Alors que la démocratie est souvent perçue comme la seule option politique envisageable, quelle serait la position de Machiavel en 2020 sur l'utilité de la dictature ? Dans quelles circonstances jugerait-il nécessaire de concentrer le pouvoir entre les mains d'une seule personne et quels devraient être les objectifs de ce prince ?
Grâce aux exemples de Charles de Gaulle, Abraham Lincoln, Vladimir Poutine, Lee Kuan Yew ou Nusurltan Nazarbaïev, Jean-François Caron, dans cette version imaginée du Prince en 2020 montre que le recours à un prince tout-puissant peut encore s'avérer la meilleure solution lorsqu'une nouvelle société doit être établie ou afin de sauver une société menacée d'implosion.
This Pivot updates the ideas of the famous political philosopher from the Italian Renaissance, Machiavelli, for the 21st century, using case studies from the West and from Kazakhstan to demonstrate the utility of Machiavelli's ideas for contemporary political life. In truth, Machiavelli's ideas have never lost their value. Although "Machiavellian" as an adjective tends to describe amoral cynicism in contemporary usage, Machiavelli's ideas were deeply ethical and oriented towards achieving long-term goals. Contemporary readers may be put off by medieval language and examples, misled into believing Machiavelli speaks to a different age; and yet the author here explores how Machiavellian strategy can be of value- ethical as well as practical-in the 21st century.
This book tries to understand the lessons we ought to learn from the Covid-19 crisis as well as the profound transformations this pandemic will bring to the world order. These essays explore the challenge that the pandemic poses to liberalism, the unique potential this crisis offers us to retake control over globalization, and how it foreshadows future conflicts, especially the dynamic between China and the West. This timely book will be of interest to scholars in Political Science and philosophy, as well as to general readers interested in what the post Covid-19 world may resemble.
We often think of the army as an institution whose members are required to blindly obey all orders they receive. However, this perception is inaccurate. Disobedience is a fundamental professional obligation of members of the military and overrides the obligation to follow commands. But what is the extent of this obligation? Are soldiers obligated to participate in what they consider to be an illegal war, or should they be allowed to enjoy a right to selective conscientious objection? Should soldiers obey a legal order that, if followed, would facilitate the perpetration of war crimes by a third party? How should soldiers act if they are ordered to follow a lawful order that could result in immoral consequences? Should soldiers be allowed to refuse to obey what can be labeled as suicidal orders? Based upon the nature of soldiers' professional obligations, this book tries to offer answers to these important questions. The author turns to a number of different case-studies, including conscientious objections, duty to protect in genocidal situations such as Rwanda and Srebrenica, suicidal orders in wars, as well as retribution and leniency towards war criminals, as a way of assessing the different legal and ethical implications of disobedience in the military.
The final page in the political history of the Soviet Union was turned on March 19, 2019, when Nursultan Nazarbayev, the last former Chairman of a Soviet Republic who had managed to stay in power following the collapse of USSR, unexpectedly decided to resign. This edited book looks to analyse the political aspects of this event more specifically by trying to understand its political significance for the country's policies, the prospects of democratisation, the uniqueness of the transition compared with others that have previously occurred in the region and how it may play an influential part in future political transitions in this part of the world. This book will interest scholars of authoritarian politics, scholars of Central Asia, and those researching the Belt and Road Initiative.
This book examines Kazakhstan's struggle to distance itself from its Soviet past over 25 years after its independence. To a very large extent, the affirmation of its sovereignty and a unique Kazakhstani way remain largely a matter of rhetoric. This book looks to explain the various aspects that show the continuity of Kazakhstan's political system and governance with its colonial legacy, namely through its foreign policy, the country's environmental policies, the judicial system, the management of religious diversity, the way youth organizations are structured and administered or how those who were born after the collapse of Soviet Union are still showing a typical Soviet behavioral attitude towards the political sphere.What are the reasons for this reluctance or incapacity to break away from these ties of the past? Will the unavoidable political transition that will bring new individuals to the head of the state contribute to a real change? Will this lead to a break with the country's past and a radical shift in the country's policies or will things remain as they have been since 1991? This book provides some valuable insights on what may happen in the near future to the biggest country of Central Asia.