Category: Politics

Posted on

Václav Havel, Letters to Olga: Reflections from Prison

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

This text offers a philosophical and ethical interpretation of Letters to Olga: Reflections from Prison, a work written by Václav Havel whilst imprisoned in communist Czechoslovakia. Drawing on the historical context of the repression against dissidents from VONS and the Charter 77 movement, the text analyses how Havel transforms his prison experience into a reflection on human dignity, moral responsibility and the search for meaning. The commentary highlights the author’s determination not to allow himself to be overcome by resentment or inner isolation, as well as his conception of faith as openness, constant self-examination and a quest for demystification. Furthermore, his thinking is linked to the Socratic tradition of the examined life and to virtue ethics capable of responding to the contemporary crisis of identity and responsibility. The text emphasises that, beyond its Christian roots, Havel’s reflection has a humanist and secular scope, which is particularly relevant in times of polarisation, moral relativism and cultural disorientation. His testimony demonstrates the possibility of maintaining ethical coherence even in extreme circumstances.

Keywords: prison, faith, responsibility, virtue ethics

ISSN: 3127-3408

https://doi.org/10.67647/minervastrategy.2026.13

In the early hours of 29 May 1979, the Prague police carried out one of their frequent raids; on that occasion, they arrested fifteen dissidents who were members of VONS — literally, the Committee for the Defence of the Unjustly Persecuted — an illegal organisation that had emerged from the equally illegal human rights movement known as Charter 77.

The court found the detainees guilty of subversion against the Czechoslovak Republic, which was then under communist rule. Václav Havel was sentenced to four and a half years’ imprisonment in a first-class correctional facility (Zgustová, 1990, 5).

As explained in the introduction to Václav Havel’s book Letters to Olga: Reflections from Prison, his correspondence with Olga was the only form of written expression he was permitted during his time in prison. Censorship and regulations were very strict (Zgustová, 1990, 8). Olga was his wife, and only letters to family members were permitted; amongst other things, ironic language and jokes were forbidden. In those difficult circumstances, Havel’s prose – he was a writer by profession – moves through various styles and tackles themes such as the meaning of life and the crisis of values with great depth. What stands out in his writings is that his approach goes against the grain, yet is underpinned by great conviction; he demonstrates remarkable consistency between his actions and his words, and his strong sense of ethics is particularly noteworthy. This approach has led to his thinking being described as ‘subversive mysticism’ (Galaxia Gutenberg).

Below, we will discuss excerpts from Václav Havel’s book Letters to Olga: Reflections from Prison (1990), in the style of the Minerva Strategy.

“I have realised that sensitive people run the risk, during a long spell in prison, of becoming bitter, resentful, closed off, resigned and selfish. One of my main aims is not to succumb to this danger. I want to remain open to the world, not shut myself away in my introversion, and maintain my interest in and love for others. I have different opinions about different people, but I cannot say that there is anyone in the world whom I hate. In that respect, I do not want to change” (Havel, 1990, 61-62).

Nelson Mandela adopted a similar approach; he too had been imprisoned and later became president of his country, governing – like Havel – on the basis of an experience that had been transformed into a positive lesson. It is all too human to succumb to resentment and harbour a vindictive attitude, but greatness in oppressive life situations lies in preventing them from altering one’s own outlook on life and one’s relationship with others. Such greatness is particularly commendable in times of polarisation.

“I’ve already told you what faith means to me: it is a state of mind, a state in which one remains open and active, in which one ceaselessly asks one question after another and feels the need to ‘experience the world’ again and again in the most direct way possible, so that the world does not enter into me through any specific external object. For me, continuity and perseverance do not arise from a fixation on a rigid ‘conviction’, but rather from a ceaseless process of seeking, of demystification, of penetrating beneath the surface of phenomena, independent of any pre-established and immutable methodology.” (Havel, 1990, 155).

This conception of faith as dynamic, demystifying and constantly seeking is an interesting one. It might bring to mind Socrates’ famous statement in Plato’s dialogue Apology, where he asserts that “life without examination is not worth of a man’s living” (Plato, 1997, 87, 38a). One learns from experience and, in particular, from one’s mistakes, and it is beneficial to continually re-examine things in order to improve. The broader perspective on things, which gives meaning to the whole, is usually reached with the passage of time.

“The search for the meaning of life is, therefore, a search for the absolute horizon; it is an unconscious intuition, a spontaneous experience and an act of faith. It is as though we were striving to attain something lofty, something beyond our reach, above us, something solid that we wish to possess so that it may serve as our support, and it seems as though we are succeeding. However, this is a deceptive and paradoxical sensation: we know that we must continue to lean on something if we do not want to fall, but, at the same time, not only do we not know — and this will always be the case — what it is we are leaning on, but we can never be sure that we are actually leaning on it; there is no way of verifying it, and we have no choice but to trust in our faith.” (Havel, 1990, 203-204).

It is curious that a political dissident should devote himself to writing about metaphysics to his wife in order to circumvent totalitarian censorship. Havel discusses the meaning of life and the foundations of faith, highlighting the eternal problem of the human condition, given that there are metaphysical notions which cannot be verified through the senses. The author refers to his Christian beliefs in the text, but his notion of faith and the meaning of life goes beyond a religious creed and contains a humanist message that even a secular person might embrace. The meaning of life, based on faith as a life of self-examination, is a state that guides human beings, even though, ultimately, its foundation is not empirically verifiable. And it is precisely from this that faith arises.

“We live in an age characterised by a general alienation from the self: our civilisation, founded on a magnificent flourishing of science and technology—those great intellectual guides to the conquest of the world, achieved at the cost of losing touch with the self—transforms man, its proud creator, into a slave to his consumerist needs; it breaks him down into isolated functions, dissolves him into his mere ‘being-there’ and thus deprives him not only of his human integrity and autonomy, but also of any influence over his ‘force of inertia’. The crisis of today’s world is, evidently, a crisis of human responsibility (both ‘towards’ and ‘before’) and, therefore, a crisis of human identity.” (Havel, 1990, 317).

We are living in times of great disorientation: decades in which the postmodern ‘anything goes’ attitude and moral relativism, in all their forms, have flourished. In this text by Havel, two key concepts for humanity come together: identity and responsibility. In this context, the emphasis can be placed on a shift towards the virtues and vices of agents when they act — the domain of morality — and when they know — the domain of epistemology. Based on this Aretaic shift, if we human beings practise moral and epistemic habits and dispositions—which are termed virtues—and avoid moral and epistemic vices, we will define our identity and be responsible for our beliefs and actions.

References

Galaxia Gutenberg (n.d.), “Václav Havel. Cartas a Olga”. Available:

https://www.galaxiagutenberg.com/producto/cartas-a-olga/

(last consultation n: 20/06/2026).

Havel, Václav (1990), Cartas a Olga. Consideraciones desde la prisión, Círculo de Lectores, Barcelona, trans. Monika Zgustová.

Plato (1997), Apology of Socrates, Aris& Phillips Ltd., Warminster, trans. Michael C. Stokes.

Zgustová, Monika (1990), “Introducción”, en Havel, Václav (1990), Cartas a Olga. Consideraciones desde la prisión, Círculo de Lectores, Barcelona, trans. Monika Zgustová, pp. 5-10.

