Gordimer does not have this scheme in her essay. It is of a completely different form. Machiavelli’s work is a guide, Gordimer’s essay is like an article portraying to us the present situation that people like her have to live through. She describes the political situation in South Africa as well as the emotional situation that white people face. The white people in South Africa through out history were always the “majority minority”. They were much less in number than the black, but had all the power and rule to them selves. South Africa was a Dutch colony, and these white people until only a few years ago acted just as colonizers used to many decades ago. So we can understand how much pain and hatred these blacks have been accumulating over history. Not long ago the blacks came to power and had the whole country finally to them selves. Right now that justice has been brought the whites are “the minority minority”. In this case, the black people realized that they needed some time, a few generations, without the white man’s presence in the country. They needed time to settle down without the white man’s influence. At this point for people like Gordimer, who felt that South Africa was that place they call home, there was no more “place” in the society. It was time for them to leave, and could come back, if they still wanted to, decades later. This is where Gordimer and others like her where hit by a state of shock. They weren’t asking to stay in South Africa and be at power, they were just asking to be allowed to stay in the place which they called home. They might have been allowed to do so, but they weren’t considered South African by the society. Their skin color betrayed them, and there was prejudice towards them because of this. The only role that they were left to play in the society was that of foreign experts. That was someone, usually white, that was employed by the government voluntarily and was asked for technical advice when needed, and stayed shut when not asked anything. Therefore this was the role for people like Gordimer left to play, in which certainly by all means were considered as foreigners. One thing she wasn’t and really didn’t want to be.
Both of the arguments developed by the two authors are concerned with politics. But I don’t think that Machiavelli’s guide can be in any way a good source of tips in our present society. I am sure that it would have been of good advice to a young Prince back in his days, but the methods that are described by him would certainly not be acceptable by the present modern society. I would like to emphasize modern society. What I mean is that today unfortunately we still have countries that are under rule by force, tyranny. In these cases their ruler is just like a Prince that has to keep his people together, and especially his armies by force. The only difference is that he is not of royal background. In this way, this guide can be a good source of advice for him. And I think that it has been, looking at the different political situations around the globe. Fear, stingy, cruel, treacherous, harsh, proud, etc… we have seen these. We live in a different world today, and all we do is fight the things Machiavelli believed in. This is not the age where rule is to be conducted by force or where things are made property by force. Nowadays rule is achieved by all the good vices that Machiavelli mentioned. We do not have a single man coming to power anymore, but we have political parties that are elected by the people. It’s the people that choose who is to guide their country’s politics. It’s us that choose how and who is going to rule us, guide us. Therefore I’m not sure that Machiavelli’s text is really tangible to the present politics. It can be, as said before, applicable to a tyrant. Apart that it doesn’t apply to modern politics, it can be used as a comparison tool. We are all the time fighting these “bad vices”, but in our systems there is still a lot of primitivism, as I would call the system in Machiavelli’s days. The present politics is very much concerned with countries being generous or stingy, treacherous or faithful, humane or proud, religious or skeptical, etc… These are characteristics that are present, but in more tolerant quantities, and are the ones people them selves opt to have. In fact many countries can be described with these adjectives.
Gordimer’s text does not deal with these exterior features, but with the emotional interior ones. She is not concerned about the political power that is to come to rule or about which political side would do better for the country. What Gordimer deals with is something more personal. She is not proposing a solution to the problem, as Machiavelli does, but she is describing and portraying us an image of the way things actually are. She actually does propose a possible solution with which the two races would intermingle in one society, and that would be intermarriage. But she is not too optimistic about this idea, which would work quiet well if there weren’t obstacles. There is a very large gap between the different social classes, but we also have to consider the racial difference. Intermarriage does work between the upper classes of different races in South Africa, but these upper classes are only the minority. Therefore according to her (and me personally) it is going to take a long time before this starts happening between the ordinary social classes. Maybe these ordinary (or lower, as they are) will take example from the upper ones some day. Therefore I would say that Gordimer’s text applies to political issues in a more interior way, that is concerning the emotions that different politics have on the people they deal with. This is unfortunately a factor present rulers don’t consider enough when making their decisions. Present politics is more concerned about bringing peace and order between the majorities, while the emotional effects this has on the little minorities is a much lighter and smaller problem. It is just the general opinion that these politics really deal with.
Now putting the two texts to comparison, I would say that Machiavelli’s one fits more into politics. This is because of the matters it deals with, which are what really present politics is all about. It certainly would be a good guide though. As far as Gordimer’s text unfortunately the emotional issues she deals with are not that much of concern to politicians nowadays, although they really should be. politics is way too materialistic to have interests in matters such as those Gordimer describes.
