Niccolo Machiavelli.
Probably one of the most highly acclaimed philosophers and political theorists of all time.
Also, a figure that has been referenced, quoted, and misunderstood like few.
But, before I initiate my attempt to scrutinize Machiavelli and his philosophy, I want to
ask you a question.
When somebody mentions the name Machiavelli, or the terms Machiavellian and Machiavellianism,
what is the first thing that comes to mind?
I assume that you think of words like dark triad, duplicity, and manipulation. Or, in
a broader context, the ability to gain power through deception, insincerity, and abuse
of power.
Actually, these are all wrong. According to Wikipedia:
“The term Machiavellian, though unrelated to the historical figure or his works, is
named after Machiavelli, as psychologists Richard Christie and Florence Geis used edited
and truncated statements inspired by his works to study variations in human behaviors.”
Ergo, we need to disengage completely from the term Machiavellian, since it fails to
paint an accurate picture of the man.
If there is a word that could accurately describe Machiavelli and his ideas, it is this: Pragmatism.
He was probably the first political theorist that honestly proposed pragmatic solutions
and interpretations of government. Apparently, his views were dramatically influenced by
his time and his personal experiences, oftentimes exceeding the threshold of political correctness
and blurring the lines between morally right and morally wrong. Nonetheless, they constitute
a powerful compendium of knowledge that is shaping the interpretation of power and influence
till this very day.
Niccolo di Bernardo dei Machiavelli was born in 1469 in Florence, Italy. His family was
descended from the old rulers of Tuscany and they have produced many members that were
part of the government of the time.
Back then, Italy consisted of many city-states that were usually ruled by different Houses.
Florence was among the largest city-states in Europe and was considered one of the wealthiest
and most successful. Part of this success should be attributed to the “House of Medici”
which was one of the strongest families of the time. The Medici controlled the Medici
bank – then Europe’s largest bank – and this allowed them to expand their influence
and strategic alliances.
In 1494, after a popular revolt, the Medici were expulsed from power and Florence was
restored to a republic. It was then that Machiavelli received his first government role as the
person responsible for the production of official Florentine government documents.
Machiavelli was part of a government that wanted to liberate Florence from the Medici
reign, but that was far from easy. The Medici had a strong alliance with the Pope and their
recapture of Florence was a matter of time. Machiavelli’s career was quite turbulent
and ended sadly in 1512 when he was deprived of office after the Medici won a critical
battle that helped them emerge to power once again.
In 1513, the Medici accused Machiavelli of conspiracy against them and had him imprisoned
and tortured. After denying involvement, he was released and decided to retire to his
estate at Sant’Andrea in Percussina in order to devote himself to studying and writing.
That’s when he completed his most famous works “The Prince” and “Discourses on
Livy” and that’s when he gained his reputation as a great political theorist and philosopher.
Now, in order to attempt an objective critique of Machiavelli’s views, we need to properly
assess the context of the epoch wherein he decided to express such views.
Imagine you are a person who descends from an upper-middle-class family and you get the
chance to play an important role in the governance of a strong republic. You are overly analytical,
quite strategic, and also quite pragmatic. You understand the fragility of human nature
and you taste the bitter side of it despite your most courageous attempts to be morally
right. You feel weak at the sight of excessive power and you are tortured for being on “the
right side of history.” You are clearly affected tremendously by all
those events and you start to embrace a more cynical life philosophy. Miles J. Unger, who
wrote a book titled “Machiavelli: A Biography” in 2011, depicts him in an interesting way:
“Disappointed in his hopes, burning with unfulfilled ambition, he wrote a pugnacious
work that makes a fetish of strength and oozes contempt for anything that smacks of weakness
or vacillation.” Moreover, something critical about Machiavelli
is that, compared to other political theorists, who didn’t partake in the political sphere,
and could only focus on “ideal” and sometimes impractical forms of governance, he was deeply
engaged in political life for almost 20 years. Therefore, his views resemble a more holistic
understanding of politics and power. Based on those facts, I will try to analyze
some thought-provoking ideas echoed in his most famous treatise, “The Prince.”
I don’t endorse and I don’t agree with most of his views.