Posted on

Antonio Pérez, the art of governance

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

This paper analyses the figure of Antonio Pérez and his political thought on the basis of several passages from The Works and Treatises of Antonio Pérez, included in The Art of Governance: An Anthology of Philosophical and Political Texts from the 16th and 17th Centuries. Following a brief biographical overview, marked by his rise at the court of Philip II, his involvement in the Escobedo affair and his subsequent downfall and exile, the text examines some of his reflections on the exercise of power, monarchical legitimacy and prudence in government. Through his warnings, Antonio Pérez criticises the abuses of absolute power and defends a limited and responsible conception of authority, linked to the prestige of institutions and the favour of the people. Furthermore, the text highlights the relationship between political theory and practice, as well as the importance of rulers’ personal virtues over mere strategic calculation. Finally, the commentary connects these ideas with contemporary debates on leadership, populism, political communication and the pursuit of the common good, demonstrating the continued relevance of these reflections for contemporary political analysis and governance.

Keywords: art of governance, legitimacy in exercise, spin doctors, demagoguery, common good

ISSN: 3127-3408

https://doi.org/10.67647/minervastrategy.2026.11

Antonio Pérez del Hierro was born in 1540 in Madrid and died in 1611 in Paris, France. He was the son of Gonzalo Pérez, who served as Secretary of State to Felipe/Philip II, and probably of Juana Escobar y Tobar. When she gave birth to Antonio, his father must already have been a member of the clergy and his mother a married woman. Some therefore consider him to have been an illegitimate and sacrilegious child. 

When his father died in 1556, he took his place in the Royal Secretariat, initially on an interim basis, and was confirmed in the post in 1567. His political decline was linked to his instigation of the murder in 1578 of Juan de Escobedo, who was secretary to Don Juan of Austria, the illegitimate son of Carlos/Charles I. The court intrigues, double-dealing and unspeakable secrets associated with this event led to a slow decline for Antonio Pérez, who was also persecuted by the Inquisition and ended his days in exile in Paris.  

Below, we will discuss excerpts from some of the letters written by Antonio Pérez, taken from his work “Las obras y relaciones de Antonio Pérez”, compiled by J. A. Santos Herrán and M. Santos López in the book entitled El arte de gobernar. Antología de textos filosófico-políticos. Siglos XVI-XVII (2008)/The art of governance. Anthology of philosophical and political texts. XVI-XVII centuries, in the Minerva Strategy blog style.

“This is from a wise counsellor who spoke to King Felipe/Philip II, not least regarding the various blows he had dealt to him on different occasions, seeing that they were leading him towards the freedom of absolute power. Sire, be calm, be temperate, acknowledge God on earth as in heaven, lest you grow weary of monarchies (a gentle form of government, if used gently) and cast them all aside, disillusioned by the abuse of human power” (Pérez, 2008, 51).

These lines can be interpreted as evoking the classic themes of absolute power and the relationship between temporal and divine authority, in the context of legitimacy of origin – “how was power attained?” – and legitimacy in practice – “how is that power exercised?” –. Antonio Pérez’s great lesson is that human power is limited and must be exercised without committing abuses. The legitimacy of monarchies – “gentle government” – stems from the fact that their power is exercised through setting an example and even through charisma, whilst fostering the prestige of institutions.

“What I said in the Tenth Admonition is that princes ought to have at their disposal a person of good character, prudent, well-informed about kingdoms and kings, and generally well-liked, to whom they might specifically entrust the task of dealing with the discontented.” (Pérez, 2008, 51).

The theory and practice of politics have been intertwined in various ways. Today, spin doctors or political communications advisers seem to dictate to politicians what they should do or say to maximise their electoral gains. Following Machiavelli’s precedent, it is argued that, if good results are achieved, the means employed will always be praised. However, from other perspectives, this political pragmatism is rejected and it is argued that politics based on moral convictions is preferable.  

“For if this responsibility falls to a single person, may they possess the grace of heaven in the eyes of the people—which is one of the qualities I mentioned above; there is no antidote so universal or so natural against the poisons of human life as this quality is against the poisons that threaten the preservation of kingdoms and kings. I said ‘favour of heaven’ and ‘natural’, because princes cannot bestow or withdraw it, for it is a gift from above, though they may bestow the respect of the people, which results from their favour. The evidence of this is plain to see every day. All the authority a king bestows upon a minister is not enough, not only for him to be loved, but for him to cease being hated; just as neither disfavour nor open persecution can prevent one who possesses the natural favour of the people from being loved and esteemed.” (Pérez, 2008, 52).

In these lines, the favour of the people is referred to as a natural quality of certain individuals, transcending the king’s authority. The preservation of the kingdom—the key objective of politics—would depend on certain personal qualities, which might be termed virtues, possessed by rulers who thereby attract the favour of the people. However, ever since the origins of democracy in the Athenian polis, we must be wary of the danger posed by those who manipulate the people for their own spurious interests. These demagogues have regained relevance today in the form of various populist movements.

“And he concludes this section with a natural example: I have never seen or read of a lion or any other wild animal bowing down to a person for the food they gave them; for food, and even grass and hay, are kind words from ministers and a breath of air that seems to refresh the thirsty a little, but do not quench their thirst; and for having removed a great thorn from them, for having delivered them from great pain or danger, I have read of miracles of nature, and ones very natural to the nature of their nobility, which, for such merits, I mark with the prize” (Pérez, 2008, 53).

There has been much reflection on the value of fine words and the impact of actions in politics. This passage by Antonio Pérez invites us to reflect, on the one hand, on the tendency to focus on short-term policies—promoted to generate media attention or boost poll ratings—and, on the other hand, on policies that tackle the country’s serious problems, seeking solutions that build consensus beyond electoral cycles. Democracy would be strengthened if politicians acted with the common good in mind, even if this might harm their party interests. 

References

Pérez, Antonio (2008), “Las obras y relaciones de Antonio Pérez” en Santos Herrán, J.A., Santos López, M. (eds.), El arte de gobernar. Antología de textos filosófico-políticos siglos XVI-XVII, Barcelona: Anthropos, pp. 44-57.

Escudero López, José (n.d.), “Antonio Pérez”, Real Academia de Historia, available:

https://historia-hispanica.rah.es/biografias/35285-antonio-perez (last accessed 30-5-26).

Posted on

Machiavelli, pragmatism and power

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

This paper examines Niccolò Machiavelli’s political thought through the lens of pragmatism and strategic power, drawing primarily on The Discourses alongside the more familiar claims associated with The Prince. It outlines how Machiavelli can be read in two registers: as the supposed advocate of ruthless expediency and as a republican thinker concerned with civic virtue and the preservation of the state. The discussion highlights a further, influential interpretation—Machiavelli’s separation of politics from ethics and religion—arguing that political action follows distinct rules shaped by uncertainty, conflict, and changing circumstances. Selected passages from The Discourses are used to illustrate concrete strategic lessons: when to temporize rather than suppress emerging tensions; why agreement is easier on generalities than on particulars; the importance of adapting to the “times” as a condition of continued success; and the claim that defending one’s country may justify extraordinary means when the state itself is at risk. The text also stresses the informational dimension of strategy, including skepticism toward apparent opponent errors and the need for verification mechanisms. Overall, Machiavelli is presented less as a theorist of cynicism than as an analyst of decision-making under pressure, where ends, means, and context must be aligned.

Keywords: political pragmatism, strategy, power

ISSN: 3127-3408

https://doi.org/10.67647/minervastrategy.2026.10

The best-known work by Niccolò Machiavelli is The Prince; however, it is perhaps in this work  The discourses (2003 )that his political ideas are most clearly revealed. Some people see two sides to Machiavelli: a) The Machiavellian Machiavelli of The Prince, where ‘the end justifies the means’; b) The republican Machiavelli of the Discourses, who is a patriot concerned with civic virtues.

Another interesting interpretation of Machiavelli is the view that he was the first to separate politics from ethics and religion. He claims that politics has its own rules, which are different from ethics.

In this post, I have selected several topics addressed by Machiavelli in The discourses, which have an undeniable strategic background and numerous applications.

