Author Archives: Christian Horn

Luo Lei–A Machiavellian Prince?

Posted on by
21

In Harvey Mansfield’s introduction to The Prince, he writes “The essence of politics is that ‘you can get away with murder’: that no divine sanction, or degradation of soul, or twinge of conscience will come to punish you.” Such views are extremely apt to the 2007 documentary “Please Vote for Me”. In fact, Machiavelli would agree with Luo Lei’s coming to power–is Luo Lei a Machiavellian prince? Luo Lei’s successful election rests upon his (or more so, his parent’s) ability to understanding his opponents and the “political atmosphere” of the primary school. In the middle of the documentary, Cheng Cheng manages to swerve the voters’ opinions on his opponents (Xiaofei and Luo Lei), resulting in his being a frontrunner for the class monitor position.  When Luo Lei wants to quit, his parents suggest that he take the entire class on the monorail to “show off” and “improve [his] relationship with [his] classmates.” The classes trip to the monorail places Luo Lei in a popular standing, one above Cheng Cheng. Machiavelli would agree with this “virtuous” act. Machiavelli views the ordinary people as simple beings, individuals that will either like or dislike the Prince. Luo Lei manages to find himself in the good graces of his voters while simultaneously asserting his dominance as the son of the director of the police department. In bringing his classmates to the monorail, Luo Lei also diminishes Cheng Cheng’s criticisms of him. Through this small, seemingly innocent act, Luo Lei manages to gain popularity, assert dominance, and fight the threat of foreign power—all aspect Machiavelli would condone. To counter this act, Cheng Cheng and Xiaofei join forces to “expose” Luo Lei’s tyrannical acts. Does it work? Although Luo Lei seems to be a violent tyrants, he still manages to receive the most votes. As the teacher in the documentary says, “[the students] are the master of [their] own choice.” But, why did Luo Lei win after his opponents expose his amoral behavior? Something about Luo Lei’s leadership style was appealing enough for the students to vote for him as class monitor for the third year in a row. It would be hard to argue that voter-fraud occurred in this elementary school class. Luo Lei won because democracy took place. Luo Lei won the majority of the vote despite Cheng Cheng’s and Xiaofei’s attempts to poison the public against him. The majority of his classmates saw him as the best possible option. Did you?

Democracy–An End Goal?

Posted on by
2

Fareed Zakaria separates the notions of democracy from liberalism, claiming that the United States and other counties worldwide have moved towards states of illiberal democracy. Zakaria defines illiberal democracies as “democratically elected regimes often re-elected or reinforced by referendums that ignore the constitutional limits of their power and deprive their citizens of basic rights and liberties.” According to Foa and Mounk, citizens are disenfranchised and seemingly conscious with the illiberal democracies they live in. The two attempt to explain this phenomenon with three explanations: material wealth, increasing wealth gap, and democracy’s loss of legitimacy. Foa and Mounk conclude that democracy’s path is uncertain whilst Zakaria takes that a step further, bargaining with the idea that authoritarianism might be the most stable alternative to liberalism. Nonetheless, both of these articles are extremely relevant in determining the flaws and survival of democracy.

Democracy in practice differs between countries, making it impossible to determine its survival on the global platform. The growing threats to national security (terrorism, political violence, economic depression) push democracies to question their institutions. In class, we discussed Zakaria’s view of democratic development—a country must have order and rule before it can have freedom (democracy). However, why should democracy be the end goal? Rwanda, a country currently in the “order and rule” state is flourishing. Drawing from my gap year working for a non-profit in Uganda, I refer to Rwanda as a model for Sub-Saharan development. The economy is growing exponentially, the school attendance is the highest in the region, and the parliament seats are occupied by more women than men. Will democracy destabilize the parliaments efforts in rebuilding Rwanda? If a regime in place works and people are happy, why change it? Zakaria himself agrees that authoritarianism might be an alternative to liberal democracy. Democracy itself also has it perils, one main example being its relationship with capitalism. Capitalism, in any existing form, is inconsistent with democracy. Capitalism is based on a hierarchy, a production for profit rather than need, an accumulation of capital, a deprivation and subordination of others—elements that align with plutocracy rather than democracy. Noam Chomsky claims that Americans on the lower 70% of the income scale have no influence whatsoever on policy. Influence in politics slowly increases moving up the income scale. Globally, capitalism invites enormous disparity of influence over policy. This begs the ultimate question should every country strive for democracy even if it’s the second-best alternative?

