Tag: politics

Posted on

Vicente Montano, Arcane of Princes

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. 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 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.” 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” (Vicente Montano, Arcano de Príncipes).

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” (Vicente Montano, Arcano de Príncipes).

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” (Vicente Montano, Arcano de Príncipes).

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” (Vicente Montano, Arcano de Príncipes).

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.  

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

The Candidate. Media relations handbook 

In the series of posts about handbooks, this one will deal with the work The candidate. Media relations handbook (for politicians and journalists)/El candidato. Manual de relaciones con los medios (para políticos y periodistas), written by Julio César Herrero and Amalio Rodríguez Chuliá in 2008. It seems that political candidates have to deal with the media, and with journalists, to achieve their objectives. This book seeks to give practical and entertaining advice on various situations, and how best to deal with them, in the world of communication. 

Julio César Herrero is a journalist, university professor, writer and specialist in political communication and marketing born in Mieres, Asturias, in 1973. He holds a PhD in Journalism from the Complutense University of Madrid and has developed an outstanding career in the academic, journalistic and political consultancy fields. He maintains a personal website. 

Amalio Rodríguez Chuliá (Catarroja, Valencia, 1971) is a Spanish scriptwriter, creative artist, journalist, playwright and television format creator with a diverse career in media, advertising and political communication.

The following are commentaries of the excerpts from the book El candidato. Manual de relaciones con los medios (para políticos y periodistas), written by Julio César Herrero and Amalio Rodríguez Chuliá in the style of Minerva Strategy Blog.

“This book is, in essence, a political marketing handbook. Most of the literature that exists on the subject it deals with is American. Unfortunately, in Spain, hardly any texts have been published that deal, from the inside, with the subject of this one: the relations between politicians and the media from a practical point of view” (Julio César Herrero, Amalio Rodríguez Chuliá, El candidato. Manual de relaciones con los medios (para políticos y periodistas)).

One of the usual objectives of marketing is to sell products and, by extension, political marketing seeks to sell candidates or parties in electoral contests. The goal of the latter is to get people to vote and the medium, traditionally, has been the mainstream media, especially television. Currently, social networks are of great importance, with phenomena such as the “filter bubbles“, where the personalisation of preferences for users on the network, means that they only receive news or messages in line with their ideology, and never views from other perspectives.  

“Shocking. Making statements that, not so much in substance but in form, catch the journalist’s attention is the best way for them to become a headline (in ‘cut’ and radio, in ‘soundbite’ for television). It is by no means about being alarming or extravagant in the statements, but it is about being original. The use of analogies, metaphors or other literary devices makes the language break out of the routine and catches the eye” (Julio César Herrero, Amalio Rodríguez Chuliá, El candidato. Manual de relaciones con los medios (para políticos y periodistas)).

In his work Homo Videns. La sociedad teledirigida/ Homo Videns: The Remote-Controlled Society, Sartori talked about how television changed democracy. It is worth reflecting on how social networks can change the practice of democratic societies, for example, by encouraging political activism or accountability, but also by giving fuel to demagogy and disinformation. 

One of the issues that Sartori points out is that what is relevant nowadays is to appear in the media; this gives media power, as opposed to the former prestige of intellectuals. When political parties look for a candidate, they prefer a profile such as a sportsman or an actor, or similar, who already have media power. However, the media power of someone does not guarantee that they have the virtues of a good governor or public representative.

“When journalists use information from unnamed sources, they often use expressions such as “according to well-informed sources”, “sources close to” or “according to one of the advisers”, depending on the extent to which the journalist wishes to indicate the provenance of the information.

Up to this point, reference has been made to circumstances where the journalist knows the identity of the source, but chooses not to reveal it. It is a different matter when the journalist does not know the identity of the source. In this case, we are dealing with a leak. Information that is always of interest to the journalist, but which he or she is unaware that he or she is providing it. It is the journalist’s obligation to check the data before publishing or disseminating it”. (Julio César Herrero, Amalio Rodríguez Chuliá, El candidato. Manual de relaciones con los medios (para políticos y periodistas)).

