Selim Ibraimi- It has long been an important topic in the Balkans, especially for governments, why they are not as lucky as other governments or why history seems to be punishing them. What must be the main reason for such states, governments, and political leaders to have bad luck? To better understand these issues, I think we should examine two terms for our readers.
While many processes have evolved in unforeseen directions, virtue (virtu) and fate (fortuna) have played a crucial role throughout history. These terms go beyond everyday usage and have nothing to do with moral considerations or everyday expectations. These terms are more attributed to politics and fate related to the skills of leaders. In short, the above terms take us to Italy in the Middle Ages, where the country was so divided and needed peace and a common ground to fight Italy’s enemies.
This reminds us of Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527), who in chapter 25 of the book “The Prince” discusses in detail the meaning of virtue and fate always in a political and governing sense. Machiavelli analyzes the concept of fate and virtue in the aforementioned chapter with the title: “How can fate influence human affairs and how to deal with it?” Machiavelli refers to virtue as a skill that a ruler (leader) must possess to govern well. The traits that Machiavelli discusses in this chapter have to do with the skills that a ruler must show in governing. According to him, the ruler must adapt accordingly to the political, economic, social, etc. circumstances.
As for fate, Machiavelli interprets it as an evil force that can destroy everything. Here he compares fate to the power of a river that, if provoked, can overflow its banks and destroy a city. Here he goes further, giving other examples of how social unrest, contagious diseases, and natural disasters, etc., can weaken the authority of a ruler. Fate, he argues, can also be influenced by an unseen power that can ultimately be fatal to the ruler.
Machiavelli further argues that a ruler’s good cultivation of virtue before he engages in government affairs gives them a satisfactory start in being able to handle all the crises that may arise during government. However, according to him, even the greatest virtue cannot completely defeat fate, as seen in Cesare Borgia’s (1475–1507) failure to foresee the death of his father and ultimately his unforeseeable death during an ambush by his opponents.
Now, having brought these examples as a basis, we can easily move on to the Balkans and elsewhere, because these are conclusions that, regardless of time, do not change much. In the Balkans, as we know, leaders have spent most of their time complaining about misfortune and nothing else. To explore Machiavelli’s arguments, our politicians have predicted that the situation will worsen and not improve.
Now that the nature and unexpected political, economic, etc. situations have been the main factors for the governments of the region to have bad luck, at some points, it has also stood as a complaint of the political leaders of the region. But this cannot be used as a justification for targeted political and military actions and campaigns to destroy others. The pattern that has been seen in the region shows the routine behavior of leaders to see others suffer, instead of seeking solutions of all kinds.
In this regard, the 14th-15th and 19th-20th centuries in the Balkans have been an extraordinary catastrophe for the weak peoples. They were forced to suffer under conditions imposed by states and political and military leaders without any human mercy. Virtue and fate, here, have been interpreted in different ways by the leaders of the Balkans then and now in the 21st century.
The current case in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Ukraine, the Middle East, etc., suggests that the fate that Machiavelli elaborates in his writings will be a major obstacle to reaching fundamental agreements for peace and stabilization. In our time, we have witnessed that the lack of a good approach by the state has put other ethnic groups of different origins in the Balkan regions at risk, which have faced discrimination and mass murder.
The wars in the former Yugoslav space in the 1990s are perfect examples that theoretically connect with Machiavelli’s writings. In our case in the Balkans, virtue and fate have been on the wrong side of history and have not been applied to save citizens from evil. Examples from the last two centuries demonstrate Machiavelli’s principles in action, where fate and virtue are in a permanent interaction with influence in all political situations.
Meanwhile, Jean Rousseau (1712-1778) in his book “The Social Contract,” saw virtue differently. He, placing it in the context of good intentions towards citizens as a trait that should be put to work for the common good. And not as a trait a ruler should express in his ambitions. The debate for and against can be continued further with other examples from history, but in the context of the Balkans and political leaders, it has been seen that neither virtue nor fate, given the circumstances of the time, has been put to use for the common good.
They have been used for violence, power, and individual gain. Here, opponents may say that this is human nature. Yes, and they may be right, but considering the developments in the last three decades, good governance would have occurred if virtue and fate had been understood differently by the political leaders of the Balkans.
In the classical sense, virtue and fate are about power and foresight at a price on how to govern. To translate it gently into our Balkan conditions, it will be challenging because, as I emphasized above, both terms are associated with ruthless rulers, who, in the context of Balkan conditions, may require more effort to change and achieve a positive result.
The article was written specifically for Portalb.mk. The publication rights are owned solely by Portalb.mk and the author, as per the agreement between them.