Today, democracy is discussed by many people as the most appropriate form of government to meet citizens’ needs and interests. As a result, much attention is paid to the idea of democratization. Democracy and global peace are presented as the main goals set by people to achieve them during the world’s progress and social evolution (Inglehart and Welzel 2005).
The process of democratization leads to democracy, and to understand the current interest of the public to democratization, it is important to focus on the historical roots of the concept’s evolution. From this point, it is necessary to refer to Niccolo Machiavelli’s theory on politics, democracy, and democratization.
Thus, the paper aims to discuss the Machiavellian views on democratization while applying them to the current political situation and strategies used by modern governments.
Although there are many differences between Machiavelli’s views and modern understanding of democracy, the Machiavellian theory can be related to modern politics and democratization processes, basing on the concept of civil freedom and the role of elites to form effective governments.
To explain the roots of the modern tendencies to democratize and modernize society, it is necessary to refer to Machiavelli’s ideas presented in his works The Prince and The Discourses. In spite of the fact modern states can be characterized differently about political regimes, there is a global tendency to build a society based on the Western democratic pattern.
The only way to democratize and modernize a society is to concentrate on changes in governments and international politics. This opinion is also reflected in Machiavelli’s works. In spite of the fact, Machiavelli did not use the term ‘democracy’ in the works, his vision of a republic and its characteristics can be correlated with the modern understanding of democracy (Tilly 2007).
That is why it is possible to use Machiavelli’s views on democratization to explain modern tendencies in politics and the current evolution of governments. Thus, Machiavelli’s ideas, used as the root of the democratic theories, can be referred to discuss modern governments. The purpose of the paper is to analyze Machiavelli’s writings from the point of their appropriateness to the specific features of modern politics.
This paper also aims to provoke discussion based on Machiavelli’s views on democratization and leadership by applying them to current political situations and approaches to governing, with references to the general appropriateness of the Machiavellian theory.
To apply the Machiavellian vision of democratization to the modern understanding of democracy, it is necessary to concentrate on the theories of democratization discussed by modern researchers, and on methods and approaches helpful for the political science research on the topic.
According to the theory of democratization, it is impossible to discuss the process of democratizing the society without reference to the end goal which is the building of a stable democracy within this society. Political scientists and sociologists are inclined to state that democracy is based on the equal rights of citizens to participate in elections and to influence the development of the government within the state (Acemoglu and Robinson 2006).
Thus, citizens share the power and have the right to control the state’s progress with the help of their representatives (Acemoglu and Robinson 2006; Hawkins 2001). Furthermore, democracy depends upon providing citizens with definite rights and liberties and on following the rule of law (West 2004).
From this perspective, democratization is the process of changing the current regime, with references to the mentioned points, to develop a new democratic society.
To discuss the theory of democratization, it is important to refer to the example of the USA. According to Moller and Skaaning, the USA is the most vivid model of a democratic society which has overcome all the issues of democratization (Moller and Skaaning 2012).
Moreover, democratization within the country can be discussed as the on-going process because of the necessity to develop new approaches to making the life of citizens more comfortable about their democratic rights and freedoms. Thus, there are several approaches to discuss modern trends in democratization.
Today, the public speaks about democracy concerning the problem of freedom of expression and issues connected with the media. Democracy operates the idea of openness (Stiglitz 2003). Thus, democratization is the process to provide more openness within society.
The other approach is in the fact that the necessities to democratize the society are traditionally affected by definite social and political issues and challenges. The demands for democratization become the public’s reaction to some problematic points within society.
To build democracy, it is necessary to overcome certain social protests based on violence and different types of challenges (Samuels 2005). That is why democratization is associated with definite social movements.
Welzel provides his vision of the theory of democratization basing on the concept of the ‘balance of powers’ (Welzel 2008). According to Welzel, democratic society depends on the balance between powers and balanced freedoms.
