Archives

Idealists for Machiavelli

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts on Jul 05, 2008

Who knew that idealists dig Machiavelli?

In my previous post, I announced my preference for the tactics of Martin Luther King over those of Machiavelli. How naïve was that?

A lot of you, reformist Muslims and progressive non-Muslims, have written to set me straight. But you cheeky monkeys have made your arguments in rather Machiavellian ways.

First, you’ve emphasized that Martin Luther King got killed in the quest for influence whereas Machiavelli survived. You then threw one of my recent posts back at me — in which I argued why we should celebrate those who don’t die for justice.

Smart alecks. The lot of you.

Second, you’ve appealed to my weakness for biography by explaining the Machiavellian approach of other change agents, including Gandhi and Lincoln.

Sameer, a reader of this blog, writes that “Gandhi was a terrible orator. He would have never inspired anybody with his meek voice. He had to become a master of non-vocal communication. Look at how he dressed, trading in his proper English barrister’s suit for the simple rags of the Indian peasant…”

As for Abraham Lincoln? Jana quotes directly from the current issue of Newsweek magazine, whose cover story is entitled, “Lincoln Vs. Darwin: Who Matters More?” According to the essay, Lincoln “carefully cultivated a bumpkin persona that encouraged both friends and enemies to underestimate his considerable, almost Machiavellian skill as a politician.”

Almost? Try his “absolutely” Machiavellian skill. The essay goes on to say that “Lincoln’s political genius stood on two pillars: he possessed an uncanny awareness of what could be done at any given moment, and he had the ability to change his mind, to adapt to circumstances, to grow.” As I showed in my July 1 post, adaptation is exactly what Machiavelli asks of princes.

The irony is, both Gandhi and Lincoln were killed by their own — the very fate that makes many you challenge my bias for Martin Luther King over Machiavelli. Another reader, Steve, says this about Dr. King: “His demise did not help his noble cause a bit. It set the mission back many decades. I don’t want more Dr. Kings to end up the same terrible way.”

Steve is a self-professed Christian. He appreciates that even the prince of peace, Jesus, was Machiavellian; a cunning combination of lion and lamb. Yet Jesus, too, wound up crucified.

In short, having Machiavellian traits doesn’t guarantee physical survival. It might, however, ensure the endurance of one’s ideas.

Steve raises this exact point without any prompting from me. Rather than call him Machiavellian, he suggests, “compare me to Impressionist and post-Impressionist painters like Vincent Van Gogh.

When the Impressionists first showed their work and ideas to the notorious Paris Salon of the 1860s or so, there was rioting and violence all the way to the turn of the 20th century. It took a long time before their brilliance was finally accepted, then cherished. Irshad, you must go the same way.

And remember the great Jewish thinker of al-Andalus, known to the world as Moses Maimonides, who worked as both a surgeon and writer among Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. Maimonides wrote a classic called The Guide for the Perplexed, which proposed an all-important thesis: People go with what they have gotten used to and become familiar with. This is always what they will accept.

So go slowly and patiently in getting people used to the idea of ijtihad. It will not happen overnight, but it will certainly come. Of this I have no doubt. Viva ijtihad!”

Still, some doubt might be wise. Ain’t no guarantees when seeking massive social change, patiently or otherwise. Hanif, another reform-minded Muslim, lifts this illuminating passage from Machiavelli’s The Prince:

“There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.”

Viva ijtihad, indeed. But to avoid disillusionment, viva Machiavelli.