This is still the case in general terms, but there is a new element to take into account in the post-truth and social media era: disintermediation. There are conventional media, which are usually committed to the principles of professional journalistic ethics, such as the search for truth, impartiality or honesty. Nowadays, in social networks and in some media, issuers of disinformation coexist, which has several variants, the best known of which are fake news. There is great controversy about this concept, and its viability as a political weapon/etiquette, however, there is a broad consensus on its deliberate intention to deceive or confuse. Once again, we reiterate the importance of following the duties, values and virtues of journalistic deontology, which make up the ideal profile that information professionals must have.   

“Do not abuse technical jargon. Jargon, i.e. terms specific to a trade or profession, can be used in a speech as long as they are not abused. It depends on the audience you are addressing. If they are specialised listeners, there will be no problem in using terms that only the politician and the audience are familiar with: no one else should understand them, although this is not usual. But if the audience does not master a subject in which technical terms are frequently used, the politician will have to make an effort to translate these terms so that the listeners can understand what he or she is saying”. (Julio César Herrero, Amalio Rodríguez Chuliá, El candidato. Manual de relaciones con los medios (para políticos y periodistas)).

This handbook with the media refers to the fact that the candidate must simplify complex issues or terms in order to be understood by wide audiences. Ortega y Gasset is credited with saying that clarity is the courtesy of the philosopher. It is important to be clear in public discourse, but one must know how to communicate well, at the risk of falling into simplification, manichaeism or demagoguery. Political issues do not usually have black/white solutions, but it is necessary for politics to become a good pedagogy to explain the management of the range of greys that make up public affairs. 

Fundamental principles of a good polemicist 

“1.-A good polemicist never tries to convince his opponent of anything. 

2.-A good polemicist chooses the sector of the audience he wants to address. 

3.-The good polemicist is the first to define the terms of the debate.

4.- A good polemicist prefers to ask questions rather than answer them. 

5.- A good polemicist repeats, repeats and, if there is time, repeats. 

6.- A good polemicist knows how to use the same argument in several ways. 

7.- A good polemicist, perhaps a very good debater, wins with his own weapons, but above all, fundamentally, with those of his opponent.

8.- The good polemicist handles fallacies to perfection and strives to prevent the other side from using them. If he succeeds, he exposes and ridicules them so that the audience can decide” (Julio César Herrero, Amalio Rodríguez Chuliá,El candidato. Manual de relaciones con los medios (para políticos y periodistas)).

I would like to conclude with reflections on the Fundamental Principles of the Good Polemicist, which is proposed in this handbook. As mentioned at the beginning, the aim of this work is political marketing from a practical perspective and, for such a goal, the effectiveness of this advice could be contextualised. 

The ideal of deliberative democracy, where debates allow for persuading and being persuaded, participants are rational and reasonable, and agreements can be forged based on fairness or unanimity, would seem to have limited effect in practical politics, as actors are more interested in following the tactics of good polemicists.

In the end, there is nothing new under the sun. Many centuries ago, the sophists educated in rhetorical tactics and strategies, to increase the power of conviction of their pupils, citizens of the polis of Athens, to debate public affairs in the Agora. This was a form of education for democracy, which was based on good polemicists. Now, as then, it is easier to fall into polemics than to engage in good dialogues, when it is obvious that the quality of democracy is improved by the quality of public deliberation. 

Posted on

Handbook of the perfect parliamentarian

We continue with the series dedicated to handbooks. On this occasion, the Manual del perfecto parlamentario (Handbook of the perfect parliamentarian) by Mario Merlino. It is a work with a markedly humorous tone, which was written at a time of political changes in Spain, and popularising work in favour of a political culture of parliamentarism was noteworthy. 

Mario-Jorge Merlino Tornini (1948-2009), Argentina/Spain, was a writer and literary translator of works mainly written in Portuguese, Italian and English. He studied at the University of Bahía Blanca and had a radio programme with his friend César Aria. He has translated, among other authors, Jorge Amado, Clarice Lispector, Lygia Bojunga Nunes and Ana María Machado. In 2004 he received the Spanish National Prize for best translation for Auto dos condenados, by António Lobo Antunes.

The Handbook of the Perfect Parliamentarian was written by Mario Merlino and published by Altalena in 1981. Excerpts from this book will be commented using the style of Minerva Strategy Blog.

“The parliamentarian is a rare professional, it is said, ‘professional of a badly organised job’. He or she is a trainee in public affairs. An Italian, Giovanni Sartori, speaks of the professionalisation of politics. From a characterological point of view, he stresses that the parliamentarian (that professional politician) must be able to manoeuvre -manipulative skills-and that this fact (malicious Sartori!) implies opportunism and lack of principles” (Mario Merlino, Manual del perfecto parlamentario).

The parliamentarian must have manipulative skills, which implies opportunism and lack of principle, as this Handbook suggests. A distinction should be made between technique and objectives. Good strategy involves using the best means to achieve the proposed objectives; it is purely a question of effectiveness. These means may include tactics and stratagems. Parliamentarians’ goals relate to justice or public ethics; however, since Machiavelli, a politician’s primary goal is often considered to be to stay in power, for which they become professionals.   

“Parliament, as a fundamental institution of democracy, and as its etymology indicates, is the place where people talk and chatter. We have not always thought about the importance of what it means to institute the power of speech. Of course, you will say that we often talk too much, or that words are pretexts for postponing solutions, and the good thing, if short, is twice as good, OK. But apart from that, the Parliament, properly understood, is the right place to confront opinions, discuss or dynamically put different positions on different problems” (Mario Merlino, Manual del perfecto parlamentario).

Carl Schmitt, in the 1930s, criticised the democratic parliament as an empty formality, showing autocracy as an alternative. Periodically, parliament, which is perfectible, is criticised. It is the place for negotiation and compromise. In addition to the competition for votes each election period, parliamentarians have a responsibility to ensure that their work is close to the interests of citizens and that they are properly accountable. Ideally, parliamentary debates should be complemented by deliberative mechanisms that involve the population in some way. 

“There is no way today that the ideology of the people of one side can be changed or improved by that of the other. The controversies of the sectarians are contrived and always false. Each ideology, which is generally a collection of commonplaces, defends itself by closing itself off like an oyster”. (Pío Baroja).

From the ‘end of ideologies’ – Bell – or the ‘end of history’ – Fukuyama – we are moving to a stage of an apparent revival of conflicts, which are often based on identity-related issues rather than socio-economic explanations. Political correctness and the cancel culture are current examples of identity politics. Here the roles seem to have been reversed: the left, once utopian, seeks to regulate, prohibit and intervene, while the right, traditionally associated with conservatism, has become libertarian and, in a way, anarchist. It seems that the dynamics of sectarianism and polarisation are in the interest of some political sectors, but they make citizens, especially young people, uninterested in politics.  

“This left, centre and right thing, let’s face it, arose as a problem of geometrical arrangement and, no doubt, as a function of the architectural possibilities of parliamentary space. England’s oldest parliamentary democracy provides an example of the link between physical location and ideological choice. The Tories, ardent supporters of the monarchy, sat to the right of the speaker. The Whigs, on the other hand, were on the left. The French set the “parliamentary cliché” of the situation on the right, centre and left, equivalent respectively to the Montagnard, Girondins and Jacobins. These are the times of the Revolution” (Mario Merlino, Manual del perfecto parlamentario).

Left and right are terms of parliamentary geometry, from the very beginning.  Faced with the disorientation of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Bobbio wrote Left and Right and focused the distinction on the different approaches to inequality. That is, whether redistribution of resources to the less advantaged is justified, whether by genetic lottery or by social circumstances. It is important that there is broad social – and political – consensus on the implementation of human rights, especially when it comes to social rights or minority rights. Some contents of public ethics in European countries have been incorporating these consensuses, while in other parts of the world, such as China or the United States, there are different perspectives. 

“Crisis: it is a word that produces fear because it is always used in a negative sense: what crisis, there is an economic, social, ideas, values, moral, religious and even marital crisis. 

A good parliamentarian should vindicate the fertilising power (with apologies) of the CRISIS. We must not forget that crisis is linked to criticism. To put in crisis means, fundamentally, to look for new ways to solve problems, that is, to solve, if you like, the crises that are so abundant in these times”. (Mario Merlino, Manual del perfecto parlamentario).

In times of crisis, there is a need for real leaders. Parliament can be a forum for providing solutions to crises. The etymological origin of the term krisis in Greek means “decision”, “judgement” or “turning point”. Crises should be seen as opportunities to improve and emerge stronger. Some commentators have the opinion that we are in a permanent crisis; even more reason why Parliament should be the place to seek solutions and take decisions for the common good.