The New International Response to Abusive Leaders

In The Prince, Machiavelli argues that the leader that stays in power for the longest amount of time is the leader who can strike fear into his/her citizens' eyes so they show respect. He explains that if one’s power is based on friendly relationships and not fear, then one’s “friends” can easily turn against him and he will lose power.  Therefore, a leader’s power should be based on subjects having a measure of fear and respect towards their ruler, so that he/she “can endure very well being feared.”  I agree that this might have been a foolproof method of leading centuries ago, but in current times, this no longer stands true.  

The concept that a leader could hold power for an extended period of time by subjects living under the “dread of punishment,” works if there is no opposition against a leader’s methods, either within or outside of the country. If other nations do not involve themselves in conflicts that are not domestic or relevant to their interests, then leaders can do whatever they want to the people they govern.

However, in the past few centuries our world has become more globally connected.  Technology and globalization allow people from around the world to have access to information about events around the world.  This access to information drives people to care about how other people are being treated around the world. Now, people in other countries and their governments can involve themselves in foreign affairs in countries hundreds of thousands of miles away.  This means that the mistreatment of individuals is now not only a domestic problem, but problem that sometimes involves the whole world.  

A very recent example of the international community getting involved in a domestic human rights violation is the response to Moammar Gaddafi's treatment of Libyan citizens.  For over 40 years, Moammar Gaddafi ruled Libya similarly to how Machiavelli describes a long-lasting leader.  He showed little compassion to his citizens and treated many inhumanely.  Gaddafi was able to maintain is position as because of his ability to strike fear into his citizens.  

However, in 2011, a revolutions sprang up in Tunisia and Egypt, both North African countries like Libya.  The individuals living in Libya saw how the people of a country could overcome a tyrannical leader and decided to proceed with their own revolution.  After months of war between the rebellious revolutionaries and the Gaddafi loyalists, Gaddafi was killed and the rebels took power.  Yet, the rebels’ victory and Gaddafi's death were not accomplished solely by the individuals in Libya.  Most of the funding for the weapons and the support for the rebels were actually given by countries half way around the world.  NATO, the North American Treaty Organization, gave money and weapons to the rebels and also used their own aircrafts to hunt down Gaddafi.  The revolution in Libya that started because citizens felt like their leader was treating them unfairly was funded and supported by countries all over the world.

What is concerning is that there are still cases where abusive leaders continue to lead without opposition from the rest of the world.  Often, the reason that powerful countries such as the United States get involved in domestic conflicts elsewhere over the world is because the land that these nations rest on contains some natural resource that can be useful to powerful nations.  An example of this is oil.  In Libya, America and other powerful nations involved themselves in helping the rebels not only because it was the noble decision, but because there is oil in Libya that many countries would love to profit from.  In cases where abusive leaders rule in countries that do not contain valuable natural resources to powerful nations, the powerful nations are less likely to get involved in those conflicts. 

Therefore, I would argue that Machiavelli's opinion of what allows a leader to maintain power for a long period of time is no longer valid in many cases. In current times, countries from all over the world will intervene if there is a conflict concerning citizens' human rights.   However, there are still areas with abusive leaders where the people are left helpless.  I believe Machiavelli's ideas should be used by powerful nations as guidelines for what kinds of abusive leaders need to be taken out of position. Ideally, even if land may not be able to produce valuable resources, the international community should always come together to help the citizens of a nation with an abusive leader.