Learning from Machiavelli: about foreseeing and forestalling future problems

”[...] The Romans were simply doing what all wise rulers must: not restricting themselves to dealing with present threats but using every means at their disposal to foresee and forestall future problems as well. Seen in advance, trouble is easily dealt with; wait until it’s on top of you and your reaction will come too late, the malaise is already irreversible. 

”Remember what doctors tell us about tuberculosis: in its early stages it’s easy to cure and difficult to diagnose, but if you don’t spot it and treat it, as the time goes by it gets easy to diagnose and hard to cure. So it is with affairs of state. See the trouble in advance (but you have to be shrewd) and you can clear it up quickly. Miss it, and by the time it’s big enough for everyone to see it will be too late to do anything about it.”

(Niccolo Machiavelli: The Prince)

considering environmental change and COVID-19, just to mention a few examples, best damn words to live by for any (and all) political leaders. Wouldn’t be a bad thing if the people would also keep this in mind after the pandemic crisis has been dealt with and populist/opportunistic politicians begin to demand that money must be taken away from scientific research, social support, medical services and generally speaking from various preparations that would strengthen the nation against the next inevitable (maybe unknown) crisis for the benefit of some short term, politically convenient low hanging fruit -project.

Case in point: Trump disbanded the White House’s pandemic response task force in 2018 and cut funding for the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (among other similar organisations).

Sweden had robust infrastructure, plans and storage facilities to handle nation wide crisis situations, but after Soviet Union collapsed all this was severely reduced (along with their army, which also turned out to be a bit of a mistake) because surely no harm could come to them now that Soviet Union is no more? Right?

Fortunately, for example, Finland had not forgotten the many old, hard learned lessons and maintained national emergency reserves (even when there were voices claiming it all to be a waste of national resources), which has now been opened and medical resources are being redistributed to where they are needed, the first time since the Second World War.

See the problems from afar and they can be dealt with. Take the easy way to political glory and suffer the consequences - along with the rest of the nation. Now, knowing this and with lessons learned from the pandemic, what are we going to do with the impending environmental catastrophe?

Politics: You, the people, expect more from your representatives

As Finland's Municipal Elections are just few months away I find myself  being involved with it..

In the spirit of Stoic philosophy I do not concern myself with my paltry chances of actually becoming elected; in the end I have very little control over the matter. However, as an official candidate for a political party I am granted a voice and an opportunity to use it to appeal to the people: expect more from those who would become your representatives!

Demand your representatives to rise above partisan politics and to work for the common good of the whole society and not just for their personal gratification, party politics and various interest groups.

Demand your representatives to stand for the matters that unite us as a society instead of taking the low road by riding on issues of bigotry and hate, fear and suspicion, greed and envy, and all those other matters that would divide us and drive us all apart.

You, the people, must demand that those who ask for the power to influence your lives prove themselves to be worthy of your trust and respect. Demand that the people of influence and power within the society are to be held against higher standard!

Never let them forget that a government, be it local or national, serves at the pleasure of the people. Be not afraid to rise up and challenge all those who would argue that transparency, personal integrity, professionalism and careful consideration of all matters before decision should not be expected at all times in politics.

Challenge your canditates! Let them know that you expect them to be and to know better.  The people have a voice and when it is focused it is powerful and it will be heard.

Stoicism: Limits of Influence

"How many have laid waste to your life when you weren't aware of what you were losing, how much was wasted in pointless grief, foolish joy, greedy desire, and social amusements - how little of your own was left to you. You will realize you were dying before your time!"

Seneca: On the Brevity of Life, 3.3b

I have written about how my depression and anxiety has occasionally given me hard time and indeed, it crippled me for a good part of the last year. I wasted months of my life while lying on the couch, watching TV and trying to get a grip over feelings of despair, hopelessness, loneliness, irrelevance, futility, and gods know what else: I felt like I was a ship in a dead water. My engines were running but I wasn't going anywhere and my rudder was unresponsive. 

Eventually I reached the point where I simply let go of most things and people in my life, many of which I had considered important to me. What little resources was still available to me I dedicated to doing my work, caring for my dog, and keeping my home in a livable condition, but that was about it for the most part and whatever remained I focused inward.

I was forced to to take account of what is truly important to me in my life, and what things are within the realm of my own control - and to understand which of those things were either one or the other, but not both. This was my first proper step to mental and emotional recovery, and into stoic philosophy.