Welzel states that “people power is institutionalized through civic freedoms that entitle people to govern their lives, allowing them to follow their personal preferences in governing their private lives and to make their political preferences count in governing public life” (Welzel 2008, 75).
The balance is necessary to build the democracy because “there is a natural resistance among elites to grant civic freedoms to the wider public because such freedoms limit elite power” (Welzel 2008, 75). Thus, the balance in relations between elites and masses is accentuated.
The above-mentioned aspects determined with references to the theory of democratization are correlated with the modern vision of the issue, and they are significant to understand the current situation in politics. However, it is important to focus on the Machiavellian views on the issue of democratization and try to apply them to modern political realities.
That is why the main method to discuss the appropriateness of such an approach is the qualitative political science research based on analyzing the Machiavellian ideas presented in his two main works The Prince and The Discourses.
According to Thomas, qualitative research can be defined as the process of organizing the qualitative or textual data into definite categories to analyze them and find the relationships between these categories (Thomas 2005). Qualitative research methods are effective to analyze the problem of the paper’s purpose.
The appropriate methods to conduct qualitative research on the topic are the analysis and interpretation of Machiavelli’s writings and the modern researchers’ investigations (Bennett, and Elman 2006).
To analyze Machiavelli’s writings about their appropriateness to the aspects of modern politics and regimes with determining the possible similarities and differences in visions and interpretations, it is necessary to refer to such Machiavelli’s works like The Prince and The Discourses. These works present rather opposite visions on the governor who can be the embodiment of power within the state.
In The Discourses, Machiavelli concentrates on the figure of a Republican, and his views on a republic are important to analyze the modern model of a democratic society. In The Prince, the author focuses on the figure of a monarch and discusses monarchy as the absolute form of rule which can be appropriate to provide the definite level of security and welfare for citizens.
In spite of differences in topics and ideas discussed in these works, The Prince and The Discourses can be considered as the presentation of the Machiavellian theory of democratization with references to the concepts of elite, citizens, the public’s security, social stability, international relations, military, social structure, liberty, and political culture (McCormick 2011).
Thus, this paper adopts and interprets the views of Machiavelli presented in The Prince and The Discourses from the point of their relevance to modern governments and trends in politics. That is why the visions of Machiavelli about the concepts mentioned above are applied to examine the current progression of governments.
Thus, the qualitative research methods used in the paper to discuss the problematic questions depend on the interpretation of the Machiavellian theory.
Analyzing Machiavelli’s theory and vision of democratization in relation to the modern politics, it is necessary to pay attention to such important questions as the ways to create the stable democracy, the methods to preserve liberty used by the authorities, the ways to unify nations with the focus on the international relations, the approaches to improve economy as the fundament of the state’s development, and the ways to modernize the society.
These problematic questions are discussed by many modern politicians, political scientists, sociologists, and economists to explain the contemporary situation associated with governments, political regimes, and tendencies in international relations (Bernard 2009).
The evolution of modern governments accentuates the expansion of different democratic forms. Democratization can be discussed as the process which leads to democracy. Thus, the accents are made on less authoritarian regimes and societies. Democratization can be developed within a non-democratic society or in a democratic society to maintain necessary improvements (Bernard 2009).
It is possible to concentrate on Machiavelli’s views on democratization and democracy from the perspective of their relevance to the modern world. Applying the author’s ideas to the specifics of developing international relations and politics, it is important to pay attention to the obvious similarities and differences in the processes and approaches.
Thus, definite ideas presented in Machiavelli’s works on the progress of governments and states can be discussed as analogous to the situations in contemporary politics (McCormick 2001).
Niccolo Machiavelli’s views on democracy and democratization which can be associated with the modern visions of a democratic state and society support the idea of the ‘well-governed Patria’ (Machiavelli 2007). From this point, the methods of control and governing can be different and even rather violent about citizens.
In spite of the fact, there are different approaches to the discussion of the power in The Prince and The Discourses, Machiavelli is rather stable in his views on democratization which can be discerned with references to these works.
