Misconceptions on Machiavelli and on Arroyo being a 'Machiavellian'

This is a reaction to Mong's recent blog entry Definitely not Machiavellian.

Your blog entry is a refreshing departure from popularly-held, yet erroneous beliefs on Machiavelli’s philosophy.

Most people tend to forget that Machiavelli’s theories were formulated during the period when Italy was yet to be unified into a single nation-state and that duplicity and suspicion were the norms in the affairs of each city-state.

During that time, governance and diplomacy were games of hazard for immediate stakes. A prince (ruler) had to posses the qualities Machiavelli prescribed in his writings, and equate his personal quest for power with national interest in order to succeed.

His popular line, “the end justifies the means” was devised in the context that the prince must pursue the interest of his city-state, kingdom, nation or empire at all cost, within the powers potentially and actually available for the pursuit of this objective and with reference with that of its counterparts’.

Now on Arroyo. She is Machiavellian in the context that she is pursuing her ‘end’ whatever the cost it entails. But her pursuit for power is not to empower the state and achieve national interest but to attain selfish goals and preserve her own power, at the expense of her own people. In this sense, she is no Machiavellian.

Besides, how can she be considered a Machiavellian if she’s not even a legitimate prince?