Fortuna

The Prince, in my view, is less about ruthlessness, and more about realism. He who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall, according to Machiavelli. A prince who blindly expects goodness from everyone is probably unfit to hold power at all. Not only is he in danger of losing power, it is also likely that he is performing a disservice to the causes he stands for as he is incapable of defending them against someone who knows the difference between what is and what ought to be.

Yet I do not see The Prince as incompatible with the wish to listen to the people's views, attract popular support, and encourage participation in decision-making. For while Machiavelli said that it is better to be feared than to be loved, he thought that being both loved and feared was even better. A prince must work hard at strengthening the legitimacy of his rule, even as he must not hesitate to use force in order to protect the stability of the state.

Finally, I completely agree with the idea that fortune favors the brave. Indeed, it is better to be impetuous than to be cautious when there is an opportunity. Only the audacious become truly great. This is how Machiavelli tells us to seize the day.

Globalization marginalizes the poor?

Keith Faulks, in his book Political Sociology, argues that the central focus of the sub-discipline still remains the relationship between the state and civil society. He sees the Weberian notion of the state, which is both legitimate and possessing a monopoly of legal violence, as a contradiction that needs to be resolved in favor of radical pluralism. Only an increase in democratic participation in all institutions, he contends, will allow us to address the risks posed by globalization.

I concur with the idea that participation in decision-making is not just a means, but an end itself. I have seen how it increases self-confidence among team members and generates great ideas for problem-solving. I disagree with Faulks, however, in at least two areas.

First, I am more of a democratic elitist because, even as I believe in the value of democratic participation, I think that representatives, by virtue of the unique perspective they have and the information at their disposal, are capable of making sound decisions on behalf of the electorate. Second, I believe that, on balance, globalization, as driven by the neoliberal agenda, has been a boon to humanity. Perhaps I think this way because I would not have become a manager had it not been for the global integration that precipitated the growth of the BPO industry. My views have changed a lot since the days I sided with Professor Walden Bello's critique of the Washington Consensus.

Crime and Punishment

Raskolnikov thought he can be a Napoleon by murdering an old pawnbroker. But the paranoia and delusions he had after the crime betrayed that he was, after all, human, all too human.

Napoleon, like many latter day dictators, caused the death of thousands. Yet, for me, it is hard to say that he is not great, as were Alexander and Julius Caesar. For I tend to agree with Raskonikov that greatness is better defined by the will to transcend the limits that bind ordinary mortals, rather than by the ability to abide by a strict code of morality.

Perhaps paradoxically, but in keeping with my declaration that I am still searching for a God, I agree with Dostoevsky that Raskolnikov can only find redemption in punishment and suffering. I continue to disagree with the Catholic propensity to accept suffering in the world and simply hope for a better after life, yet, ironically, I find myself beginning to understand the mystery and the beauty of the Christian sacrifice.

Lettres Persanes

C'est la premiere fois que j'ai fini de lire un livre entier en francais. Cela m'a fait plus que deux ans parce que je n'arrive jamais a lire jusqu'a la fin apres avoir lu quelques chapitres. C'etait fatiguant de consulter le dictionnaire plusieurs fois pour presquement chage page du livre.

Neanmoins, je l'ai trouve vraiment amusant. En decrivant la France de la point de vue des Persans en exil, Montesquieu a reuni a exposer les folies des moeurs, des institutions, et des coutumes a l'Occident. De plus, il pese de temps en temps sur la philosophie et la politique, lui montrant un des vrais genies de la Lumiere.

Je ne me rappelle plus les details du livre mais la completion d'un livre francais m'a donne la confiance de lire d'autres oeuvres dans la langue de Voltaire, Hugo et Moliere. J'ose donc lire Sartre apres Montesquieu.

Ang Pilibustero

Binasa ko ang Filibusterismo ni Rizal noong nakaraang buwan. Sa totoo lang, ngayon ko lang talagang nabasa ang aklat sapagkat hindi ko masyadong pinahalagahan si Rizal noong ako ay nasa mataas na paaralan. Subalit nang banggitin ni Propesor Benedict Anderson na makasampung ulit niyang binasa ang mga akda ni Rizal at nag-aral pa siya ng Espanol para lamang mabasa ang mga iyon sa orihinal, napahiya ako bilang mag-aaral ng UP na hindi ko pa nababasa ang mga sinulat ng pambansang bayani.

Tunay ngang higit na tinutukan ni Rizal ang pulitika sa kanyang ikalawang aklat. Higit na hayagan ang kanyang pagtuligsa sa mga kabuktutan ng pamahalaan at simbahan. Nakasusuklam, halimbawa, ang sinapit ni Huli sa kamay ni Padre Camorra. Mahirap ding hindi maantig sa pagkakabaril ni Tano sa kanyang sariling dugo. Kung ako ay isang Espanol na nabuhay noong inilathala ang Filibusterismo, malamang ay pinabaril ko na rin Rizal dahil sa pangambang ang kanyang mga ideya ay tunay na magbubunsod ng isang paghihimagsik.

Matapos basahin ang Noli at Fili at mamasdan kung papaanong ipinagtatanggol ni Rizal sa pamamamagitan ng kanyang mga tauhan kapwa ang pag-aalsa at ang kahinahunan, masasabi kong si Rizal ay sadyang hindi makakahon sa mga katagang repormista o rebolusyonaryo. Talagang kahanga-hanga ang lalim at lawak ng kanyang pag-iisip. Sa ganang akin, hindi matatawaran ang kadakilaan ni Rizal at walang kuwenta ang pagtatalo sa kung siya ay nagbalik-loob sa simbahan o hindi. Ang kabuuan ng isang buhay ay hindi natitimbang ng isang pangyayari.