 

Modernity and Authority

Posted on by
2

Daniel Lerner’s “The Grocer and the Chief” highlights the mass development of the small, Turkish village of Balgat. At a first glance, Lerner’s account indicates that Balgat’s modernity hinges on its material development—access to clean water and electricity, development of roads and infrastructure, incorporation as a district of Greater Ankara. However, as the narrative continues, Lerner points to a shift in the general attitude toward change. Tosun, through the preliminary interviews, points to an overwhelming dedication to Turkish tradition, limiting the development of this village. The Grocer, however, deviated from this notion by “want[ing] better things”, by wanting more for the village. According to Tosun, the Grocer called for a sustainable type of development, one that would bring infrastructure and economic prosperity to the village. It took the intervention of the Demokrat party to instill ideals of development akin to those expressed by The Grocer. Nonetheless, Lerner conveys the image of a once village turned town—a perfect representation of modernity—whilst discrediting the many discrepancies of Tosun’s conclusions. Lerner implies that Tosun himself was uncomfortable with the idea of development and hence was dismissive of the Grocer’s forward thinking ideas. Lerner actively compares Tosun’s arguments to the reality seen before him. In this sense, Lerner is a reliable narrator, presenting us with a more holistic presentation of Balgat—one that is rooted in the past, the present, and the future. However, it is hard to view Lerner as more than a reliable narrator. Learner studied Balgat from the perspective of an American reading the account of a Turkish city-dweller. Lerner, like many of us, is hindered by his own cultural expectations.

Science, Stories, and Statistics: Russian Depopulation

Posted on by
Reply

Science is defined as “a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject”—a concept seemingly straightforward. In the article “The Dying Russian”, Masha Gessen attempts to explain the phenomena of increased mortality in Russia through the lens of different stems of “science”— anthropology (Michelle Parsons) and economics (Nicholas Eberstadt). Gessen deems Parson’s attempt futile as her primary sources of information (Muscovites) have had their memories transformed by time, by years of social and economic upheaval. Gessen continues his account by examining Eberstadt’s conclusions in respect to the problem at hand. Gessen questions Eberstadt’s efforts to remain unbiased by looking solely at figures and ignoring culture. By contrasting these two different approaches of analysis, Gessen brings light to the Hedgehog/Fox argument. The two autonomous studies lack in the areas the other one excels in. Cultural analysis, although extremely useful in understanding issues on a ground-level, provides little concrete evidence. Statistical analysis, although extremely clear and straightforward, is unable to present enough context. The two are always in conjunction with each other as one, the representative of a hard “science”, apposes the other, an embodiment of a social “science”. The two, regardless, are variations of science.  These instruments may seem like mutually exclusive entities, their coexistence can produce an instrument of analysis that could allow us to go beyond the unreachable. Thus, in order to see the picture, the cultural understanding must enforce the statistical data and vice versa—one must be a fox, skilled in all fields.

Power Dynamics of Elephant Killing

Posted on by
5

George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” questions which autonomous party (the British Empire, Burmese natives, or Orwell himself) has power over the other. On the most basic level, it would seem as though Orwell himself has power—he was an English police officer in British-conquered Burma. However, Orwell actually suggests that he, in fact, does not hold any power; he only wears its mask. Orwell views himself as subordinate to both the British colony he serves and the natives he protects. He hated imperialism, viewing it as “an evil thing”, yet simultaneously perpetuated it through his role in the police force. He was targeted, tripped, and insulted frequently, yet was obliged to defend the “little beasts who tried to make [his] job impossible.” Even when Orwell seemingly assumed power with the possession of a gun (an authoritative symbol), he still was not “the leading actor of the piece”. It was the “unarmed native crowd” that decided the gunshot, the fate of the elephant. Orwell, in that moment, was nothing but a mere “absurd puppet”. Orwell held little to no power in this account, and he himself was conscious of it. The power dynamic between the British Raj and imperialized Burma, though, is more complex and less obvious. On the surface, the British maintained power over the Burmese as the Brits had conquered and colonized the entire nation. As the story progressed, however, the real holders of power became less clear. The local Burmese usurped power over Orwell—an extension of British rule—by forcing his need to control the situation overrule his morals. In blurring these lines of power, Orwell juxtaposes the role of power and control. In order for the British empire to maintain its control and presence in Burma, Orwell felt he had to give the natives dominion over his decisions. The British Raj might have gained power of Burma, but they hadn’t gained full control of the Burmese population. The lack of control over the Burmese allowed the natives to seize a fraction of local power. This begs the question: is it possible for a nation/an empire to exercise full and true power over another?