Effectiveness or niceness

The two things we always want but cannot have together

Niccolo di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (1469- 1527) was an Italian politician, philosopher and writer of the Renaissance Period. Even more than five hundred years after his death the world continues to love as well as hate him for bringing to public spotlight two things that we always want but cannot have together — ‘effectiveness and niceness’.

Nobody else can understand the dilemma of not being able to pull together the two important factors of ‘niceness and effectiveness’ than the parents. They understand the huge responsibility of upbringing their children to become responsible citizens of society. It is something which parents can never achieve without (being nice) enforcing discipline as well as an efficient moral code of conduct. The social contract that binds the citizens with the government and the state also stands for such parental caring and responsibility and enforcement of law and discipline.

The world has seen many political upsets and revolutions but most historians agree that when it is time of ‘political doom and gloom’ and when politics and those who conduct it is being considered ‘inefficient, ineffective and dishonest ‘ (like in Pakistan these days) then it is the right time to read Machiavelli.

Machiavelli is famous for writing his works ‘The Prince’ and ‘The Discourses’. He considers politicians not ‘immoral or bad’, in his view a good politician is ‘not friendly, honest and kind’ and empowering himself with these characteristics (which are too often not morally acceptable), but a politician at the cost of his reputation can defend, enrich and bring honour to his state. The whole Machiavellian concept of politics is that ‘being nice is a virtue but what people need from their ruler is effectiveness’.

Let us give a whole lot of credit to both the PPP and PML-N’s preceding governments of executing some very fine and people-friendly governance during the period of their rule. So much so that the annual growth rate in this country touched nearly six per cent and life was not as uncomfortable and expensive to live as it is for the common man today. And believing in the Machiavelli concept of security both these governments ‘defended the state from internal as well as external threats’. Yet the clear indication of how the leadership of the two parties performed or acted during the period of their rule is best answered by a question posed to Machiavelli after writing ‘The Prince’. He was asked should a Prince (a ruler) be loved or feared. His reply was ‘it would be wonderful if he is both loved and obeyed but a prince must always be on the side of inspiring terror for this is what keeps people in check’. Something close to this Thomas Hobbes, the father of liberalism who wrote Leviathan (the absolute ruler), also believed. He also justified the mutual relationship between protection and obedience (ruler and ruled) as something that needed the application of coercive power.

This country witnessed ‘politics of absolutism’ during the PML-N and PPP’s tenures of government. We heard their leadership cry that the generals are there only for three years, centre stage one day and gone the next. It’s us who are here to stay. Politics during that period became too rude, unapproaching and seriously disdained. This brings me to another important point. Machiavelli advocates the utilisation of virtue — he calls it ‘cruel virtue’ — violence that a Leviathan (absolute ruler) may apply in the service of the state. He calls this as violence that may be strictly necessary for the security of the state. With the absence of any harmonising relationship between the military and both the PPP and PML -N governments no necessary coercive measures (whether in service of the National Action Plan) could be planned or executed by these governments. Much time was wasted and the incompatibility of understanding the national security concerns made a mockery of any essential coercive measures that could be undertaken to make people accountable across the board.

In countries like Pakistan where there is more disorder than order and where corruption has seeped into the very roots and foundations of society, Thomas Hobbes’s concept of ‘people ceding to freedom only if the government preserves their rights’ is not practicable. The more practicable way to be an effective ruler (Machiavelli’s Prince) requires a leader whose concept of ‘cruel virtue’ must invoke wisdom, strategy, strength, bravery and where necessary ruthlessness — all in the service of the state, all to promote order and effectiveness(that reforms state) at the cost of niceness (that wins votes).

The current government of the PTI, led by PM Imran Khan, is in the process of taking some very bold political decisions. Machiavelli writes that ‘Men are driven by two principal impulses, either by love or by fear’. I have no doubt in my mind that it is the love of the country that guides Prime Minister Imran Khan to undertake some very bold steps. The public will have to bear with some tough time but no reform worth its name can succeed without the people showing their willingness to bear some pain.

Lastly, ‘I am not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it’ was the Machiavellian political approach. That approach becomes essential when the Kings and Queens consider it as their divine right to rule the people. Such Kings and Queens still live in Pakistan and if it was not up to Prime Minister Imran Khan and his objective of turning the political status quo in Pakistan on its head, the Kings and Queens would still live on to rule us another day.

For Prime Minister Imran Khan, the message is clear — if you have to choose between the two than be effective rather than being nice.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 7^th, 2019.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.