Machiavelli's "The Prince" and Syria
Question: Should Bashar and Hafez al-Assad have paid more attention to Machiavelli’s “The Prince”? What critique and advice would Machiavelli give them?
Syria is trapped in the hands of Fortune. The current Syrian regime led by ‘president’ Bashar al-Assad, within the next year, can easily be eliminated by foreign powers or can easily prosper as an authoritarian government. Fortune has the jurisdiction to decide. But one may ask, why is Syria in this current unfortunate state? No ruler striving for success wants its affluence to be determined by luck. Bashar, taking after the former Syrian president Hafez al-Assad, his father, should have an easy and stress-free time in power according to Machiavelli’s definition of a Hereditary Princedom. Then what did Bashar, or perhaps Hafez do wrong while in power? Hafez did indeed leave Bashar the foundations of power: adequate (if not rich) economic resources, a strong political organization, a well-equipped military, and above all the means of firm, centralized control. Nonetheless, Bashar’s regime is deep in crisis.
A modern Machiavellian would not fault Bashar’s response to the revolution on technical grounds. It is true that his response was cruel, but that might still be his least bad option. It is true that his cruelty has cost him international support, but in the long run, that is unlikely to be important. Niccolò would advise Bashar, not to avoid cruelty, but “to use cruelty well”. Machiavelli thought that cruelty could be the least bad option but that when used, it should be quick and decisive, as opposed to tentative, and protracted.
Thus, Bashar’s problem lies not in the use of cruelty, but in the persistence and even the institutionalization of it. However, institutional cruelty was not Bashar’s innovation, but that of his father. Hafez al-Assad did not heed Machiavelli’s warnings.
From a Machiavellian point of view, Hafez made an error for which Bashar is now paying the price:
Syria is trapped in the hands of Fortune. The current Syrian regime led by ‘president’ Bashar al-Assad, within the next year, can easily be eliminated by foreign powers or can easily prosper as an authoritarian government. Fortune has the jurisdiction to decide. But one may ask, why is Syria in this current unfortunate state? No ruler striving for success wants its affluence to be determined by luck. Bashar, taking after the former Syrian president Hafez al-Assad, his father, should have an easy and stress-free time in power according to Machiavelli’s definition of a Hereditary Princedom. Then what did Bashar, or perhaps Hafez do wrong while in power? Hafez did indeed leave Bashar the foundations of power: adequate (if not rich) economic resources, a strong political organization, a well-equipped military, and above all the means of firm, centralized control. Nonetheless, Bashar’s regime is deep in crisis.
A modern Machiavellian would not fault Bashar’s response to the revolution on technical grounds. It is true that his response was cruel, but that might still be his least bad option. It is true that his cruelty has cost him international support, but in the long run, that is unlikely to be important. Niccolò would advise Bashar, not to avoid cruelty, but “to use cruelty well”. Machiavelli thought that cruelty could be the least bad option but that when used, it should be quick and decisive, as opposed to tentative, and protracted.
Thus, Bashar’s problem lies not in the use of cruelty, but in the persistence and even the institutionalization of it. However, institutional cruelty was not Bashar’s innovation, but that of his father. Hafez al-Assad did not heed Machiavelli’s warnings.
From a Machiavellian point of view, Hafez made an error for which Bashar is now paying the price: