Category: Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Posted on

Vicente Montano, Arcane of Princes

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

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

Abstract

Manuel Martín Rodríguez’s preliminary study on Arcano de Príncipes argues, following Cánovas del Castillo and Robert S. Smith, that there is a 17th-century manuscript considered to be a precursor to Malthus. Smith documents that this manuscript, found in the National Library, is not anonymous: it is signed by Captain Vicente Montano and dated 19 September 1681. It is not, however, a demographic treatise, but rather a compilation of political precepts comparable to Machiavelli and Bodin, dedicated to the Duke of Medinaceli, minister to Charles II. Drawing on fragments annotated ‘in the style of Minerva’s Strategy’, several theses are highlighted: the utility of war and provisioning as means to distract and subdue the people (‘bread and circuses’); the advisability of avoiding perpetual provincial governments to reduce resistance and the risks of corruption; and the use of ambiguity and obscure language as a technique of simulation and dissimulation to legitimise decisions without revealing their true aims. Finally, the strategic relationship between war and peace is examined, along with the place of truth in government action, highlighting the Machiavellian logic of the preservation of power.

Keywords: Machiavellianism, bread and circuses, accountability

In Manuel Martín Rodríguez’s preliminary study of the work Arcano de Príncipes /Arcane of Princes in the edition published by the Spanish Centre for Constitutional Studies/Centro de Estudios Constitucionales, it is argued that Cánovas del Castillo was the first to mention an anonymous manuscript that was a true precursor to Malthus (Martín Rodríguez, 1986, XIII).  As Robert S. Smith explains in the article “Spanish Malthusianism in the 17th Century“: “A recent search in the National Library in Madrid has uncovered a manuscript entitled Arcano de Príncipes, which is clearly the work consulted by Cánovas del Castillo, although it is not the copy he used. The manuscript in the National Library bears the name of its author, Captain Vicente Montano, and is dated 19 September 1681″ (Smith, 1955, 351).

Smith adds: “The Arcano de Príncipes is not a treatise on population but rather a compilation of political precepts comparable to the writings of Machiavelli, Bodin and (among Spaniards) Saavedra Fajardo. The essay is dedicated to the Duke of Medinaceli, chamberlain and prime minister of Charles II” (Smith, 1955, 351).  Once again, political philosophers are close to the exercise of power, although they do not wield it, and seek to provide the best advice for the exercise of public responsibilities, a fruitful combination of Theory and Practice.

Next, excerpts from Vicente Montano’s Arcano de Príncipes will be discussed in the style of Estrategia Minerva Blog.

“The surest occupation, and one that brings princes the benefit for which they seek it, is to wage war as soon as the common people begin to discuss the government, for, contenting themselves with talking only about matters pertaining to the public state, they extend their curiosity to abundance, since, once war is waged, they usually buy their daily sustenance, and in this way, having nothing to do but eat, and their thoughts being base and vile, they never raise their spirits to sublime and painful things that might give their princes cause for concern. The satirist Juvenal understood well, in two words, the way to keep it more pleasant, which is to give it bread and festivals, a sentence that applies to all domains” (Montano, 1986, 18).

How beautifully expressed in these lines is the universal principle of “panem et circenses” (bread and circuses)! It seems that in Rome they already knew how to manipulate the people based on their appetites. The incisive point made by Captain Montano is that the way to entertain the people was to wage war, which would greatly occupy their conversations, combined with an abundance of food, resulting in minimal problems for the government. A universal recipe for politics, since Juvenal. 

“The present King of France, having recognised that the perpetual governments enjoyed by the Princes of the blood had at other times served as a support to give greater rigour to the concerns of the Kingdom, has divided the provinces in another way, varying their governors and changing them when he sees fit. The dignitaries of a monarchy should not remain in the government of the provinces for life, because when a new successor is appointed, they find it very difficult to relinquish their command” (Montano, 1986, 46). 

Holding public office for many years gives incumbents a wealth of experience, but, as is often pointed out, there is a greater risk of corruption. If constitutionalism emerged as an approach that sought to affirm that all power had limits in the face of absolutism, democracy implies that public officials must be accountable for their actions. This means explaining the actions taken, justifying them, and being rewarded or punished for them. This is linked to transparency and accountability as inherent characteristics of a democracy of quality.

“There are many traces, maxims, and stratagems that the Prince can use to make the world believe that everything he does is based on reason and justice, without the common people being able to penetrate any of his operations, deceiving even the wisest and most prudent so that they do not recognise the ambiguity of his intentions, however great they may be, dressing his speeches in obscure words and profound concepts, even when he appears to be making himself clearly understood” (Montano, 1986, 52-53). 

This paragraph seems to have been written by Machiavelli, who can be interpreted  in different ways, some more elitist, others more republican. One possible reading is that he recommends that rulers engage in simulation and dissimulation to achieve their predetermined objectives, without any necessary link to morality. This is political rationality, which has its own rules and is autonomous from ethics and religion. In this paragraph of Arcano de Príncipes, we sense the Machiavellian Machiavelli giving stark advice. 

“And except for some ministers of the first rank, who share the burden of government, the rest of the subordinates must live as blind as the lowest common people. However, to completely blindfold the vassals, and make them believe that the Prince is working for their greater good and tranquillity, he must flatter them with the peace they have so desired during the war, without them being able to see through this deception. Having already disturbed the peace by the desire for war, he cannot abandon war for the sake of peace, because in peace the vassals do not die except in accordance with the merits of their crimes, but in war, the innocent and the guilty share the same fate” (Montano, 1986, 53).

Vicente Montano combines two variables: the role of truth in politics and the strategic use of war and peace. As mentioned above, Arcano de Príncipes is in line with Machiavelli’s thought, where political expediency, and among these, the main one of remaining in power, must guide the actions of the ruler, who must publicly maintain an irreproachable and convincing position, the result of hypocrisy towards their true interests. Using war and peace within political calculations is regrettable but common. Wars often cause many casualties and irreparable damage, and it would be desirable for exceptional situations to elicit exceptional responses. However, this point of view is not always shared.  

References

Montano, Vicente (1986), Arcano de príncipes, Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales, preliminary study of  Manuel Martín Rodríguez.

Smith, Robert S. (1955), “Maltusianismo español del siglo XVII: el Arcano de príncipes de Vicente Montano”, El Trimestre Económico, 22(87), 350–358. Available: https://www.eltrimestreeconomico.com.mx/index.php/te/article/view/2417 (Las visit: 2 May 2026).

Posted on

The demagogue’s handbook

I will continue with the series dedicated to handbooks, with the book Manual del demagogo (The demagogue’s handbook), written by Raoul Frary. This work is published in Spanish by Sequitur, and the editing and translation are by Miguel Catalán.

The author of the book, Henry François Raoul Frary, born on 17 April 1842 in Tracy-le-Mont and died on 19 April 1892 in Plessis-Bouchard, was a French professor, journalist and essayist.

According to Fernando Savater’s summary in a column entitled “Consejos (Advices)“, Frary wrote this pamphlet “with the advice of a seasoned politician to an aspiring demagogue, that is, to guide others by pulling the reins and obtaining the best benefits for himself.” In the prologue, Miguel Catalán describes the author as an “idealist disguised as a cynic.” The irony and sense of humour that permeate the lines of this work are remarkable. While dealing with very serious issues, the tone used is somewhat frivolous, which invites complicity and reflection.  

Next, excerpts from Raoul Frary’s work Manual del demogogo will be discussed, in the style of Minerva Strategy Blog.

“Let us emphasise from the outset that praise is never strong enough. It is not good to be rude, but there is no problem with being excessive in flattery. Rarely are so many good things said about us as we think we deserve (…) The least justified compliments are often the most welcome: they are more novel. Persuading an apathetic person of their courage, a debauched person of their wisdom, and a fool of their intelligence is the pinnacle of art. But one must know how to act with delicacy and not bring the censer out into the public sphere. Success is achieved by using tact and choosing your evidence well” (Raoul Frary, Manual del demagogo, II.2).

Flattery is one of the favourite weapons of demagogues. Nothing pleases the ears more than praising words that applaud the audience. While this is true as a general principle, there is a real art to praise. This is because praise, to have the best effect, must appear sincere or be the subject of serious analysis. Excessive flattery can backfire by coming across as artificial and insincere, material for gullible people who do not question the true intentions of those who use so many flattering expressions. 

“Herein lies one of the secrets of demagoguery, if I may call a method whose excellence is obvious a secret. All the passions and interests of the world would not suffice without the pride of faith. The French during the Revolution would not have endured such a harsh government, such severe deprivation and such terrible dangers, if they had not felt so flattered by the promulgation of a new dogma (…) it is not necessary for the dogma to be true, nor for it to be noble, nor for it to be clear and understandable. It is enough that it is believed and that the believer feels proud to believe”  (Raoul Frary, Manual del demagogo, II.2).

Parallels are sometimes drawn between religion and politics. Here, we seek to reflect on attitudes towards political beliefs that are assimilated into the dogmatism of a faith, into the beliefs of a religious believer. Ideologies tend to have a conception of the world —values about what society or human beings should be— where they often mix scientific knowledge with emotional components and a powerful mobilising effect. Frary warns that these political ideologies have elements of religious faith and that this motivates their believers. This brings to mind some current debates, raised from sectarian perspectives, where people always want to be right, leaving no room for temperance, tolerance and consensus.   

“The moralist teaches us patience, sobriety in pleasures, moderation in desires, and the consequences of our efforts. He constantly directs our attention to those who have succeeded through their own merit and those who have fallen through their mistakes. He reduces the responsibility of Fortune and increases our own responsibility. He diminishes the power of laws and enhances the power of customs. The demagogue does just the opposite. He asserts that Fortune distributes her gifts blindly, that success is due to chance, perhaps even to vice, that the unfortunate are victims of an artificial fatality, that misery is inevitable in today’s society. Far from exhorting us to become better, he does not even admit that it depends on us. If our habits are bad, he pretends to ignore them; he does not suspect that the weaknesses of our behaviour reinforce the difficulties of our existence. He rails against social climbers and ridicules edifying tales of morality put into practice. He diminishes the responsibility of customs in all things in order to increase that of laws. He does not instil patience in us, nor does he make us reflect on our fault” (Raoul Frary, Manual del demogogo, II.3).

In this passage, Frary compares the moralist and the demagogue, whose aims and advice differ greatly. The former exhorts moderation and a responsible approach to life, while the latter does not call for a change in behaviour, since success is due to chance, appealing to the responsibility of laws rather than customs. However, the fundamental difference between the two is omitted in Frary’s text: the demagogue has spurious aims, generally to obtain his own benefit or that of his group, while the moralist would generally seek the good of those he seeks to advise.

“The envious person says to himself: ‘Inequality is unjust. It is possible, and even easy, to eliminate it. If it is eliminated, it will benefit me.’ If you want to stir up demagogic envy and use it to your advantage, you can never emphasise these three propositions enough, to place them beyond all doubt, to root them ever more deeply in people’s minds and hearts” (Raoul Frary, Manual del demagogo, II.6).

There are entire libraries dedicated to the subject of this paragraph from the work Manual del demagogo. The Spanish Royal Academy of Language defines envy as “sadness or regret for the good fortune of others.” There are people who suffer greatly from the successes of others, and the worst thing about envy is the actions it sometimes provokes from the envious person. On the other hand, the fight against certain social and economic inequalities is the legitimate objective of the social and democratic rule of law. Frary’s reasoning takes an argumentative leap when he asserts that it is easy to eliminate inequality. First, we must distinguish what type of inequality we are dealing with, whether it affects politics (inclusion), economy (redistribution) or culture (recognition). If the ultimate goal is to eliminate inequality, it will not be easy, but it is a task that can engage society. However, Frary was warning against the demagogic use of inequality, linked to envy. And again, the question is: What are the demagogue’s objectives?

Posted on

Thomas More, Utopia

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

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

Resumen

This text presents an annotated reading of Thomas More’s Utopia (1516), combining historical contextualisation with a philosophical and moral analysis of several significant passages. After situating More as a jurist and statesman executed for his opposition to Henry VIII’s break with Rome, the utopian ideal is explored as a critique of private vices and social inequalities: the prohibition of idleness, the absence of opportunities for corruption, and the equitable distribution of goods are presented as institutional conditions for preventing poverty and begging. Drawing on selected quotations, the relationship between happiness, pleasure and virtue is discussed, linking More’s proposal to the Aristotelian tradition of eudaimonia and emphasising the centrality of temperance and prudence. The commentary also addresses the tension between self-interest and the common good through various formulations of reciprocity (the Silver, Gold and Platinum Rules), and examines examples where form and moral substance are at odds, such as the wedding ceremony or the mockery of disability. Overall, the paper proposes understanding Utopia as a laboratory of norms and values for reflecting on social justice, the limits of humour and inclusive coexistence.

Palabras clave: Utopia, Golden Rule, honesty, humor

Sir Thomas More (1478-1535),  who was executed in July 1535 for his resistance to supporting the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church of Rome, was a jurist, intellectual, statesman and Lord Chancellor of Henry VIII of England, who ruled from 1509 to 1547. A highly principled man of deep values, More disagreed with the monarch’s divorce from his first wife, Catherine of Aragon (1485-1536), and especially with the promotion of Henry as head of the Church of England in place of the pope. Before his foray into politics, Thomas More was a renowned writer and scholar, and his most recognisable work today is Utopia, which presents a philosophical description of an ideal society set on an island.

Below, some passages from Thomas More’s Utopia (2000) will be discussed in the style of the Minerva Strategy Blog.

“There are no taverns, no ale-houses, nor stews among them, nor any other occasions of corrupting each other, of getting into corners, or forming themselves into parties; all men live in full view, so that all are obliged both to perform their ordinary task and to employ themselves well in their spare hours; and it is certain that a people thus ordered must live in great abundance of all things, and these being equally distributed among them, no man can want or be obliged to beg” (More, 2000).

It is significant that Thomas More’s utopian society discards private vices: alcohol, prostitution, gossip, the underworld, and rather, citizens focus on honest work. This means that goods should be distributed equally, without great inequalities or the tale of the lazy grasshopper and the hard-working ant.

“Yet they do not place happiness in all sorts of pleasures, but only in those that in themselves are good and honest. There is a party among them who place happiness in bare virtue; others think that our natures are conducted by virtue to happiness, as that which is the chief good of man. They define virtue thus—that it is a living according to Nature” (More, 2000).

Aristotle argues that the purpose of human beings is eudaimonia, a Greek term usually translated as happiness, human flourishing, or good life. This concept is linked to the exercise of virtues such as prudence or temperance. However, there are different conceptions of happiness and pleasure, which some positions unify. What Thomas More says here is that only good and honest pleasure leads to happiness. His life is an example of honesty and courage in dying for what he believed in, against his personal well-being. 

““They think it is an evidence of true wisdom for a man to pursue his own advantage as far as the laws allow it, they account it piety to prefer the public good to one’s private concerns, but they think it unjust for a man to seek for pleasure by snatching another man’s pleasures from him; and, on the contrary, they think it a sign of a gentle and good soul for a man to dispense with his own advantage for the good of others, and that by this means a good man finds as much pleasure one way as he parts with another; for as he may expect the like from others when he may come to need it, so, if that should fail him, yet the sense of a good action, and the reflections that he makes on the love and gratitude of those whom he has so obliged, gives the mind more pleasure than the body could have found in that from which it had restrained itself” (More, 2000).

There are several levels of possible strategic interactions between human beings: a) Silver Rule: Reciprocate the response obtained from the other party. It is the biblical ‘an eye for an eye’ or TITforTAT strategy; b) Golden Rule as reciprocity expectation: Treat others as you would like to be treated, with the expectation that they will do the same to you in the future; c) Golden Rule as unlimited altruism: Treat others as you would like to be treated, as part of your philosophy, without expecting anything in return. It is known as love your enemy; d) Platinum Rule: Treat others as others would like to be treated. Here the aim is to go against the particularism of the Golden Rule, which can have its variants of reciprocity and unlimited altruism. 

What is interesting here is that More speaks, in relation to good deeds, of reciprocity of benefits and of conscience as two indicators of the moral rightness of an action. Which of the rules analysed was he referring to?

“Yet they do not place happiness in all sorts of pleasures, but only in those that in themselves are good and honest. There is a party among them who place happiness in bare virtue; others think that our natures are conducted by virtue to happiness, as that which is the chief good of man. They define virtue thus—that it is a living according to Nature” (More, 2000).

Choosing the person with whom to share one’s life requires prudence and a proper assessment of several factors. Foremost among these are the character traits with which to deal with everyday conflicts. As Thomas More warns, it is somewhat inept that part of the nuptial ritual is to briefly show the future spouse naked.  Once again, the relevance between the substance and the form of a relationship, between what is important and what is superficial, is fundamental. 

“There was a Jester standing by, that counterfeited the fool so naturally that he seemed to be really one; the jests which he offered were so cold and dull that we laughed more at him than at them, yet sometimes he said, as it were by chance, things that were not unpleasant, so as to justify the old proverb, ‘That he who throws the dice often, will sometimes have a lucky hit.’ When one of the company had said that I had taken care of the thieves, and the Cardinal had taken care of the vagabonds, so that there remained nothing but that some public provision might be made for the poor whom sickness or old age had disabled from labour” (More, 2000).

The limits of humour in the age of political correctness have become controversial. Laughing at the ignorance or foolishness of the public can be an easy resource. One might expect humour to have a healthy function of social criticism, rather than a reinforcement of prejudices and stereotypes that are already ingrained. In the case posed by Thomas More, making humour about people with disabilities because of their condition is not justified as humour that is compatible with human rights, intelligent humour that makes us think, or humour that invites us to consider values for a more open, plural, and inclusive society, where there is room for everyone. 

References

More, Thomas (2000), Utopia, The Project Gutemberg, Morely, Henry (ed.),  available:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2130/2130-h/2130-h.htm (last visit: 17-5-26).