Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Ferocity of Hope: Accountability and the People's Tribunate in Machiavellian Democracy

The Ferocity of Hope: Accountability and the People's Tribunate in Machiavellian Democracy m e l i ss a s c h wa rt z b e rg In Machiavellian Democracy, John McCormick elegantly highlights the "ferocious populism" inherent in Machiavelli's writings. McCormick distinguishes his reading from that of the Cambridge School, emphasizing that interpreting Machiavelli within the republican tradition fails to do justice to Machiavelli's anti-elitism. Whereas republicanism both in its historical and contemporary forms is in many respects compatible with aristocratic rule and hostile to popular agency, McCormick's reading of Machiavelli affirms the importance of institutions designed to give the people--the economic lower classes in particular--a means of keeping elites accountable and an active role in political life. The book is divided into three sections. The first is largely interpretive, focusing on arguments for popular participation in the Prince and the Discourses; the second discusses Machiavelli's analysis of the way in which institutions structure the motivational logic of citizens and elites in Rome and Florence in particular; and the third provides a normative critique of the aristocratic impulses of even contemporary republicanism, accompanied by institutional prescriptions for challenging elite domination along Machiavellian lines. Throughout the book, McCormick's reading of Machiavelli is both careful and bracing, a rare combination. For http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Good Society Penn State University Press

The Ferocity of Hope: Accountability and the People's Tribunate in Machiavellian Democracy

The Good Society , Volume 20 (2) – Feb 16, 2011

Loading next page...
 
/lp/penn-state-university-press/the-ferocity-of-hope-accountability-and-the-people-s-tribunate-in-q2B1hbDFPu
Publisher
Penn State University Press
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University.
ISSN
1538-9731
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

m e l i ss a s c h wa rt z b e rg In Machiavellian Democracy, John McCormick elegantly highlights the "ferocious populism" inherent in Machiavelli's writings. McCormick distinguishes his reading from that of the Cambridge School, emphasizing that interpreting Machiavelli within the republican tradition fails to do justice to Machiavelli's anti-elitism. Whereas republicanism both in its historical and contemporary forms is in many respects compatible with aristocratic rule and hostile to popular agency, McCormick's reading of Machiavelli affirms the importance of institutions designed to give the people--the economic lower classes in particular--a means of keeping elites accountable and an active role in political life. The book is divided into three sections. The first is largely interpretive, focusing on arguments for popular participation in the Prince and the Discourses; the second discusses Machiavelli's analysis of the way in which institutions structure the motivational logic of citizens and elites in Rome and Florence in particular; and the third provides a normative critique of the aristocratic impulses of even contemporary republicanism, accompanied by institutional prescriptions for challenging elite domination along Machiavellian lines. Throughout the book, McCormick's reading of Machiavelli is both careful and bracing, a rare combination. For

Journal

The Good SocietyPenn State University Press

Published: Feb 16, 2011

There are no references for this article.