In The Prince, Machiavelli states that the main task of the authority is to provide the conditions of security for citizens and their rights to control the political situation within the state and regulate the activities of the government (Machiavelli 2007).
Thus, the role of the prince as a monarch is to take the necessary responsibility for regulating any problematic situations within the society and prevent the creation of any conditions for the development of any forms of corruption. The impact of effective rule is not always positive and nonviolent.
The development of contemporary democratic society is closely associated with the crisis about the notion of political accountability and the issue of corruption. In spite of the fact modern democracies are electoral, masses or citizens are inclined to support indirectly the intentions of elites to increase their influence and properties depending on the issue of corruption.
The elections are not as free as they should be in the democratic society, and the public’s influence and liberties decrease. Citizens in many modern states cannot control their authorities, and these democracies cannot be discussed as complete. According to Machiavelli’s vision of democracy, the power of the government should be based on effective elections and political trials where the word of citizens matters.
McCormick states that the mentioned factors can be discussed as the extra-electoral means (McCormick 2011). Machiavelli uses the idea of the best constitution as the ideal regime. According to Machiavelli, “the best constitutions balanced the three elements – prince, aristocracy, and people – under a common constitution” (Tilly 2007, 28).
Although it is rather difficult to correlate the principles of democracy with the authoritarian regime, the author supports his vision of the ideal regime basing on the discussion of aspects many of which are typical not only for classical democracies but also for the modern democratic societies.
Thus, the rule of elites is correlated with the rule of a monarch in The Prince, but this rule is also reflected as the variant of democracy according to Machiavelli’s idea of a republic. It is important to note that if today people are inclined to discuss democratic states as the most powerful ones, Machiavelli refers to the factors of the authoritarian regime as an ideal.
The main feature, which can be used to accentuate the association between Machiavelli’s vision of an ideal regime and the modern vision of democracy, is liberty. The discussion of the citizens’ freedom and liberties is characteristic in association with the modern understanding of democracy. From this point, the concept of liberty is important to be examined with references to the process of democratization (Machiavelli 2009).
In The Discourses, the concept of the citizens’ liberty about the republic is discussed with much detail. Moller states that “for Machiavelli, republican liberty should be understood as the absence of arbitrary domination, a notion that has obvious affinities with negative liberty. However, protective republicanism also calls for a high degree of political participation” (Moller 2012, 25).
Discussing republicanism as the form associated with democracy in the modern world, it is important to state that the intentions of politicians to influence the social life significantly remain to be relevant about the modern progress of politics. Thus, according to Tilly, it is possible to refer to the “great analyses of politics” presented in Machiavelli’s Discourses “that still make his work required reading today.
His Discourses ostensibly consider the constitutions of classical Rome but range widely over the Italian politics of his own time” (Tilly 2007, 27). The patterns of constitutions depicted in work can be effectively used to analyze modern governments and their role in society.
That is why it is impossible to speak about an effective democracy when the influence of elites grows, and the role of citizens decreases. Machiavelli “pointed directly to Athens as an example of a democracy which degenerated because of its inability to protect itself from ‘the arrogance of the upper class’ and ‘the licentiousness of the general public’” (Held 2006, 41).
The absence of a balance leads to the conflict, and the necessity of democratization is often proclaimed. These aspects are characteristic for the modern governments, and these ideas are also presented in Machiavelli’s works (Kocis 1998).
Nevertheless, only definite modern democracies are correlated with Machiavelli’s vision of a republic. Machiavelli “argued that what he termed republics would be more war-prone – and more capable of waging war – than were non-democracies.
These republics may be interpreted as what today we would call semi-democracies” (Moller 2012, 177). As a result, semi-democracies are inclined to provide the additional democratization because of inability to build an effective democratic society basing on all its classical principles.
However, the question of the appropriateness of Machiavelli’s ideas on democracy to the modern vision of democracy is rather controversial because researchers agree that the modern variant of a democratic society has few similarities with the model discussed by Machiavelli about a republic (Cooper 2003). Welzel also states that the modern type of democracy was formed only after industrialization.
