Jonathan Powell (1) (1956–)

https://fromtheheartofeurope.eu/the-new-machiavelli-by-jonathan-powell/

This is a general memoir about the art of government under Tony Blair by Jonathan Powell, who was his chief of staff for the entire 1997-2007 period, and is now the National Security Adviser to Keir Starmer. It’s the second of three books about Powell’s time at the top, the first being about Northern Ireland and the third about war, especially Iraq, so those important subjects are downplayed here.

Powell takes one of show more Machiavelli’s aphorisms as the anchor point for each of the twelve chapters, but doesn’t let it constrain him; each of the chapters is a fairly disciplined musing of 18 to 36 pages on a particular aspect of governance and power. There is very little here about formal mechanisms of office, apart from the tactics of cabinet reshuffles; there is more about the architecture of Number Ten, and a lot – really a lot – about how awful Gordon Brown was.

Powell is of course defensive about the overall record of the Blair government, and writing just after the 2010 election he doesn’t see the disasters of Brexit and Boris Johnson coming down the road. This makes his admissions of error all the more interesting. One that I had completely forgotten, but that he comes back to several times, so it clearly was traumatic, was the disastrous speech made by Blair to the Women’s Institute in 2000. Part of the problem was that despite the efforts of his despairing staff, Blair was both undisciplined and micro-managing in the process of writing major speeches. Nine times or more out of ten, he got away with it, but on that day in Wembley, he didn’t.

One of the interesting chapters was on the role of spin and the media. It’s clear that no British government will ever undertake the necessary reforms of the media outlined by the Leveson Inquiry (which reported after this book was published). The major media are simply too powerful and politicians too scared of them. It would take a cross-party alliance between government and opposition, prepared to face down bullying and dirty tricks from unaccountable billionaires, and it’s just not going to happen.

One institution that Powell doesn’t have much time for is the monarchy. The Queen comes up twice, once in the aftermath of the death of Princess Diana, where Blair intervened to tell the clueless Royals what to do; and again when Blair and his team are invited to the royal barbecue in Balmoral – but Powell and his partner are shunted off the scene, because the Queen did not want an unmarried couple visibly present. It’s unusual and frankly refreshing to find a memoir from the top of the British government that treats the Royals with anything other than awe-struck deference. Again, this was published in 2010, with more than ten years of the Queen’s reign left to go. (One wonders what other monarchy stories Powell was persuaded to leave out.)

Anyway, this was a lot more interesting than I had expected, and I’ll look out for the other two books in the sequence. show less

"We were not trading arms for hostages, nor were we negotiating with terrorists"
Ronald Reagan.

Terrorists at the Table: Why Negotiating is the Only Way to Peaceby Jonathan Powell is a practical look at dealing with terrorism using the historical record as an example. Powell is a British diplomat who served as the first Downing Street Chief of Staff, under British Prime Minister Tony Blair from 1995 to 2007. He was the only senior adviser to last the whole period of Blair’s leadership. show more During this period, Powell was also the chief British negotiator on Northern Ireland. He runs the charity Inter Mediate which works on armed conflicts around the world.Powell is currently the UK's special envoy to Libya.

We all have heard it. Political leaders have repeated it. Hollywood loves to use it in everything from cop shows to blockbuster movies -- "We do not negotiate with terrorists." It seems to be an immutable law in contemporary international relations but is it? Even if it is, is it correct? Powell looks at several cases in the recent past. Northern Ireland, FMLN in El Salvador, Nepalese Maoists, South Africa and Mandella, Sri Lanka, and other conflicts are all included.

It must be recognized that there are several different groups with different structures and goals. The group responsible for the Japanese subway attack quickly disappeared after its leader was captured effectively ending the organization. The Maoist terrorists in Nepal became the ruling party in a democratic election, creating their own legitimacy. Groups like the PLO have stood their ground for so long they have become recognized. The PLO holds observer status at the United Nations. Other groups or opinions of groups change over time. There was a time Mandela was considered a terrorist (Reagan put Mandela and the ANC on the terrorist watch list) and bin Ladin a freedom fighter. Some groups combine others simply disappear like the Symbionese Liberation Army.

There are groups with permanence that need to be addressed. The IRA, Sri Lanka, and South Africa are prime examples where a negotiation was required. In Sri Lanka, both sides tired from the killing. South Africa was under great international pressure to end apartheid and free Mandela. The IRA was seeing very negative effects by their violence. It created a negative image for the movement rather than support. The became the oppressor and not the victim in many people's eyes.

Perhaps the most spectacular and focused act against a government was the ETA attack on the prime minister of Spain in 1973. A bomb built under the road lifted the prime minister's car over sixty feet in the air clearing the building it was driving past and depositing the car on the second story balcony of the inside terrace. Four decades later the ETA is asking for a negotiated settlement.





Once it decided by both sides that the violence needs to end, the real work begins. Making initial contact, when to use a mediator, when to meet face to face, what issues will be discussed, where can the meeting take place safely for both parties all come into play. Powell spends most of his words on these topics and uses the same historical cases to make his points. Not all the situations are the same and not all groups need to be negotiated with. The key to everything is building trust. Taking up arms against a system demonstrates a lack of trust and successful groups have, what they believe are, valid claims. Negotiation is not a magical moment of changing people's long-held views, but establishing trust so that problems can be worked out peacefully through the political system. Powell explains how this is done and has been done.

Quite a remarkable book on a controversial subject. If peace is the desired outcome, fighting usually will not give that result. Bomb one terrorist group into submission, and another will rise. It will possibly be worse than the previous group as we are seeing with the rise of ISIS. It also seems that the longer we go without negotiations the less desirable the groups we are fighting become. Terrorists at the Table is a well thought out and practical guide of the problem of terrorism and what to do about it. Government's stance on not negotiating with terrorists is like people and the speed limit law. We all know the law, but we all break it. Unlike speeding, negotiating may save lives and build a safe society. show less

Mr. Powell presents an interesting hypothesis to the age-old problem of terrorism. That is, the only solution to terrorism is to engage with and negotiate with the terrorists. He comes to this belief through his experiences with the IRA, as well as with other "terrorist" groups. His arguments are persuasive. Coming from a lifetime career in law enforcement, I was extremely uncomfortable with the idea. I still am. This made for a very tough read for me, but I'm glad I stuck it out. Powell show more does make a lot of sense. While I still believe in the "old ways", I see his point. I'm very glad that there are people with the patience of Mr. Powell to deal with the "terrorists". show less

Ever since I re-read The Prince by Niccolo Machiavellialmost year back (I didn’t quite pay attention and hence understand it the first time I read it when Eve Poole, the research director at Ashridge Business School, handed it to us in one of our lectures), I have wondered what in the book was so sinister as to use the term ‘Machiavellian‘ with despair and disgust.

I, for one, found the book to provide the best advice, in almost all cases, to those wishing to be a great leader. show more Fortunately, after having started to read Jon Powell’s political memoir on the Blair years (also a book by his colleague Alistair Campbell), The New Machiavelli, I was glad to know I wasn’t alone in admiring Machiavelli and his strategies.

The book caught my eye because of my admiration and fascination with Machiavellian philosophies. I had picked a total of 8 books, but decided to check out only 3 for the fear of annoying my wife. I am glad The New Machiavelli was one of the three.

To come to the point, I really loved reading this book. It was a page-turner, just as any original Robert Ludlum might have been. And it is surprising to hear myself say this, because I am not a keen follower of politics, whether Indian, British or global and stay away from conversations regarding the topic as if it were a plague.

Jon has won me over on two parts with this book, however.

The first is his concise, indiscreet and yet enjoyable method of narrating the Blair decade (1997-2007). Going in detail and referring to parts of his diary, that he kept during the era, he avoids ambiguity that might generally fog political events, especially the controversial ones.

It was interesting to read about the lives of Prime Ministers in Britain, the political systems and the state of affairs as one would see from the inner circle, rather than the eyes of a common citizen. It was, to confess, my first political memoir that I read cover to cover.

It is no secret that the lives of leaders is a solitary one and have many memoirs and biographies on the shelves to remind us of the fact, and so Tony Blair‘s tryst with being a radical thinker and mover in a system fraught with jammed up cogs is not an eye-opener. However, what was interesting to read and learn was the way he went about conducting his business as the Prime Minister.

Having said that, what I didn’t like too much (without blame to the author) was the book seemed lop-sided in Tony’s favor. Almost none of his mistakes were highlighted in detail. Contrarily, almost all the mistakes of his successor and ‘pain-in-the-wrong-places’ colleague, Gordon Brown were described in detail. While they may be true, it was tiring to constantly read the Gordon vs. Blair angle.

The second winning point of the book is, of course, Machiavelli’s philosophies.

The book, divided in twelve chapters, is themed on twelve advices from Machiavelli. With each chapter detailing out the events, situations and behaviors of staff and ministers involved through the spectacles of Machiavelli’s masterpiece. Quotations from The Prince, encompassed by events and behaviors of people from this generation bring new light to the 500 year old manuscript and reinstating that the advice of Machiavelli holds true for modern-day princes and leaders as well.



The book is not only a fascinating read, but also an insightful read for students of political sciences and history. But it is, in my opinion, really meant for leaders, either business or political. There are many parallels that business leaders can draw between what occurs inside political houses and their own boardrooms and meetings. The virtues of leaders are common irrespective of who they are leading and this book highlights some key virtues and actions of great leaders as described by Machiavelli and as exemplified by Tony Blair.

(as published at http://acutance.in/bookreviews/2012/08/the-new-machiavelli-jonathan-powell-a-boo.... show less