It is not easy to let go of things and people in life, but it should also be understood that letting go does not necessarily mean that those things and people are lost in life - one should take note of those who understand and hold on to those who hold on to you, I believe. It is about understanding the limits of one's control over the things and people in life, and about how one chooses to respond to this understanding.

For example, I have very little influence over how people view me and regard me so how much energy and effort should I dedicate to such matters? Should I keep myself clean, groomed and well-dressed because I'm doing it all in hopes of improving the attitudes of other people towards me, or because it makes me feel better about myself? Should I make career choices based on whatever I think might advance me on the corporate and social ladder, or should I settle on doing things that I find personally interesting and meaningful, and doing it well because it is a matter of professional pride to me?

This is just one of the many possible points of observation, but I suppose it is as good as any to start with. I've spent energy on taking stand on political matters and mostly felt just frustration over it all because I liked to fool myself into thinking that occasional rants in Facebook and blogs might influence people's way of thinking. Sure, it might have with few individuals but nothing I've done has actually changed anything. These are matters that are beyond my control so why should I concern myself with them instead of focusing on things that I can actually influence? Despite all my feelings of resentment, anger and frustration towards social injustice, underhanded politics, corporate exploitation of those who cannot stand for themselves, and so many other things, what else have I ever achieved except open myself for depression and anxiety? By honestly taking account of what lies within my sphere of influence and by understanding how close to just me and my home those limits are, I have found some of the lost peace of mind.

For now, I live and write just for myself.

Stoicism: Only the educated are free

"What is the fruit of these teachings? Only the most beautiful and proper harvest of the truly educated - tranquility, fearlessness, and freedom. We should not trust the masses who say only the free can be educated, but rather the lovers of wisdom who say only the educated are free."

Epictetus: Discourses, 2.1.21-23a

About two millennia ago Epictetus was born a slave and received education only because his master allowed it for him. Only because of the education he received was Epictetus enabled to gain appreciation and eventually his freedom, and to become a teacher who's words would still be heard after two thousand years after his death.

Modern Western world has no slaves (at least, not in the traditional sense of the word), but one only needs to change the words "the free" to "the wealthy" and suddenly the words of Epictetus address a very real and concrete issue in most parts of the world: whereas education should be viewed as human right it is too often regarded as something only the wealthy are entitled to. In too many countries those born to poverty (if not to slavery) will never have an opportunity to receive education needed to become free - I mean, to rise above poverty.

Out of over six billion people living in this world I received a rare privilege to be raised in a small nation where education is free: my elementary school was free, my second degree education was (mostly) free, and my studies in Polytechnic University were also free. Because of this I was enabled to rise above the social status of my working class parents - and I say this not only with gratitude, but also with appreciation of the life my single parent mother was able to provide to me and my sister.

However, most of the people in the world do not have these kinds of opportunities for education. Instead they are forced to start the race of life with severe and debilitating handicaps. Even here in Finland many neoliberal politicians, who believe education should not be free but individuals should earn their right for it by paying for it, have managed to find their way into power by feeding on common feelings of resentment and envy followed by a decade of difficult economics. To this end education budgets and student support mechanisms have been severely crippled by the current and previous governments. The commonly used justification for these actions is that "our society cannot afford these kinds of social benefits", and "we must get the young people into working life sooner instead of having them spend years in schools", but these people are terribly and undeniably wrong.

No country can afford not to empower its citizens from utilising their full potential by limiting their opportunities for education and personal development. Least of all small countries such as Finland, where our only true national resource is the mental ability for innovations, and research and development. Politicians and businesses are calling for new goods and services to be exported, but without educated and motivated people working on research and development that cannot happen.

Additionally the national economy will never be improved by forcing the young people to begin their adult lives with huge debts that they are forced to pay for a decade if not longer instead of using their earnings to consume goods and services, and starting families. The only ones that will benefit from forcing students to take large loans are the banks and loan shark lenders, and there are business people who believe that their personal ability to make profit would be improved by creating a class of low income people with limited education and who are vulnerable for exploitation.

Again, they are all horribly wrong. While some individuals and private parties may benefit from a society that is crippled in this way, the nations must not be allowed to follow the will of these people as the only thing that is good for all the people and the society as whole is to enable all people to have the education they need and want to have, and to support cross-scientific research instead of limiting the educational options to those determined by the short-term corporate needs.

Remember Epictetus' words: only the educated are free!

Managed Democracy with Weak Leaders and People of Wealth

Most of my observations are based on Finnish and US politics being a citizen of both countries, but I believe that much of the same is taking place in other Western countries as well.

One of the key pillars of democracy is openness. Government laws, decisions, and treaties are expected to be part of the public record so that the people can know how their interests are being managed and to make informed decisions in elections. The people need to know how they were represented during the previous election season so they can decide if they can trust their representatives again with their vote - or if something needs to change.

Instead governments seem to have adopted a new, more efficient way of handling things: they refuse to comment on matters that are "not yet ready" or have "not yet been decided on", and once the work is complete the public is merely notified that this just happened. No need to discuss about the matter as the decision has been made, treaties have been signed and it's all good.

This is not how a democratic society is expected to work.

A case in point is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The negotiations have been on-going for quite some time now but almost no information about it was shared with the public until WikiLeaks provided some insight about it. Many might have missed these negotiations altogether and many of those who did know about the negotiations probably thought it was about removing customs bureaucracy and expenses and getting rid off import/export taxes on some products, which would be a good thing. Unfortunately the treaty is also likely to contain controversial practices that the informed public within EU would probably oppose strongly, so in order to enable matters to progress smoothly it was decided to keep the public uninformed.

Managed Democracy

It seems that there is a drive to convert representative democracies into managed democracies. The political elite neither wants or needs the public to be informed; it just needs the public to vote. By keeping public uninformed it is easier to rule the country and guide the public to vote correctly every few years. The country continues to be run by legitimized government, but the government no longer serves the people. At best decisions are based on what the political elite actually believes is best for the people (regardless of what the public might think about it), and at worst the government only serves the political elite's interests.

For example, the last time Finland had a referendum was in 1994 about EU membership. It is worth noting that the vote was not binding and if the people had voted "wrong" the political leadership had the option to ignore the referendum. In the end 56,9% of the voters supported the membership and on 1st of January, 1995 Finland joined EU.

It has been 20 years since the last time political elite wanted to hear what the people think about matters that significantly affect their lives. For example, the decision to join Euro currency was not up for debate in the form of binding or even non-binding referendum.

Many politicians are career politicians; being a politician is their work, their career and their life for which they have been preparing ever since they became young adults, and some even longer. Some are raised to be politicians in order to continue their family legacy. This is especially true for the political elite so it must be difficult for them to allow strangers to decide every few years whether or not they are allowed to continue doing what they are meant to do. It would be so much easier if they could just tell the people how things are going to be or even better, to ignore the people completely.

Sometimes democracy sucks.

So the model of managed democracy begins to look like an ideal solution: maintain the facade of democracy while encouraging people to focus on more important matters like sports, TV-shows and their daily lives while leaving the tedious and boring politics for their humble civil servants. Don't worry about anything, everything is going to be alright. Just remember to vote the name you know in the next elections.

Weak Leaders

So here's the thing: weak leaders can appear stronger and maintain their position of socio-economic power by making the people weaker.

Political strength is the power to influence people and ability to guide the flow of events to desirable directions. This power is measured in wealth, which should be fairly obvious: the poor have no wealth so consequently they have very little influence over people and events. As one gains wealth one also gains power so it is the rich who have the most power to influence people and events.

The strong rule over the weak. Weak leadership may gain relative power by making the people weaker, for example

- by limiting access to higher education one can limit the number of people who are informed, independent thinkers and likely to question authorities and challenge the political elite on socio-economic matters.

- by limiting access to healthcare and applying high and wide ranging taxes one can make the people struggle a bit more in their daily lives as people who are worried about basic necessities of life such as work, health, family and being able to pay bills are less likely to pay attention to matters of politics and problems of other people.

In fact, by taxing wealth, allowing for high inflation and keeping prices artificially high the government can effectively reduce the power of the middle class people not to mention the poor.

People of Wealth

The strong rule over the weak and weak leaders tend to be ruled by the people of wealth - not by the people  in general who supposedly granted them their positions for the purpose of serving the people. The people of wealth can provide weak leaders what they truly want: not to promote and nurture the wellbeing of the people and the society but to enable the political elite to accumulate more personal wealth and gain stronger positions of power.

In the elections people may vote, but the people of wealth pay for the campaigns. In the political decision making all interest groups may try to influence the decision makers, but it is the people of wealth who can afford to field more and better lobbyists to guide the decision making. And once a politician loses or quits his/her office they are often hired by the people of wealth - assuming that they are still deemed useful because of their contacts, knowledge or due some other valuable trait.

The people, and by extention, democracy suffer while the few prosper.