movement in the AKP’s war against military tutelage. At the beginning, nobody was sure about the success of this struggle. If the war was won, the victory was going to be owned by the government, but if it was lost, everybody was going to lose. These cadres have been used to democratize the country, to send the military to its barracks and consolidate the power of the government.
Step 2: After the fair treatment and strong measures of Cesare’s ruler, order was restored in Bologna and the legacy of previous rulers (corrupt and oppressive) fell into oblivion. It was an undeniable fact that the policies of Remirro were necessary at that time but they also brought about some public uneasiness with them. That’s why Cesare gathered his people to the city center and set up a court. The citizens of Bologna named their complaints and the prince sentenced Remirro to death.
We see that Erdoğan has also followed the path of Cesare. The cadres fighting military tutelage have been corroded by the intensity of the events throughout the years and after 2011, Erdoğan gradually started to give us clear signs that he is ready to set up a court for his former allies. All the successes were owned by the government and the government has passed the buck of the responsibility for the failures and criticisms, such as long-term prison terms and journalists under arrested, to the Gülen movement. In time, the complaints of the people have been tried by the government and the movement has been sentenced to death (we can read the decision to close prep schools as the death penalty for the Gülen movement).
Step 3: The ruler who was sentenced to death was not allowed to defend himself as it was inevitable that he would have said, “I did everything at the order of the prince.” For this very reason, the prince used a shrewd but brutal tactic. The prisoner (Remirro) who was waiting for his public hanging was cut into two pieces and left in the market place with a knife and a piece of wood beside him.
There are four aims of this savage act.
a) To not let Remirro tell the people that he was taking orders from the prince.
b) To show the people that the prince is the sword of justice, even if the one who violates the law is his close friend.
c) To not to let people think logically by confusing their minds with the violence of the murder, the knife beside the victim and the piece of wood. Let people start gossiping about the event and let them try to work out how Remirro was killed, the function of the knife and piece of wood, how Remirrro died, etc. The main aim was to stupefy people.
d) To form a respect mixed with fear for the prince.
How about Erdoğan? Was he able to succeed the same way Cesare did? I cannot say so. A psychological warfare has been conducted through the pro-government media for nearly 50 days to convince people that every crime has been committed, every mistake has been made by the Gülen movement. By his speeches, which are broadcast on 15-20 channels three times a day, Erdoğan is also blaming the Gülen movement for forming a parallel state (state within a state) and making a plot with dark forces, the US, Israel, the interest lobby, etc., to topple him. This total war against the Gülen movement in which massive media power and government resources are being used seems like trying to kill a butterfly using a bazooka. The aim and the vehicles are totally irrelevant. Although very similar steps have been taken by Erdoğan, I don’t think that Erdoğan has been successful in the third step as Cesare was. We can name two main reasons for the failure of Erdoğan in this regard:
a) With the uninterrupted flow of information thanks to the media, it is really hard to shape people’s perceptions. Especially, when we consider the fact that the Gülen movement has a huge media network, we can say that Erdoğan doesn’t have the chance Cesare Borgia had.
b) There is not a person to be executed but an idea, a community. This fact makes it nearly impossible for the government to succeed despite its massive power. It is really hard even for Erdoğan to convince people that all the things that caused uneasiness were done by the Gülen movement. This is because the scorecard of the Gülen movement is brilliant as an NGO, and because it has always been a supporter of all kinds of democratization efforts. Even a very skillful politician like Erdoğan cannot convince people that the Gülen movement is trying to form a new kind of tutelage over the government.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου