1.

After learning what Niccolo Machiavelli is trying to describe in his book The
Prince on how leaders should rule or maintain their power, do you think
Machiavellian politics remained an essential political strategy in the 21st century?
In the 21st century, Machiavellian politics is still very much relevant and has
remained an essential political strategy in the 21st century. According to him,
immoral conduct, such as the use of treachery and the murder of innocents, was
very normal and effective in politics, in addition to encouraging politicians to
participate in evil if deemed necessary for political suitability. It thus gained
dishonor due to various claims that he teaches "evil recommendations to tyrants
to help them maintain their power", leaning towards the notion that as a ruler, it
was better to be widely feared than to be greatly loved. Taking into account the
current political atmosphere in the Philippines, Machiavellian politics is truly
existent in different governing mechanisms in the country, as evident in local and
national politics where the necessity of brute force or deceit is emphasized to to
maintain authority. Duterte’s administration is the perfect example for this as he
formed his government as the one characterized by fear and brute force (Oplan
Tokhang, where the shoot to kill order remains for drug addicts even in the midst
of the pandemic)
2. Throughout history, different countries and societies could never function properly
without a form of leadership to govern the population, as no civilization has lasted
without some kind of decree from the leader(s). Going back to the question,
should monarchies be abolished and replaced with republican and democratic
governments? A monarchy is a form of government in which the monarch is a
head of state and its political legitimacy and authority may vary from restricted
and largely symbolic constitutional monarchy to fully autocratic absolute
monarchy. Personally, I believe that monarchies, may it be absolute and
constitutional, has its own pros and cons, thus abolishing it would not be for a
greater good. For a constitutional monarchy, the monarch is seen as someone
who stands above party politics and can thus act as a real representative of the
country regardless of short-term political interests and strategies. He/she is seen
as a nonpolitical figure symbolizing national values of the country while the pros
and cons are also relevant in absolute monarchy. Abolishing it to replace it with a
republican and democratic government is a good one, however, should not be
pursued as it would only lead to an unstable government where different factors
will be adjusted, considered, and taken into account.

3. Elections are a formal decision making process and are extremely significant in a
democratic government such as the Philippines in which the population/voters
chooses an individual or multiple individuals to select leaders for public office and
 hold them accountable for their performance in the government. Going back to
the question, yes, every inch of our vote counts in the elections as voting the
fundamental “operating system” of our own republic determines what kind of
government we are about to receive. And as a youth, if we don’t consider
exercising political vigilance and participation as fundamental and significant,
taking into account also the current state of politics in the country, then will we?
When will we actively participate as citizens of our country? With the current
political atmosphere in the country, everyone can be an agent of change to
decide about the kind of government that we want to experience in the near
future. It is also our duty to stand for the truth and ultimately reject the
perpetuation of traditional politicians, thus the high time to elect public officials
with a good track record, background, and educational experience to lead the
country.
4. Neutrality, is choosing to be blind about the situations of injustice in the
environment, hence choosing the side of the oppressor, and I totally agree with
this statement mainly because staying neutral means choosing to take the stance
that there is nothing to do simply because one does not care enough to do
something about it and that I think is the worst kind of stance, mainly because I
believe that those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict is the one
who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it. One
should never be afraid to speak out about any injustice. Taking a stand may be
considered as challenging, but it should be deemed necessary if we want to
dismantle the injustice faced in our country every day.

SOURCES:

Khanna, V. (2020, May 3). Niccolo Machiavelli in the 21st century. Times of India. Retrieved
May 12, 2022, from
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/books/features/niccolo-machiavelli-in-the-21st-centu
ry/articleshow/75504858.cms

Arguments for Abolishing the Monarchy. (2021, August 26). LawTeacher.net. Retrieved May 12,
2022, from
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/arguments-in-favour-of-abolishin
g-the-monarchy-administrative-law-essay.php
(n.d.). Topic: Should the British monarchy be abolished? Retrieved May 12, 2022, from
https://www.schule-bw.de/faecher-und-schularten/sprachen-und-literatur/englisch/unterrichtsmat
erialien-nach-kompetenzen/sprechen/kommunikationspruefung/themen/monarchy-1.pdf