Modern Machiavelli?

Machiavelli's "The Prince" may have been intended only to provide a roadmap for Lorenzo de' Medici to take power in Italy, but its basic tenets are still applicable to today's global politics.

However, the aspects of Machiavelli's text that are taken into account varies. With modern times has come a plethora of types of governments and leaders. Whereas some, like the late Saddam Hussein (to use a well known and recent face), are willing to go to great lengths to maintain their power, killing off his opposition and building up their own loyal forces in pure Machiavellian fashion, the majority of the world operates on a completely different type of government, which changes how they do "whatever it takes."

Countries like the United States have Machiavelli's hated republic as their government of choice. With this, a ruler who hopes to maintain his power must use public support as a tool. Machiavalli says that the support of a ruler's country is crucial to maintaining success, that they must both recognize and respect the power of the leader. In a Republic, this is the basis to staying in power. Because people have the power to vote someone in or out of office, the leader's major focus if he wishes to maintain his office is securing the approval of his countrymen. Brute force won't acquire or maintain power in many countries.

Primarily in the United States and countries in Latin America, term limits restrict some from being able to maintain power for long periods of time. However, this can be translated to different political parties doing whatever it takes to keep a leader of their choosing in power. This is achieved by the parties verbally attacking the opposition and their beliefs, while glorifying their own ideas for how to improve the country. They do "whatever it takes" in a less brutal framework than that spoken about in "The Prince".

Still, I'm not sure if leaders should follow Machiavelli's win at any cost type advice. They should, while in power, do what is in the best interest of the people. In some cases, that means relinquishing their power and passing it on to someone with a fresh perspective and new ideas. However, this is not likely to happen - people have a natural instinct to believe that they are always correct and people also enjoy power once they get a taste of it. Therefore, the elite continue to work hard to maintain and expand on their power. Still, the ability of the people to vote for their leader helps keep this in check. In addition, the Machiavellian attitude of being prepared to do whatever it takes to stay in power restricts bipartisanship. If people are worried about maintaining their position, they're less likely to look at other options that may bring other possible leaders into the political arena. This causes an obstacle that is difficult to overcome, and winds up making a country weaker in the end.