I.33.- When either within a State or against a State an inconvenience has made headway, the safer course is to temporise, not to supress it (Machiavelli, 2003, 190).

Machiavelli’s advice is that, when a source of conflict arises, one should try to adapt to it rather than confront it head-on. Facing the problem may escalate it, while avoiding it may eventually cause it to fade away for extrinsic or intrinsic reasons.

A well-known Spanish politician often uses this tactic to manage conflicts, although rather than attributing it to his reading of Machiavelli, people tend to put it down to his personality. This strategy has its pros and cons, which should be analysed on a case-by-case basis.

The main concern will be the assets at stake and the potential losses or damage if the conflict succeeds. If the conflict is of minor significance, it may be advisable to avoid it. However, when it comes to matters of vital importance, it is better to confront it, even if this does not always mean launching a direct attack. It does, however, involve a plan of action based on the best strategy available.

I.47.- Though men make mistakes about things in general, they do not make mistakes about the particulars (Machiavelli, 2003, 225).

There is a certain tension between discussions of abstract issues and those concerning specific matters. When it comes to the former, people tend to say a great deal and may even reach a consensus. What Machiavelli points out is that when the discussion turns to specific matters, it becomes more difficult to reach agreement and easier for someone to be misled.

It is worth recalling the rule of the Harvard Method Focus on interests, not positions. Behind individual positions lie underlying interests, and these must be properly explored to reach effective and sensible agreements.

III.9.- That is behoves one to adapt oneself to the times if one wants to enjoy continued good fortune (Machiavelli, 2003, 425).

One definition of intelligence is the ability to adapt to change. Any good strategy is based on the understanding that the current situation is not permanent. The key issue addressed by strategic intelligence is how to manage change in such a way as to achieve the best possible results.

Situations of change often involve tension and uncertainty, but the key is to be clear about the objectives that really matter and to devise an appropriate strategy.

III.41.-The one’s country should be defended whether is entail ignominy or glory, and that it is good to defend it in any way whatsoever (Machiavelli, 2003, 514). 

This would be the version of ‘the end justifies the means’ that appears in The Discourses. If the State is in danger, any means are justified. The statement could be interpreted in a Machiavellian light or, alternatively, as the view of a true patriot. According to the latter interpretation, this would not be applicable to other spheres and could only be applied when the State, as the highest interest, is in danger.

This view of means and ends is characteristic of Machiavelli. But the alignment of means and ends is precisely the key element of strategy. In other posts, I have outlined the deontological, consequentialist, Machiavellian and virtuous ethical models, where each one addresses the ethical dimensions of various strategic approaches. Strategy aims for victory or success, but each ethical model involves a qualitatively different way of achieving it.

III.44.- Results are often obtained by impetuosity and daring which could never have been obtain by ordinary methods (Machiavelli, 2003, 519).

In a dynamic environment, it is crucial to thoroughly evaluate all possibilities, even those that may initially appear improbable. One should aim for the highest possible expectations once the data has been thoroughly and realistically analysed.

It is essential to clearly understand your priorities and what you value. You need to know your desired outcome and the non-negotiable points. Strengths depend on the parties’ needs, which may not always align, and that’s where agreement can be found.

III.48.- When the enemy is seen to be making a big mistake, it should be assumed that it is but an artifice (Machiavelli, 2003, 524).

Having the most and best information about the other party enables one to assess their actions and statements. It is important to understand their intentions, views, and character. One should be wary of the possibility of deception or some other subtle form of pretence. Mechanisms should be established to verify data, statements or assessments impartially. It is necessary to cross-verify accounts between people with differing strategic interests.

Occasionally, some people take these impartial checks as a sign of mistrust. However, one must separate personal relationships from the subject of the negotiation. Verifying the relevant facts is the duty of any good strategist. 

References

Machiavelli, Nicolò (2003), The Discourses, London New York: Penguin Books, trans. Leslie J. Walker. 

Posted on

Václav Havel, responsibility as destiny

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

Václav Havel (1936–2011), a Czech playwright and dissident, embodied the union of moral thought and political action in the face of communism in Czechoslovakia. After supporting the Prague Spring, he suffered censorship and imprisonment and became a symbol of the struggle for freedom. With the weakening of the Soviet bloc, he helped found the Civic Forum and led the Velvet Revolution (1989), which peacefully dismantled the dictatorship and initiated the transition to democracy, culminating in his election as president. Drawing on passages from Responsibility as Destiny (1991), the text analyses totalitarianism as a bureaucratic and ideological power that invades private life, substitutes truth for fiction, and produces fear and self-censorship. Havel proposes an ‘anti-political politics’, understood as service to the truth and to others. In this context, dissent becomes an ethical imperative: to denounce oppression, even if it is a solitary task.

Keywords: totalitarianism, dissent, freedom, responsibility

ISSN: 3127-3408

https://doi.org/10.67647/minervastrategy.2026.09

Václav Havel, a Czech politician and intellectual, was the last president of Czechoslovakia and the first president of the Czech Republic. He was born in Prague in 1936 and died there in 2011. He attended the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague to study theatre and had a distinguished career as a playwright.

His opposition to the communist government of Czechoslovakia led him to take action after having been a writer. As the leader of the Independent Writers’ Club, he backed the ‘Prague Spring’ (1968), leading to the subsequent ban on his books from publication. He became a symbol of the struggle for freedom and was imprisoned for five years. In 1989, Havel played a part in the creation of the Civic Forum, which served as the platform where most of the opposition gathered, following Gorbachev’s reforms in the Soviet Union that weakened the communist dictatorship in Czechoslovakia. He led the so-called ‘Velvet Revolution’, which took place that year, and, with the backing of a massive popular uprising, succeeded in dismantling the dictatorship without bloodshed and establishing a democratic system in Czechoslovakia. Havel was elected president.

Below, I will discuss excerpts from Václav Havel’s work Responsibility as Destiny/La responsabilidad como destino(1991), which brings together various letters from his time as a dissident, in the style of Minerva Strategy. 

“It is a totalitarian government of an impersonal, bureaucratic power, anonymously bloated, not yet unconscious, yet already operating beyond all conscience; a power based on the omnipresence of ideological fiction, capable of motivating everything without ever having to resort to the truth; power as a universe of control, repression and fear; power that nationalises and, therefore, immunises thought, morality and private life. Power that long ago ceased to represent the cause of a group of arbitrary rulers occupying and absorbing everyone, so that in the end everyone participates in it in some way, even if only through their silence; power that in reality belongs to no one, since it alone has taken possession of everyone” (Havel, 1991, 75-76).

These words of Havel aptly capture key aspects of totalitarianism and its exercise of power over people’s lives. Words and discourses lose all connection with the concrete reality of individuals, who are subjected to various forms of control over their public and private actions and even their thoughts. Under a bureaucratic and impersonal guise, founded on an ideological fiction, individuals’ freedom is curtailed. 

“I am an advocate of ‘anti-politics’. That is to say, of politics that is not merely a technology of power and the manipulation thereof—as a form of cybernetic control over people or as an art serving specific, practical ends or intrigues—but rather of politics as one of the ways of seeking and attaining the meaning of life, of how to protect it and how to serve it; politics as practised morality, as a service to the truth, as concern for our fellow human beings, genuinely human concerns, governed by human measures. It is a form that is somewhat, very slightly, impractical in today’s world and difficult to apply to everyday life. Nevertheless, I know of no better alternative” (Havel, 1991, 85–86).

This text was written in 1984; the Berlin Wall had not yet fallen. This historic event can yield various interpretations. Some might see it as a precursor to the anti-politics experiment in Italy with the Five Star Movement or as a precedent for certain populist positions so much in vogue today. It would be worth contextualising these words of Havel in that the search for alternatives to the Soviet conceptual framework must inevitably have human dimensions, linked to a practised morality and a notion of truth. Although this approach may appear distant from everyday politics and may sound somewhat utopian, like Havel, “I know of no better alternative”.

“I wouldn’t presume to comment on relations across the entire Soviet bloc. But I do think I can say, at least with regard to the Czechoslovak citizen, that his world is characterised by a constant tension between ‘their’ omnipotence and his own powerlessness.”

Since this citizen knows that ‘they’ can do anything: confiscate his passport, sack him from his job, order him to move from one place to another, task him with collecting signatures against the Pershing missiles, prevent him from studying, strip him of his driving licence, tap his phone and read his correspondence, build a factory under his windows that produces mainly sulphur dioxide, contaminate his milk with chemicals to an unbelievable degree, arrest him simply for attending a rock concert, arbitrarily raise the price of anything at any time, reject any humble request he makes without explanation, tell him what he must read first, why he has to demonstrate, what he has to sign, how many square metres his flat can be, who he can be in contact with and who he cannot’ (Havel 1991, 105). 

In this paragraph, Havel summarises how totalitarian power—which, by definition, is power without limits—can manifest itself in people’s lives. It is particularly relevant today to be able to distinguish between the rule of law, an autoritarian state and a totalitarian state. For example, in certain contexts, an authoritarian drift occurs that jeopardises the progress of the rule of law. Totalitarianism, however, goes further: it denies rights—such as civil and political rights—persecutes dissidents and censors critical voices. 

“We know that the dissident is a bit of a Don Quixote by the very nature of his cause: he writes his critical analyses and demands freedoms and rights alone, and alone—with nothing but his pen in hand—facing the colossal power of the State and its police; he writes, protests, shouts, pleads, and invokes the law; and he knows that sooner or later he will be imprisoned for all of this” (Havel, 1991, 130).

For Havel, this is the responsibility that comes with one’s fate: if one lives under a totalitarian regime, what Muguerza termed the imperative of dissent arises. This entails speaking out and fighting, to the best of one’s ability, against oppression, injustice, and human rights violations. Although this task is, at times, solitary and goes largely unrecognised, we must not lose sight of the fact that historic changes require courageous pioneers.

References

Havel, Václav (1991), La responsabilidad como destino, Madrid: El País/Aguilar, trad. Jana Novotná.

Fernández, Tomás, Tamaro, Elena (2004), “Biografía de Václav Havel”, Editorial Biografías y Vidas, available in https://www.biografiasyvidas.com/biografia/h/havel.htm [Visited: 1 May 2026].

Spanish version: https://webphilosophia.com/estrategia/vaclav-havel-la-responsabilidad-como-destino/

Posted on

Francisco de Quevedo, advice on politics and government

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

The text presents Francisco de Quevedo (1580–1645) as a central figure of the Spanish Baroque and notes that, in addition to his literary fame, he had a lesser-known political side. Drawing on passages from The Politics of God and the Government of Christ, it highlights advice on the exercise of power and the virtues of a ruler. Quevedo warns against the ambitious minister who considers himself equal to or superior to the king: envy and greed turn him into a disloyal servant and a potential tyrant, which is why responsibility must be exercised with integrity and loyalty. He also maintains that reigning is a demanding task: public life requires constant work and rejects idleness, an analogy which the author links to the academic vocation understood as total dedication. A key idea is ‘obedience’ as the king’s foremost virtue, understood not as humiliation but as submission to reason, piety and the law; he who obeys these criteria governs better than he who commands without limits. The example of Alfonso of Aragon illustrates patience and a willingness not to demand obedience when what is ordered is unjust, which connects with classical debates on the authority, validity and justice of rules.

Keywords: Philosophy, loyalty, obedience, idleness

ISSN: 3127-3408

https://doi.org/10.67647/minervastrategy.2026.07

Francisco de Quevedo y Villegas was born in Madrid in 1580 and died in Villanueva de los Infantes, Ciudad Real, Spain, in 1645. He distinguished himself as a nobleman, politician and one of the most significant writers of the Baroque period in Spain. He studied Theology at the University of Valladolid, where he became a poet of great renown and wrote in opposition to his contemporary, Luis de Góngora. He cultivated all literary genres, but stood out chiefly for his great mastery of language, including his highly ironic style.
Francisco de Quevedo’s political side is largely unknown to the public.

Below, we will discuss excerpts from his work Política de Dios y gobierno de Cristo, sacada de la Sagrada Escritura para acierto del Rey y reino en sus acciones (1986)/ God’s policy and Christ’s rule, drawn from Holy Scripture to guide the King and the kingdom in their actions in the style of the Minerva Strategy Blog.

“No servant, nor minister of the King, is one who displays such grandeur that he is not merely equal to his king, but superior to him; such a man covets the crown; he is a rival for power; a tyrant, raised on the breast of favour, and nourished and grown by the arrogance of ignorance and greed” (Quevedo, 1986, 55). 

Envy is a poor guide. In this case, the minister is eager to take the crown and acts with duplicity and disloyalty. Each day has enough trouble of its own, and it is good to know how to fulfil one’s responsibilities at every moment, with diligence, integrity and loyalty. Positions are a learning experience for the future.

It is often said in Spanish, “Do not serve those who have served.” This phrase is attributed to Antonio Cánovas del Castillo and implies a certain notion of elitism, whereby only those of the same standing should be able to hold positions of influence. In my view, it is precisely because one has served that one can set a good example of how to treat a subordinate.

“Reigning is a task; that the duties of a ruler demand more sweat than the plough, and sweat drawn from the very veins; that the crown is a burdensome weight, which wearies the shoulders of the soul before it does the body’s strength; that palaces, for the idle prince, are tombs of a dead life, and for the one who attends to them, a scaffold of a living death—this is affirmed by the glorious memories of those enlightened princes who did not tarnish their legacies, counting among their crowned years not a single hour without labour.” (Quevedo, 1986, 144-154).

Those who devote themselves to public life should spend their days working, not idling away. This reminds me of a story I heard at the University of Oxford about the scholarship profession being viewed as a kind of priesthood, where academic life demands calling/vocation and total dedication, which is reflected in the personal and formative influence on students that goes beyond simply delivering lectures. Once again, the question arises as to what virtues those in government should have, and what virtues professors should have.

“The foremost virtue of a king is obedience; for, being well aware of the value of temperance and moderation, it enables him to rule with gentleness whilst exercising supreme power. Obedience is no humiliation for monarchs, who, as men of great spirit, recognise their subjection to reason, piety and the Law. He who obeys these rules, rules well, and he who rules without having obeyed them torments rather than governs” (Quevedo, 1986, 162-163). 

This is a reflection on Political Philosophy that challenges the notion of unlimited power. It sounds paradoxical to advise the king —the sovereign— on the virtue of obedience, but Quevedo makes it seem reasonable. First, by appealing to temperance and moderation, virtues already highlighted by Aristotle, and, second, by setting reason, piety and the laws as a guide.

That those in power obey the Law is a fundamental principle of the Rule of Law. It is desirable that they act rationally, as it would be hard to accept being ruled by someone like Nero. It would be commendable if they were compassionate, as the plight of the most vulnerable would be taken into account.

“The great and magnanimous King Alfonso of Aragon (whom all nations rightly call the Wise) possessed such learned and unyielding patience that he not only tolerated being defied—as was seen in the case of the soldier who insolently stopped him in public in Naples— but, not content merely to forgive them, he rewarded those who spoke ill of him; nor did he permit others to be spoken of in his presence, as happened with those who remarked on Nicolo Pichinino’s low birth. Not only did he not object to them disobeying him, but he commanded all his advisers not to obey him in matters where he ordered contrary to reason; and to the ministers who were subject to these superiors, he commanded that they should not obey them in matters that were not just” (Quevedo, 1986, 195-196). 

This reminds me of the Euthyphro dilemma, which Plato first raised. There is a version involving God, which would ask: “Is the good good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?”

There is another way of framing this dilemma in terms of the concept of sovereignty, which might be: “A rule is valid because the sovereign authority enacts it —Hobbes, Austin—, or the authority enacts it because it is just —Thomas Aquinas—.”

King Alfonso of Aragon urged people not to obey him in matters that were neither reasonable nor just. It would seem, then, that obedience may involve further considerations beyond mere legal validity. Entire libraries are devoted to debating these issues, which are of interest to the Philosophy of Law. This dilemma is typically addressed from either a formalist or a material perspective.

References

Quevedo y Villegas, Franciso de (1986), Política de Dios y gobierno de Cristo sacad de la Sagrada Escritura para acierto de rey y reino en sus acciones, Swan, Real Sitio de Lorenzo del Escorial. 

Posted on

Nelson Mandela, Life, Love, and Courage

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

The text presents Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (1918–2013) as a key leader in the struggle against apartheid and, following 27 years in prison, as the architect of South Africa’s first democratically elected government committed to racial equality (1994–1999). It highlights the decisive role of his negotiations with F. W. de Klerk in the early 1990s in dismantling segregation and facilitating a peaceful transition, an achievement that culminated in the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize. Drawing on passages from Richard Stengel’s book, the article analyses how his prison experience shaped his character: the absence of external control forced him to exercise self-discipline and moderate his reactions, fostering virtues such as prudence and temperance. Courage, in his view, is not innate, but a choice demonstrated through decisions that challenge one’s own well-being. The essay also highlights a leadership style that combines symbolism and teamwork: Mandela understands that a collective goal requires empowering others, delegating and sharing responsibility. Finally, he is described as a man of an unwavering principle—equal rights—and of great tactical pragmatism, reconciling the ethics of conviction with the ethics of responsibility.

Keywords: courage, ethics of conviction, ethics of responsibility, leadership, moderation and prudence, teamwork

ISSN: 3127-3408

https://doi.org/10.67647/minervastrategy.2026.05

Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela was born in Mvezo, South Africa, in 1918, and died in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 2013. A South African activist and politician who led the movements against apartheid and who, after a long struggle and 27 years in prison, presided over the first government, from 1994 until 1999, that respected racial equality, which affected the majority of the Black population.

His negotiations in the early 1990s with South African President F. W. de Klerk helped bring an end to the system of racial segregation known as apartheid in the country and paved the way for a peaceful transition to majority rule. In 1993, Mandela and De Klerk received a joint Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts.

In this series of posts on leadership, we will now examine passages from the book Richard Stengel titled Mandela’s Way. Fifteen Lessons on Life, Love, and Courage, from the style of the Minerva Strategy Blog

“How did his passionate revolutionary become a measured statesman? In prison, he had to temper his responses to everything. There was little a prisoner could control. The only thing you could control – that you had to control – was yourself. There was no room for outbursts or self-indulgence or a lack of discipline. He had no zone of privacy” (Stengel, 2009, 15). 

There is a reference to a shift in Mandela’s character towards moderation as a result of his 27 years in prison. It is difficult to imagine how one might adapt to such a prolonged period of imprisonment and what consequences this has for one’s view of the world. It is certainly worth reflecting on the role of hardship in shaping one’s education and character. Exceptionally difficult situations require the development of coping mechanisms and, in this way, shape one’s character. One becomes virtuous by acting virtuously. The moral habits and dispositions that are forged in the face of adversity will serve as the best reminder, shaping one’s character, that the difficult period has been overcome.

A saying attributed to Aristotle states that ‘the roots of education are bitter, but its fruits are sweet.’ Moderation is linked to the virtues of prudence and temperance. Mandela’s many years in prison transformed him into a moderate statesman, which speaks volumes about his human values. It is his characteristic leadership style. Others, by contrast, would foster division in a spirit of vengeance.

“Most people would say that Nelson Mandela personifies courage. But Mandela himself defines courage in a curious way. He does not see it as innate, as a kind of elixir we can drink, or as something we learned in any conventional way. He sees it as the way we choose to be. None of us is born courageous, we would say; it is all in how we react to different situations” (Stengel, 2009, 23).  

Courage is demonstrated through actions, not rhetoric. Every biography has examples of courage, even if the events are later disputed. Courage is evident in situations where the decisions involved conflict with one’s own well-being. Being courageous thus becomes the difficult path, and there are usually fewer who choose it.

“He understood that some part – quite a large part – of leadership is symbolic, and he was a splendid symbol. But he knew that he could not always be in front, and that one great goal could die unless he empowered others to lead. In the language of basketball, he wanted the ball, but he understood that he had to pass to others and let them shoot. Mandela genuinely believed in the virtues of the team, and he knew that to get the best out of his own people, he had to make sure that they partook of the glory and, even more important, that they felt they were influencing his decisions”  (Stengel, 2009, 75).  

An essential part of leadership is knowing how to share it, even if that sounds somewhat paradoxical. There are people with vibrant, charismatic and unique personalities, but at the end of the day, we are all human beings, and that means we have limitations and are subject to circumstances. It is good to know how to work as a team and how to delegate. Creating a working culture based on shared values and sharing successes collectively and with those who make decisions, as well as knowing how to take responsibility when something goes wrong.  

“Nelson Mandela is a man of principle – exactly one: equal rights for all, regardless of race, class, or gender. Pretty much everything else is a tactic. It seems like an exaggeration – but to a degree very few people suspect, Mandela is a thoroughgoing pragmatist who was willing to compromise, change, adapt, and refine his strategy as long as it got him to the promised land” (Stengel, 2009, 103). 

This reminds me of Max Weber’s discussion of ethics and politics. The ethics of conviction is based on ideals and beliefs and applies to everyone. The ethics of responsibility is based on the consequences of actions and is a form of ethics specific to politicians. The question arises as to whether these two forms of ethics are compatible in politics. Nelson Mandela’s approach is that his ethics of conviction lead him to defend equal rights based on the inalienable principle of equal human dignity. At the same time, he advocated an ethics of responsibility, whereby politicians must evaluate their actions in terms of their consequences. And this implies a specific choice between means and ends, a strategy, a key element of political rationality.

References

Stengel, Richard (2009), Mandela’s way. Fifteen Lessons on Life, Love, and Courage, New York: Crown Publishers, preface by Nelson Mandela.

Posted on

Diego de Saavedra Fajardo, Political enterprises (II)

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

The text presents Diego de Saavedra Fajardo (1584–1648) as a diplomat and political thinker, and discusses passages from Volume II of Empresas políticas, a work intended to provide guidance on the exercise of power. Drawing on various quotations, it discusses classic issues in public ethics. Firstly, it warns of the danger that those in office may be motivated by a desire for profit: unlike market logic, accountability, transparency, budgetary rigour and the management of conflicts of interest must take precedence in public administration. Secondly, the political responsibility of the ruler is emphasised: even if he delegates to capable ministers, he cannot wash his hands of affairs, and must resign when he loses confidence or when he fails in his duty of oversight or in the selection of subordinates (culpa in vigilando and culpa in eligendo). The text also places Saavedra within an elitist tradition that is wary of the fickleness of the ‘common people’, linking this to contemporary critiques of videocracy and social media, and raises the risk of a more sophisticated form of digital demagoguery. Finally, a strategic guideline is proposed: prudence in deliberation, skill in execution and perseverance in conclusion, combining Machiavellian pragmatism and Aristotelian moderation.

Keywords: technological demagoguery, resignation or dismissal, elitism, prudence, legal liability, political accountability

ISSN: 3127-3408

https://doi.org/10.67647/minervastrategy.2026.03

Diego de Saavedra Fajardo was a Spanish political writer, literary critic, poet, philosopher, and jurist, who was born in Algezares in 1584 and died in Madrid in 1648. I recently dedicated a post to his essay Empresas políticas/Political enterprises, a monumental work comprising four volumes and 100 enterprises, as the subtitle suggests. These books bring together the advice of a diplomat by profession on how to exercise political power effectively. 

Below, excerpts from volume II of the book by Diego de Saavedra Fajardo, Empresas políticas o Idea de un príncipe político cristiano representada en cien empresas/Political Enterprises or Idea of a Christian political prince represented in hundred enterprises, will be discussed in the style of Minerva Strategy Blog.

“Those who are very keen on aggrandising themselves and amassing their fortune are dangerous in positions of power. Although some seek merit and glory, and these are always worthy ministers, many consider it safer to build their fortunes on riches, and not to keep the reward and satisfaction of their services in the hands of the prince, who is almost always ungrateful to those who deserve it most” (Saavedra Fajardo, 1958, 15). 

The pursuit of profit is often cited as the driving force behind the private sector. Adam Smith’s invisible hand and Mandeville’s fable of the bees, with varying degrees of intensity and nuance, argue that private vices such as greed, luxury, the pursuit of profit and envy lead to positive public consequences such as wealth, efficiency and free competition. However, as Saavedra Fajardo contends in this passage, it is not appropriate for the pursuit of profit to be the goal of those with responsibilities in the public sector. Politics is legitimised in such a way that those in power are accountable, which must be characterised by transparency, rigour in public budget, and adequate management of conflicts of interest. 

“But even when necessity compels the prince to do so, he must not live carelessly and detached from affairs, even if he has very capable and loyal ministers. For the body of the States is like natural beings who, lacking the inner warmth of the soul, no remedies or efforts are sufficient to maintain or sustain them so that they do not decay. The prince is the soul of his republic, and for it to live, he must in some way attend to its members and organs” (Saavedra Fajardo, 1958, 54).  

With due regard for contextual differences, in these lines, Saavedra Fajardo alludes, in an incipient way, to the notion of political responsibility. In legal responsibility, if someone commits a crime and is convicted by a judge, they must then serve a sentence, which may consist of imprisonment, a fine or barred from exercising political rights. In political responsibility, if someone has a public position and has committed acts that warrant serious reproach that lead to the loss of the trust of the person who appointed them, they must resign. Resignation or dismissal is the sanction for political responsibility. In addition, the ruler is politically responsible if he has not properly supervised his subordinates –culpa in vigilando– or if he appointed someone and was negligent in not realising how manifestly unsuitable his candidate was for the position –culpa in eligendo-. It is noteworthy that the responsibility of those in power goes beyond merely not committing crimes and, in serious cases, if political responsibility is exercised, the best course of action is to leave public office.

“The strings of this harp of the kingdom are the people. Their nature is monstrous in every way and uneven, fickle and varied. They are governed by appearances without going deeper. They consult rumours. It is poor in means and counsel, unable to distinguish the false from the true; always inclined towards the worst. At any given moment, it is dressed in two contrary affections. But it is led more by them than by reason, more by impetus than by prudence, more by shadows than by truth” (Saavedra Fajardo, 1958,  122-123). 

There has been an elitist tradition in the History of Ideas since Plato. Sartori expressed some misgivings in Homo Videns about videocracy and how the criterion for choosing candidates in political parties was to look for actors or sports stars because they were already famous, because they appeared on television. Umberto Eco criticised social media because it had given a voice to the uninformed who previously hardly anyone listened to. In the digital age, the key is whether the manipulation of people by demagogues becomes even more sophisticated, camouflaged by technological advances.

“Three things are required in resolutions: prudence to deliberate them, skill to arrange them, and perseverance to complete them. All the work and enthusiasm in their principles would be in vain if we were to overlook (as often happens) the ends. With both anchors, it is necessary that prudence secure them” (Saavedra Fajardo, 1958, 140).

This seems like an interesting approach to establishing a strategy. Two sources of inspiration can be identified: Machiavelli and Aristotle. On the one hand, Saavedra Fajardo’s words reveal pragmatism and a matching of means to ends, sometimes referred to as efficiency, which aligns with some of Machiavelli’s writings. On the other hand, there is an emphasis on prudence, which Aristotle considered the virtue of virtues, focusing on practical rationality and aiming at the ends of human beings, happiness or human flourishing. Virtues, according to the Aristotelian perspective, arise as a middle ground between vices, one by default and the other by excess. An appeal to moderation as a guide for human life. 

References

Saavedra Fajardo, Diego de (1958), Empresas políticas o Idea de un príncipe político cristiano representada en cien empresas, vol. III, Madrid: Espasa Calpe, edición y notas de Vicente García de Diego.

Posted on

Franklin Roosevelt, adversity and growth

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882–1945) was the 32nd President of the United States (1933–1945) and a pivotal figure in leading the country out of the Great Depression and through the Second World War. Educated at Harvard and Columbia, and Under Secretary of the Navy between 1913 and 1920, he joined the Democratic Party and achieved exceptional leadership by becoming the only president elected to four consecutive terms. The text, based on a chapter by Doris Kearns Goodwin, highlights his approach to adversity: optimism as a sustained strategy. In 1921, he contracted an illness that left his legs paralysed, prompting reflection on shared vulnerability and how discrimination can cut across different dimensions of identity. The role of Eleanor Roosevelt is also highlighted: her direct criticism, her moral commitment and her closeness to activists broadened the president’s progressive horizons; loyalty, it is suggested, involves criticising with empathy and respecting decisions. In economic policy, Roosevelt took the lead in the face of inaction and conservative resistance, promoting ‘radical’ measures such as unemployment insurance and, once in the presidency, the welfare state, legitimising public intervention to protect social rights and promote material equality.


Keywords: adversity, constructive criticism, welfare state, loyalty, minority, optimism

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was born in New York in 1882 and died in Warm Springs, Georgia, in 1945. He served as President of the United States between 1933 and 1945, becoming the country’s 32nd president. He was a distant cousin of former President Theodore Roosevelt and had studied at Harvard, as well as Columbia University, just like him. He was Assistant Secretary of the Navy between 1913 and 1920, but, unlike his predecessor, Franklin joined the Democratic Party.

Franklin Roosevelt was not just another president in the history of the United States. He was not only the president who managed to rescue the North American power from the most serious economic crisis it had ever experienced, following the stock market crash of 1929. He was the only US president to serve four consecutive terms, lead the nation during the Second World War, and steer the national economy into uncharted territory: Keynesianism.

Kearns Goodwin dedicates a chapter to Franklin Roosevelt in his book Leadership in Turbulent Times: Lessons from the Presidents (2018),  focusing on his approach to adversity and growth. Excerpts from this chapter will be discussed below in the style of the Minerva Strategy Blog. 

“Roosevelt’s irrepressible optimism, his tendency to expect the best outcome in any circumstance, provided the keystone strength that carried him through this traumatic experience. From the outset, he said an objective: a future in which he would fully recover. Although necessity forced him to modify the timetable for attaining this goal, he never lost his conviction that he would eventually succeed” (Goodwin, 2018, 162). 

