Closing the year with Machiavelli

I don't have to come up with new arguments, because all of them are already written. I don't have to use new words to explain what takes place in Venezuela, as it takes place in all Hispanic-American republics, regarding political parties, avarice and ambition. What today happens in Caracas, happened centuries ago in Florence and ages ago in Athens. I would like to say that it is art and philosophy, but I'm talking about faction and corruption. I would like to say that is only the government, but it is the same with the opposition parties and factions.

For the sake of the argument, just read city as country, liberty as democracy, and Italy as Venezuela.

"Certainly in the cities of Italy all that is corruptible and corrupting is assembled. The young are idle, the old lascivious, and each sex and every age abounds with debasing habits, which the good laws, by misapplication, have lost the power to correct. Hence arises the avarice so observable among the citizens, and the greediness, not for true glory, but for unworthy honors; from which follows hatred, animosities, quarrels, and factions; resulting in deaths, banishments, affliction to all good men, and the advancement of the most unprincipled; for the good, confiding in their innocence, seek neither safety nor advancement by illegal methods as the wicked do, and thus unhonored and undefended they sink into oblivion.

From proceedings such as these, arise at once the attachment for and influence of parties; bad men follow them through ambition and avarice, and necessity compels the good to pursue the same course. And most lamentable is it to observe how the leaders and movers of parties sanctify their base designs with words that are all piety and virtue; they have the name of liberty constantly in their mouths, though their actions prove them her greatest enemies. The reward which they desire from victory is not the glory of having given liberty to the city, but the satisfaction of having vanquished the others, and of making themselves rulers; and to attain the end, there is nothing too unjust, too cruel, too avaricious for them to attempt. Thus laws and ordinances, peace, wars, and treaties are adopted and pursued, not for the public good, not for the common glory of the state, but for the convenience and advantage of a few individuals.

And if other cities abound in these disorders, ours is more than any infected with them; for her laws, statutes, and civil ordinances are not, nor have they ever been, established for the benefit of men in a state of freedom, but according to the wish of the faction that has been uppermost at the time. Hence it follows that, when one party is expelled, or faction extinguished, another immediately arises; for, in a city that is governed by parties rather than by laws, as soon as one becomes dominant and unopposed, it must of necessity soon divide against itself; for the private methods at first adapted for its defense will now no longer keep it united. The truth of this, both the ancient and modern dissensions of our city prove." (Machiavelli; History of Florence: III; Ch. 1).

Pessimism from Exile

Now that Chavez is, again, moving forward his dictatorial agenda with the recent set of measures regarding the University, freedom of speech through the internet and more measures to reduce private property to nothing more than a concession of his goodwill, I need to express some things.

He is waging the same strategy he uses every single year since the students fully enrolled in the struggle against his tyrannical rule; he is advancing his plans during holidays, where most of the people is interested in having a good time with their families than risking their lives participating in politics. However, today, the 23rd of December a group of students gathered at our Alma Mater (I recently graduated from this University, the main University in our country) to make a protests against Chavez's law of universities that would practically end its existence as such.

The truth is, I'm writing from outside my homeland. I no longer share the danger of fighting for Venezuelan freedom, and I ask my people to continue the fighting whilst I'm comfortably sitting on a couch in North Miami. Why do I keep insisting in Venezuelan freedom if I have already deserted it? It's so easy that I actually feel it's shameful.

However I have my reasons. First, my ties to my country remain strong, even though I have been trying to remain away. But most importantly, I have given enough and taken enough risks in fighting for Venezuelan freedom. As an average person, I grew tired. Call me a coward, but I also have other goals in life that I'm no willing to sacrifice.

Freedom is the most important good for a free spirit and mind. We Westerns lean toward the free spirit. I am no exception. Back home I participated in the common struggle against Chavez tyrannical regime. We all faced the police, the national guard, the regime's gangs, even the military. We faced them, and many times it turned violent; and many times, even though fear sprang strongly in our hearts, we kept on going. As with faith, freedom might be among the only goods worth dying for. We tried to trigger the revolution that would topple the government. We conspired, we tried to organize. We, those that do not believe in the hypocritical and mediocrity of political parties and opposition leaders tried our own way. We failed. We tried to create a third way to oppose the tyranny. The parties and their imbecility poisoned our leadership and excluded those that dissented from them.

We were faced with a dilemma; continuing the struggle led by the most short-sighted mediocre leadership, or give up, which means two things: join the regime or fly out. I chose the latter.

Today I see these students that adamantly keep on fighting the tyranny on a 23rd of December. Somehow I envy them, but I also feel pity for them. On the one hand, having hopes to make freedom prevail by turning martyrs is something praiseworthy. On the other, it seems nothing more than a silly insistence to save a people that does not worth the effort. Nonetheless, my hopes are to see the rising dictatorship of Chavez overthrown by whoever have the strength to do so. One of the few things that I have learned from both books and our personal experience is that revolution for freedom is never achieved without violence, blood and death. Only an extraordinarily civil unrest would trigger any of both a capitulation of the regime, or its final triumph over liberty. No one can deny it, we gave it a try. But life goes on, and people have other goals, other wishes for the future. As most of my friends I am exhausted of trying to trigger Chavez's overthrow. Venezuelan people doesn't seem to be prepared for freedom. Those that do want it and do appreciate it might have to go look somewhere else.