According to Welzel, “no democracy in pre-industrial history would qualify as a democracy under today’s standards because one is defining an element of mature democracies, universal suffrage, was unknown” (Welzel 2008, 75). That is why Machiavelli’s ideas can be used appropriately to discuss current situations in politics and modern governments appropriately, but partially.
There is a lot of critiques provided by Machiavelli in his works regarding different aspects of a republic or democracy. Bernard states that “persuaded by the ‘myth of Rome’ that he [Machiavelli] developed during those years, he devised a powerful critique of Florence and the failed Florentine Republic” (Bernard 2009, 127).
From this perspective, democracy cannot be ideally balanced, and changes in the democratic societies can lead to the transformation of a regime into more authoritarian. Today, many societies develop democratization processes to avoid the effects of the authoritarian regimes (Hubbard 2004).
However, according to Machiavelli, the results can be rather the opposite. The possible justification for the idea applicable to the current situation is the increase of the elites’ power and the corrosion of the typical democratic institutions.
Democratization along with capitalism as a result of industrialization is the new approach to transform the ineffective democratic regimes into more powerful. However, the problem is in the fact that even the accents of the public on the necessity to democratize the social and political institutions have no observable effects because of the corrosion of the modern democratic institutions.
From this perspective, the Machiavellian theory of democratization is rather appropriate to discuss the modern processes within the political arena. Furthermore, it is possible to discuss the problem of the influence and dominance of elites and the issues of liberty and civic freedoms connected with modern society about Machiavelli’s ideas.
Machiavelli’s views are also effective to discuss the question of creating the stable democracy, but modern democratic forms differ significantly from the models described by Machiavelli, and this fact should be taken into consideration while discussing the theory’s relevance.
References
Acemoglu, David, and John Robinson. 2006. Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Bennett, Andrew, and Colin Elman. 2006. “Qualitative Research: Recent Developments in Case Study Methods”. Annual Review of Political Science 9(6): 455-476.
Bernard, John. 2009. Why Machiavelli Matters: A Guide to Citizenship in a Democracy. USA: ABC-CLIO.
Cooper, Ray. 2003. The Breaking of Nations: Order and Chaos in the Twenty-First Century. NY: Atlantic Monthly Press.
Hawkins, Darren. 2001. “Democratization Theory and Nontransitions: Insights from Cuba”. Comparative Politics 33(4): 441-461.
Held, David. 2006. Models of Democracy. USA: Stanford University Press.
Hubbard, Ben. 2004. “Deep Democracy”. Web.
Inglehart, Ronald, and Christian Welzel. 2005. Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Kocis, Robert. 1998. Machiavelli Redeemed: Retrieving His Humanist Perspectives on Equality, Power, and Glory. USA: Lehigh University Press.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. 2007. The Prince. USA: Arc Manor LLC.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. 2009. Discourses on Livy. USA: University of Chicago Press.
McCormick, John. 2001. “Machiavellian Democracy: Controlling Elites with Ferocious Populism”. American Political Science Review 95(2): 297-314.
McCormick, John. 2011. Machiavellian Democracy. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Moller, Jorgen, and Svend-Erik Skaaning. 2012. Democracy and Democratization in Comparative Perspective: Conceptions, Conjunctures, Causes, and Consequences. USA: Routledge.
Samuels, Richard. 2005. Machiavelli’s Children: Leaders and Their Legacies in Italy And Japan. USA: Cornell University Press.
Stiglitz, Joseph. 2003. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc.
Thomas, George. 2005. “The Qualitative Foundations of Political Science Methodology”. Perspectives on Politics 3(4): 855-866.
Tilly, Charles. 2007. Democracy. USA: Cambridge University Press.
Welzel, Christian. 2008. “Theories of Democratization”. Web.
West, Cornel. 2004. Democracy Matters: Winning the fight Against Imperialism. NY: Penguin Press.