The previous paragraph must be put into context, as in 1921, Roosevelt contracted an illness that left him permanently paralysed in his legs and confined to a wheelchair. The fact that one of the most powerful men of his time was in a wheelchair can make us reflect on the human condition in terms of mutual vulnerability. I have sometimes argued that we all are in a minority. This means that the experience of discrimination and prejudice in the various dimensions of identity is not alien to human life. In some of these dimensions, people find themselves in the minority and learn what life is like as a left-handed person, a person with dyslexia or an immigrant. The lesson from President Roosevelt is that, in the face of adversity, his strategy was optimism and, from there, a tireless struggle against the circumstances one faces. Indeed, some have seen the meaning of life and the core of human freedom in that struggle.  

“Eleanor, of course, added the most essential dimension to the progressive strain and moral gravity of Franklin Roosevelt’s leadership. “He might have been happier with a wife who was completely uncritical”, she observed in her memoirs, adding, “that I was never able to be”. She was more uncompromising, more straightforward, more deeply involved with activists, whose thoughts challenge conventional boundaries” (Goodwin, 2018, 168).  

Eleanor Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt’s wife and political and life partner, was an essential ingredient in his success. The symbiosis between constructive criticism and loyalty is a component that guarantees a fruitful relationship. Some interpretations confuse loyalty with submission, while on other occasions, criticism is levelled with the central aim of destroying the other person. Being loyal means knowing how to criticise with empathy, putting yourself in the other person’s shoes, thus strengthening the relationship. However, if the other person, after listening to us, wants to go their own way, loyalty to them means respecting their decision. John Stuart Mill must have felt something similar when he wrote in On Liberty about advising a friend who is heading towards a bridge, that no longer exists, and would cause them to fall.

“After waiting through the winter and spring of 1931 for federal initiatives from President Hoover and the Republican administration, Roosevelt resolved in late summer to “assume leadership for himself and to take action for the state of New York”. He summoned the Republican legislature into an extraordinary session to pass what was considered a radical idea, a state-sponsored comprehensive programme of unemployment insurance. He knew from the start that the Republican majority could block his proposal. Like President Hoover, the state Republican leaders believe that private enterprise, charity, and the local government were the sole institutions capable of meeting the economic challenge. Belief brought from the distant level of the state or federal government, they insisted, would only impair the enterprise of the American people and worsen the problem” (Goodwin, 2018, 178). 

One of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s most significant contributions as President of the United States was the implementation of the Welfare State. This is characterised by the State taking an active role in achieving the well-being of its citizens and ensuring their material equality. Social rights, such as education, healthcare, and social security, are protected.  A few years earlier, during President Theodore Roosevelt’s term, there was a precedent for this approach in the case of Lochner v. New York, where the State intervened to regulate bakeries’ hours. This was unprecedented in American constitutional history, which was guided by the idea that the State should refrain from intervening in the Economy. Interestingly, the majority of the Supreme Court overturned the regulation based on a formalistic criterion, grounded in strictly legal variables. However, in a dissenting opinion, Justice Holmes applied a finalistic approach, using economic and sociological arguments to support the measure on bakeries’ hours. Years later, the majority of the Supreme Court changed and became favourable to State intervention in the Economy. Here, we might remember Aristotle and say that it is interesting to consider how Law has form and substance.

References

Goodwin, Doris Kearns (2018), Leadership in Turbulent Times: Lessons from the Presidents, UK: Penguin Books.

Posted on

Diego de Saavedra Fajardo, Political enterprises

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

The text introduces Diego de Saavedra Fajardo (1584–1648), a Spanish diplomat and thinker, and situates his work Empresas políticas o Idea de un príncipe político cristiano representada en cien empresas within the tradition of treatises offering advice on governance. As the author himself explains in the introduction ‘To the Reader’, the book was written in the spare moments afforded by his diplomatic duties and is addressed to Prince Baltasar Carlos, son of Philip IV. Drawing on various passages, the commentary highlights the central importance of a ruler’s education: in a prince, a poor upbringing harms not only himself but also the entire community through the impact of his decisions and his example. “Good education” is understood both as manners based on respect, consideration and honesty, and as virtues that shape character and prevent vices. It is also argued that a wise prince is a guarantee of security, whilst ignorance leads to ruin, opening up the debate on the minimum education required of politicians and the value of expert advice. Finally, history is highlighted as a teacher of political prudence, and the double standards of sectarianism—which confuses vices with virtues depending on the side—are criticised, with a call for equanimity and impartiality.

Palabras clave: good manners, education for democracy, history, politics, sectarianism

ISSN: 3127-3408

https://doi.org/10.67647/minervastrategy.2025.19

Diego de Saavedra Fajardo was a Spanish political writer, literary critic, poet, philosopher and jurist, who was born in Algezares in 1584 and died in Madrid in 1648. He was private secretary to Cardinal Gaspar Borja (1606) and Spanish ambassador to the Papal States. He later served as ambassador to Rome (1631), Germany (1632) and Regensburg (1636), and represented Spain at the conferences in Münster (1643).

In his introduction, “To the Reader”, Saavedra Fajardo explains how the work Empresas políticas o Idea de un príncipe político cristiano representada en cien empresas (1927)/ (Political Enterprises or Idea of a Christian Political Prince Represented in One Hundred Enterprises) came about in the few spare moments his work as a diplomat allowed him. The intended recipient was none other than the son of Philip IV, Prince Baltasar Carlos, who would never reign in Spain, as he died as a child and who inspired Velázquez’s portrait “Príncipe Baltasar Carlos, a caballo”. This work, which consists of several volumes, follows the political philosophy tradition of giving advice to those in positions of power on how to govern better. 

Bellow, excerpts from the book Empresas políticas o Idea de un príncipe político cristiano representada en cien empresasby Diego de Saavedra Fajardo in the style of Minerva Strategy Blog will be discussed.

“This good education is more necessary for princes than for others, because they are instruments of political happiness and public health. For other people, poor education is detrimental to each individual or to a few; in the prince, it is detrimental to him and to all, because some are offended by it, and others by his example” (Saavedra Fajardo, 1927, 84).

The expression “good manners” can be understood as referring to etiquette or as a path to virtue. If we follow the perspective of manners, it is interesting that Emily Post, in her classic book Etiquette’s Manners for a New World,summarises that, rather than archaic rules, good manners are guidelines for life based on respect, consideration and honesty. 

If we follow the perspective of the path to virtue, good education involves shaping character towards dispositions and habits associated with models of excellence, inherent in the practices of human life. In other words, this approach involves fostering virtues and avoiding vices. 

“A wise prince is the security of his subjects, and an ignorant one is their ruin. From this we can infer how barbaric the judgement of Emperor Lucinius was, who called the sciences a public plague and philosophers and orators the poison of republics. No less barbaric was the rebuke of the Goths to the mother of King Alaric, because she taught him literacy, saying that it made him unfit for political matters” (Saavedra Fajardo, 1927, 109).   

Should politicians be required to have a minimum level of education? Can we be governed by ignorant people? Plato’s Myth of the Cave is at the origin of his political ideas, and among his most famous is the notion of the Philosopher King. This approach has been criticised for its elitism. Aristotle, more moderate, argued that the best government is that of the middle class. Politics has its own rationale for decision-making, and it is good to seek advice from experts. Sophists and philosophers were the first educators of Athenian citizens in democracy. In the face of ignorance, it is advisable to learn how to make the best decisions.

“History is the teacher of true politics, and the best teacher of how to reign for a prince, because it contains the experience of all past governments and the prudence and judgement of those who came before. It is an advisor that is with him at all times. From jurisprudence, the prince takes that part that belongs to government, reading the laws and constitutions of his States that deal with it, which Reason of State found and long use approved” (Saavedra Fajardo, 1927, 114).

History explains the present. Understanding how things happened in the past and what criteria were involved at a given moment is crucial. That account comes from History for generations who did not directly experience the events. It is regrettable how easy it is to forget the experiences, sufferings and aspirations of past generations. 