A comment on Machiavelli's Florence

"Wars abroad and peace within the city had caused the Guelph and Ghibelline factions to become almost extinct; and the only party feeling which seemed occasionally to glow, was that which naturally exists in all cities between the higher classes and the people; for the latter, wishing to live in conformity with the laws, and the former to be themselves the rulers of the people, it was not possible for them to abide in perfect amity together" (Machiavelli: History of Florence: II: ch.3)

The enlightening thing about reading Machiavelli is the depth and complexity of content we find commonly in so small fragments. By the end of the 13th century AC, Florence had experience a series of revolutions and counterrevolutions that sprang by the division between Guelph and Ghibelline, the main political line of cleavage in Italian Middle Ages. Nobility was divided between the parties of the Pope and the Emperor, a contradiction that caused war, revenge and hostility within almost all Italian Cities (with the extraordinary exception of Venice). Such an ideological antitheses prevented any kind of patriotic feeling from emerging between Italians, as Imperial armies and the Church's excommunication decrees spread all around the peninsula. The critical vision of Machiavelli regarding the Italy of his time is the reason many consider him one of the fathers of European nationalism, starting the 16th century AC.

But once this line of cleavage started to blur, as Emperors couldn't control the Popes' capacity to incite division, the difference among the nobility also lost meaning. Machiavelli shows an early understanding of class division in society that closely resembles later historic materialism. The natural struggle in any society, our Florentine author is well aware of, consists of social class division, and consecutive party allegiances and revolutions will bear this powerful mark. The materialistic division of society is today difficult to deny, as continually it repeats itself in every case,and somehow Marxism doesn't seem so novel after all.

But what is even more interesting is Machiavelli's final statement. The people is interested in the rule of the law, whilst nobility is interested in power. The class struggles assumes a particularly political nature. It is not about welfare or liberty from the world of needs, but we are in the realm of political freedom. The assumption is that democratic forces in society are inclined toward what the Greeks called isonomia, and we translate as equality before the law. As Marxism, Liberalism doesn't seem that extraordinary. The party of the people sees in the rule of self-imposed law the only guard for freedom, whereas nobility is only concerned with imposing its regime of privileges. The aim is not possessing the means of production, which are only but means to become influential. Controlling political power which is what gives food for pride and glory is the real aim of ambitious domination.

This is a general review of a single fragment in one of Machiavelli's most important works, however not so widely famous. My share with you is just part of our entire reflection of politics and the nature of liberty in the republic.

Why being a Republican?

Recent reflexions have led me to think about the current relevance of being a republican. And by this label let it be know that I talk about the comprehensive political ideology that supports a specific form of government as opposed to all the others, as well as the ethical requirements and consequences of such form of government. This said, for now I'm not talking about the republican party of the United States.

I was rethinking about the relevance of being republican because of the fact that the republic as a political program of form of government has triumphed in the Western world. After centuries of struggles, wars and revolutions, at last republican institutions are predominant in our civilization. We don't have to fight the evils of tyrannical monarchs anymore. All those tyrants are defeated. Here in the United States everyone is republican, in the sense that much more than the average citizen acknowledges, defends and admires the republican constitution of their country. Being a republican, as well as believing in its freedom is something "everyone" honestly claims. There is no need to stress its values against its enemies, all of whom seem to be defeated. Why insisting in defending some principles that are apparently redundant in our times?

The difference between parties is less of a dichotomy of republican against democratic principles. Both parties have lost connection to the real meaning of their names, and they serve now only as labels in the day to day public debate. I insist, both democratic and republican parties are republican in the sense that I explained. And they are because both defend the principles expressed in the constitution of the American form of government. None is supporting the establishment of a monarchy or anything closely resembled. Both are sincerely patriotic. Both defend what is commonly referred as the Democratic Creed. What is their difference then? Not a small one I would say. More accurate names for what they really stand for would be: conservative party for republicans, and liberal-progressive party for democrats. And the difference does not lie in opposed conceptions of the republic. On the contrary, both deeply committed to its creed, in what they really differ is in how the republican form of government should be administered. But the republic itself is never into question. In this sense both are republicans as a matter of principle.

Why insisting today in being a republican then? What difference does it makes? If we are republicans, independently of being conservatives or liberal-progressives, why labeling us with a name that does no say anything peculiar of us? It seems to me that the defense of republican values is never outdated, for thinking so is nothing but the naive idea that the achievements that we conquered are eternal. As time goes by the republican institutions corrode themselves, and windows for new threads open. One of them is the standing professional army, probably the latent and most dangerous force in overthrowing republics. Another is the increase of public apathy or malcontent. A third one is the politicians tendency for corruption. A convinced republican must know that freedom is never fully secured and a committed citizen is always on the watch for potential tyrants and foreign enemies. In this sense republicanism makes a call for constant militancy in the ideas and values expressed in the constitution of our republic.

The democratic party had a name with meaning when it got Andrew Jackson to the presidency, and the vote franchise was extended to all adult males without distinction in property nor class placing them all as equals. The republican party had a name with meaning when it got Abraham Lincoln to the presidency, and the emancipation reform that put an end to the existing dominion of some men over others setting them all free. Democratic equality and republican freedom where both accomplished at the birth of their respective parties. But today it seems that both stand for things totally different. Time made common and usual what once was extraordinary and novel. The meaning of being a republican today lies more in the preservation of that conviction in the values expressed in the constitution of the form of government. But also awareness of the future dangers that the republic's freedom will face, and be ready to stand against them with courage and patriotism. Tyrants are murderers of republics, and there is at least one born every new generation of citizens. It is against that possibility that modern republicanism must stand for, and cut and destroy the possible weapons that might be used against its freedom.