The President / The Prince. Due Machiavelli

or supporting the president, his course. All people have some kind of collective intuition. And the president is obliged to feel it and to react to "the general desires" of people, to define according to them the direction of the activity, differently he will not be president. It will be displaced or financial circles, whose representatives lose money on delay of rate of development of the state, or party fellows, to the political movement, junta (an example of that can be events of the last years in Myanmar – Burma).

      All people accept easier changes which intuitively consider necessary for the successful movement in a mainstream. Sometimes, that the state disgracefully did not lag behind in the race, the people agree to serious changes. So, reaction of the population to Hugo Ch #225;vez's reforms shows, as in Venezuela, and in its immediate environment most of poor people (and it is 90 % of the population of Latin America) accepted to his politician, including and rigid anti-Americanism[6]. Increase of a standard of living, acceleration and diversification of economy, raising of self-esteem of the people and foreign policy interest in the country – here opportunities which give to the state the best positions in a world mainstream. For it citizens supported Chavez when he carelessly "cut" the USA, the terrible leader of race.

      Relative progress of opposition of Venezuela after Hugo Ch #225;vez's death too is clear. Redistribution of the income from richness of the country in favor of the poor majority reduced quantity of underclass sectors of society; citizens to whom already is what to lose, do not want constant alarm because of the intense relations with the USA. They already look for in policy of those who would help the country to take a place not on an edge of revolutionary changes, and some quieter. Perhaps, known expression about constancy of interests of England can be modified like this: "The people have no constant leaders, the people have constant interests".

      On the one hand, people intuitively tear away all new, in the best case take with caution, being afraid that will be worse. Can seem that I contradict myself, as I noted earlier that society and certain citizens demand continuous changes. Yes, they do – and are still afraid of them. The nature of most of people such is that all want to change something, but thus wish that changed nothing. Let's remember, what furious requirements and promises of reforms sound on any political meetings in any countries, but even more furious and ruthless criticism falls on any steps which are taken for realization of reforms. It is clear: results of changes in the state do not coincide with subjective hopes of people. Everyone waits for the solution of the problems, and receives public changes that are not always pleasant to it. It is good still if eventually does not become worse.

      From this it is possible to deduce the Second law of governing: a contradiction between public character of the power and private hopes of citizens for its results.

      Chapter V. Modern wars

      The sovereign should not have neither other thoughts, nor other cares, another matter, except war … because war is the only duty which the ruler cannot assign to another.

      War is sweet to the one who didn't know it.

Niccolo Machiavelli

      I will go back to the example with the autopilot. It works according to the program very difficult, but having final number of possible actions. The president, being part of government of management, has to follow also laws, resolutions of parliament as a peculiar program. What sense from it in the emergency and difficult cases when it is necessary to make the decisions which are not stated in laws? Especially as it can work for anticipation of dangerous situations? Such events in our life, especially in big policy, world economy, more and more.