Machiavelli Approach To Order Analysis

Machiavelli's Approach to order through the lens of Disorder: The Modern World in Terms of Chaos and Order

Order and disorder are two terms used to describe two different dimensions of life. They are totally opposite to each other in terms of meaning. Also, sometimes one of them becomes the cause for the emergence of the other one. Disorder, according to Cambridge Dictionary, is “a state of untidiness or lack of organization” (cambrdige). This means that anything that doesn’t have an order or that is not systematic, can be called disorder. On the other hand, order is exactly the opposite of disorder, it is anything that is organized and systematic. There are many examples in life for these two terms. For example, a student’s class schedule …show more content…
This concept is very peculiar. Order is not necessarily built on good values or the truth. It is of quintessence that a prince or leader should lead a deceitful life. Deception is the basis for preserving the principality and order. The moment the truth comes out, the moment the people see that their freedom has been taken away, as in the case the Syrians with Bashar Al-Assad, as will be illustrated later on, order falls, and disorder replaces it. Building on the aforementioned details concerning Machiavelli’s The Prince, this paper will explore and analyze the Syrian civil war through these lens. Even though the book has been written long ago, it still aids us in shedding light on certain aspects of politics, war, order and disorder in the contemporary world. This paper builds on Machiavelli’s approach, and with the help of his ideas, the Syrian civil war will be analyzed and hopefully explained by citing an article published in the New York Times by Ben …show more content…
He was virtuous in the sense that Machiavelli proposed princes to be. He also appeared to be virtuous in the moral sense. He was virtuous in the sense that he made alliances with credible allies, namely Iran and Russia. One could go on and argue that he has sold Syria, but this is not quite so. It is a propaganda recited by supporters of the Syrian rebels. Assad made allies that supported him in the true sense of support. The rebels were left along to face Assad’s might at times and they were supported at other times when they were deemed useful. Assad, on the other hand, was supported irrelevant of the facts on the ground. He may have to give up on certain elements of his sovereignty in the short run, but he is sure to regain it back in the long run. That was not the only prudent move made by Assad. Another prudent move was pretending that he was a liberal open-minded option. The Islamist rebels, for so long, did not abstain from associating themselves with Al-Qaeda, ISIS and other Jihadist fundamentalist groups. Since, by nature, these groups are conservative and hold the US and the West accountable for every black and white in the Middle East. If one were to think of this logically, the conclusion would be that the US would not wish to support such groups. Actually, why would anyone support anyone that wishes his death? This would be pure stupidity and pure pacifism, a feature of some western groups.