“All human actions have some kind of good as their goal, and because we deceive ourselves in our knowledge of it, we err. The greatest quality seems small in our power, and very great in that of others. We are unaware of our own vices and notice them in others. How gigantic the tyrannical inventions of others appear to us! How dwarfed are our own! We consider vices to be virtues, wanting ambition to be greatness of spirit, cruelty to be justice, prodigality to be liberality, recklessness to be courage, without prudence discerning what is honest from what is evil and what is useful from what is harmful. We are deceived by things when we look at them through the lens of our affections or passions; only benefits should be viewed from both sides” (Saavedra Fajardo,  1927, 130-131).

Sectarianism and factionalism lead to this double standard. There is no truth or falsehood, good or evil; everything depends on whether the person doing it is one of us. The group strengthens itself with closed-mindedness and dogmatism. It would be desirable to use equanimity and impartiality when judging the qualities of others, leaving tribal emotions aside.

References

Post, Peggy et al (2011), Emily Post’s Etiquette: Manners for a New World, William Morrow, Kindle edition.

Saavedra Fajardo, Diego de (1927), Idea de un príncipe político cristiano representada en cien empresas, Madrid: Ediciones de la Lectura, edition and notes of Vicente García de Diego.

Voice “Biografía de Diego de Saavedra Fajardo”, Aula Senior, Universidad de Murcia. Available: https://www.um.es/web/aula-senior/saavedrafajardo/biografia (Last visit: 1 May 2026). 

Posted on

Abraham Lincoln, ambition and recognition of leadership

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

The Minerva Strategy blog series on political leadership begins with Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865), a lawyer and the 16th President of the United States, remembered for his role in the abolition of slavery. Drawing on a chapter dedicated to him by Doris Kearns Goodwin in Leadership in Turbulent Times, the text analyses aspects of his leadership linked to ambition, character and the defence of principles. In a political context marked by aggression and confrontation, Lincoln stood out for responding with irony and good humour, defusing tensions and demonstrating that manner matters in politics too. His rejection of opportunism is highlighted: he preferred to lose office rather than betray his principles for personal gain. On the issue of slavery, he emerges as a leader with non-negotiable values, regarding it as unjust and contrary to human dignity—a lesson that remains relevant in the face of new forms of exploitation. Lincoln also warned against the excessive ambition of charismatic leaders with authoritarian tendencies, which are incompatible with democracy and the rule of law. As an antidote, he advocated renewing respect for the Constitution and investing in civic education: an informed and literate populace, including digital literacy, is key to preserving free institutions and resisting the drift towards authoritarianism.

Palabras clave: democracy, authoritarian drift, education, honesty, leadership, politics

ISSN: 3127-3408

https://doi.org/10.67647/minervastrategy.2025.17

This post starts a series on the Minerva Strategy Blog dedicated to political leadership. The first subject of analysis will be Abraham Lincoln, who was born in Hodgenville, United States, in 1809 and died in Washington in 1865. An American lawyer and politician, he was the 16th President of the United States (1861-1865). Always remembered as the president who abolished slavery, Abraham Lincoln is one of the most admired figures in American history.

On ambition and recognition of leadership, Doris Kearns Goodwin dedicates a chapter to Abraham Lincoln in her book Leadership in Turbulent Times: Lessons from the Presidents (2018). Below, I will discuss excerpts from this chapter in the style of the Minerva Strategy Blog.

“How Lincoln responded to attacks directed against him and his party reveals much about his temperament and the character of his developing leadership. Such was the law of politics in the antebellum era that discussions and debate between Whigs and Democrats regularly attracted the fanatic attraction of hundreds of people. Opponents attacked each other in fiery, abusive language, much of the delight of raucous audiences, inciting an atmosphere that could burst into fistfights, even, on occasion, guns being drawn. While Lincoln was as thin-skinned and prickly as most politicians, his retorts were generally full of such good-humoured raillery that members of both parties could not help but laugh and relax on the pleasure of the entertaining and well-told stories” (Goodwin, 2018, 16). 

In everything, a distinction can be made between content and form. The terms used by Aristotle for these concepts were substance and accident. In many cases, form is very important, even more so than content. For some, politics is tension and polarisation, while a sense of humour and good manners are always welcome. Lincoln was a leader who used irony as a political weapon, while today some persons use rumours, insults or violence. 

“I desire to live, and I desire place and distinction; but I would rather die now than, like the gentleman, live to see the day I would change my politics for an office worth 3000 dollars a year, and then feel compelled to erect a lightning-rod to protect guilty conscience from an offended God” (Goodwin, 2018, 16).

This quote refers to someone who changed political parties due to a new, very lucrative position. Lincoln defended honesty and consistency with one’s own ideals in the face of political opportunism. Therefore, we live in times when politicians feel discredited by the behaviour of some who find private benefits in politics. In the end, it all boils down to one of the great philosophical questions: What is the meaning of life? What is politics?

“By the disproportionate vote of 77 to 6 the Assembly resolved that “we highly disapproved the formation of abolition societies” and hold “sacred” the “right of property in slaves”. Lincoln was among the things who voted no. Registering a formal protest, he proclaimed that “the institution of slavery is found on both injustice and bad politics.” he had always believed, and he later said, that ”if slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong”.  Lincoln’s protest stopped well short of abolitionism (Goodwin, 2018, 17).  

The notion of slavery is contrary to equal human dignity, which is at the core of human rights. However, slavery, which turns human beings into property, has been existed until unusually recent times. Even today, there are cases of forced labour and human trafficking. Lincoln’s leadership lesson is that there are values that cannot be compromised; they are non-negotiable and, on these occasions, it is good to hold fast to one’s convictions.

“While the ambition of the hallowed framers had been ‘inseparable linked’ with building up a constitutional government allowing the people to govern themselves, he feared that in the chaos of the moblike behaviour, men of the likes of ‘an Alexander, a Caesar, or a Napoleon’ would likely seek distinction by boldly setting themselves ‘to the task of pulling down’. Such men of ‘towering’ egos, in whom ambition is divorced from the people’s best interests, were not men to lead a democracy; they were despots” (Goodwin, 2018, 19).  

There is a risk of drifting towards authoritarianism in different countries. Some analysts will argue that democracy is mutating. However, we must be wary of “men with excessive egos”. The rule of law emerged as a reaction to the power of the absolutist king. Locke’s approach emphasises the separation of powers, limited power and the right of resistance if the Social Contract is not fulfilled. Charismatic leaders who accumulate power are a risk to political pluralism, alternance, checks and balances, and the vitality of a democracy of quality. 

“To counter the troublesome ambition of such men, Lincoln called upon his fellow Americans to renew the framers’ values and to embrace the Constitution and its laws. ‘Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother,’ taught in every school, and preached in every pulpit. The great bulwark argument against a potential dictator is an informed people ‘attached to the government and the laws’. This argument takes Lincoln back to his first statement to the people of Sangamon County when he spoke of education as the cornerstone of democracy. Why is education so central? Because, as he said then, every citizen must be able to read history to “appreciate the value of our free institutions” (Goodwin, 2018, 19). 

Emphasis is placed on the role of public education as a prerequisite for democracy and as a form of defence against “a potential dictator”. It is worth considering that education and digital literacy are becoming elements that should be included among the virtues that citizens should cultivate. To make autonomous decisions, it is necessary to be well informed, among other conditions. To appreciate free institutions, education for citizenship is beneficial, as in the early days of democracy, the Sophists stood up to demagogues and authoritarian threats. 

References

Goodwin, Doris Kearns (2018), Leadership in Turbulent Times: Lessons from the Presidents, UK: Penguin Books.