The President / The Prince. Due Machiavelli

ection>

      Introduction

      I did not care here neither of beauty of a syllable, nor of splendor and sonority of words, of any external jewelry and inventions … because I wished that my work remained in obscurity or gained recognition only for singularity and importance of a subject.

Niccolo Machiavelli

      I wrote this work to consider on historical and modern examples essence and tasks of the Supreme power.

      No matter, who heads it: monarch, president, chancellor, prime minister, gray cardinal… The main thing that is the person who is actually leading the state[1]. A main purpose of my book is to show that his work, actions and decisions in domestic and foreign policy have a quite concrete logic.

      In attempt of comprehension of this logic, I addressed to the well-known work "The Prince" of Nicсolo Machiavelli who brought up the same questions 500 years ago.

      As well as in "The Prince", I consider various countries and rulers, their actions and consequences of these actions to reveal the general, not time-dependent and places of a condition which push the Supreme power to those or another other steps. Moralizing reasonings are for this purpose obviously insufficient.

      Approaches of the great pragmatist Machiavelli are used to consider working conditions of the president, how there are relations of the government and society. To find the general operating conditions of the Supreme power at which violation work of the ruler becomes inefficient.

      We live in three times – past, present and future. However, least of all – in the future. This book will give opportunity, expecting political weather, to find the best way to the future among verbal fog and imperious demagogy.

      One more thing: inserts are added to the book. In one cases inserts confirm idea that is introduced in the main text, in others – disprove. You can decide for yourself what is more exact – confirmation or a disproval.

      Part one

      State and power

      Chapter I. Types of the modern states

      … To comprehend essence of the people it is necessary to be the sovereign, and to comprehend the nature of sovereigns it is necessary to belong to people.

Niccolo Machiavelli

      The states of the modern world can be divided into three types. Distinctions are defined by how strongly their internal processes influence world around, their opportunities to control world financial and information streams are how great.

      It is simplest to determine type of the country by news of the international media. So, the storm on the American Hawaii, in the country of the first type, will be discussed practically around the world, and here the "Great African war" of 1998–2002 which claimed about four million lives almost didn't find reflection in TV news as it was conducted in the countries of the third type. It is possible to carry those states which internal affairs are only sometimes noticeable for the international community to the second type, infringe on interests of the remote countries. So, change of an economic situation in China has impact on many economies, in difference, let's say, from changes of trade in to the western Africa.

      The state is artificial political, economical and sometimes military device, not connected with concept of mankind and not having to it any connection.

Muammar al-Gaddafi

      Of course, president can make events in the country important for the whole world – for example, developing or threatening to use nuclear weapon, as it was done it by the head of Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) in 2013.

      But, to rise in a world rating, it is not enough. The main thing that the country was in a waterway of movements, financial and technological, which unite and will organize our world.

      According to position of the countries, their actual rulers, secret and obvious, also can be divided on three types. And the respect for the president, attention for him of his foreign colleagues, financial, political, military circles will depend on what type his country belongs to.

      The countries of the first type via the presidents can specify to the countries of the second and third that to do to them; the countries of the second type – specify by the third, but only if not against the first; all violations are punished.

      For example, in 1993 the parliament of Belgium, the country of the first type, allowed to conduct prosecution of citizens of the other and strange states suspected of commission of war crimes. Under distribution the prime minister of Israel Ariel Sharon got even. However, in ten years of action of the law not of races – the crimes occurring in the African colonies of Belgium – Congo (Zaire) and others though their many participants are still living were followed. By the way, it is difficult to present that the present Democratic Republic of Congo, the country of the third type, founded similar tribunal; apparently, her president Joseph Kabila has a self-preservation instinct. The Belgian law was cancelled, as soon as group of human rights activists appealed to court with the claim against the U.S. President. In the state relations both earlier, and now it is impossible to punish strong, but there is a right strong to punish the weak.

      It can seem that the ruler of the country of the third type should get up in a political wake to the country with more high rank that this action will bring also to him and his state protection and the help. Nevertheless, it's not so. In due time the president of Georgia Shevardnadze made much to drop to the USA as to the hand giving. What is result? There was even more tender and even more faithful Saakashvili who became the new president of Georgia, having displaced Shevardnadze. But also it was not helped by infinite expression of devotion to the suzerain: once he in 2008 tried to intrude in South Ossetia before killed to Georgia as his army reformed on the American sample was disseminated by the Russian troops. Saakashvili did not receive any military aid.

      Even more sadly destiny of the loyal friend of the USA Hosni Mubarak who appeared after revolutionary events in Egypt in life imprisonment. After all, he made the country the best, after Israel, the ally of the USA in the Middle East, in 1991 supported the military operation "Storm in the Desert" and sent for this purpose to a conflict zone the considerable military contingent.

      Why faithful actions of presidents of the countries of the lowest type are inefficient? It's because from them another is also not waited. It is more favorable to punish the turncoat (presidents of Belarus and Venezuela will be derelicts, will not restrain arrogance yet), than to support the one who will please so. Therefore, irrespective of type, the president always has to count only on himself, the power, the people and the country.

      Chapter II. About acceleration of changes in the world and how societies and the states have to correspond to them

      God executes not everything by himself to not to deprive us of free will and the part of glory which we decerve.

Niccolo Machiavelli

      Earlier the ruler often compared to the chess player doing the courses in multidimensional chess external and domestic policy. Work of the modern president is not similar to game any more in the field where only provisions of figures change, and rules are constant. Now during short time both the field, and rules of the game changes. Perhaps, it is better to assimilate the ruler to the surfer. Sliding on the rolled wave, besides the bravery and experience necessary in all centuries, demands ability "to feel a wave", constantly to move and keep stability.

      The concept of stability too received new sense today. Earlier the situation was considered stable if in the foreseeable future of anything in it does not change or changes will be slightly noticeable: weak actions caused a weak response. In the XXI century stability is a special type of long accident when the country is on the verge of chaos, but this side does not pass. Let's follow the same example with the surfer. His movement on a wave is a continuous falling; but he, changing an inclination, the provision of the governing on a crest, does so that the wave he makes up for all the time and it appears under it. This is also

1

Further for simplicity he is called as the president or the ruler.