As a humanistic thinker, most of his narrative strikes me as authoritarian, condescending,
immoral and politically incorrect in our current time and age.
I can’t say, however, that his views are not relevant or important to examine.
They reveal some important truths about our political systems, the leaders we choose,
and why we choose them. I think that Machiavelli, essentially, helps
us look deep inside ourselves and face our nature - a nature responsible for the perpetuation
of flawed modes of government and co-existence. When Machiavelli turned to the question of
whether it was better for a prince to be loved or feared (Chapter 17 of “The Prince”),
he stated that, while it would be wonderful for a leader to be both, he should eventually
side with fear.
Machiavelli suggests that human nature is somewhat ungrateful. The prince (or any person
in power) is like the authority figure that substitutes the parent figure when a person
enters adulthood. People in power will always have a huge responsibility towards their followers.
This responsibility creates a form of dependency that urges people to keep craving more and
hold the prince accountable for most of their needs.
Such an intense interplay damages most of the ability to cultivate self-reliance and
people, instead of appreciating the prince’s offerings, they become ungrateful and keep
asking for more.
Therefore, a prince needs to resemble characteristics that don’t allow others to question his
authority. Such a characteristic is fear. Fear, although it still creates a dependency
between the ruler and the people, it successfully prevents unwanted behaviors stemming from
lack of appreciation.
The trick here is to ensure that fear doesn’t turn into hatred. Intense, cruel and unjustified
demonstrations of fear can never keep people engaged. Fear needs to be subtly induced in
a way that people can justify it. Events of punishment should be subject to convincing
reasoning, for people will side with the most persuasive argument.
In Chapter 15 of “The Prince,” Machiavelli states the following:
“Men have imagined republics and principalities that never really existed at all. Yet the
way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons
what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation; for a man who
strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many
men who are not good.”
In this passage, Machiavelli exudes the totality of his pragmatic ideals. He exposes the reality
of human nature and explains that being constantly nice will get you nowhere because most people
are not that nice.
In short, he tries to explain that a prince should destroy the delusion that acting good
will always favor him, but, at the same time, create the illusion that he is actually good,
for people respect goodness.
In general, some personal characteristics will earn people praise, others condemnation.
Courage, compassion, faith, craftiness, and generosity number among the qualities that
receive praise. Cowardice, cruelty, stubbornness, and miserliness are usually met with condemnation.
Ideally, a prince would possess all the qualities deemed “good” by others. But this expectation
is unrealistic. A prince’s first job is to safeguard the state, and, alas, harboring
“bad” characteristics is sometimes necessary for this end.
The relationship between the prince and the people is quite a turbulent one. People demand
actions, but at the same time, they are not ready to react maturely to difficult situations.
In order to understand the impact this dynamic has in the relationship, we need to work with
an analogy. Think of a difficult romantic relationship you had. After the honeymoon
face, reality hits you hard and, most times, one of the parties will let their mask of
sanity slip. False expectations, neurotic reactions, unmet needs, and increased familiarity
will lead to friction and an inability to maintain a stable connection.
Despite your most courageous attempts to be honest, your partner keeps reacting negatively
to news that don’t suit their liking. Your ability to communicate honest views decreases
with time and, inevitably, you become dishonest in order to avoid conflict.
In a romantic relationship, usually, you have the luxury to leave, but a prince doesn’t
wish to abandon his position. He decides to embrace dishonesty as the most effective weapon
to deal with lack of conflict.
People will almost always favor a delusional hope to a harsh truth.
In Chapters 6-9 of “The Prince,” Machiavelli explains what a prince needs to do after he
acquires his position depending on the way he ascended to power.
The overarching theme of this idea is that loyalty needs to be constantly scrutinized
and bought and resistance to be fought.
When it comes to loyalty, the people who decide to be on the prince’s side will do so because
they can benefit from him and not because they like him. They are bound to the prince
and their loyalty is a matter of character and benefits. The prince needs to ensure that
the rapacious and overly ambitious shouldn’t be trusted and that the weak-spirited and
grateful should be sought after and constantly praised.
That is a subtle but great detail to identify. Overly ambitious people can’t stay loyal
for long. They are also thirsty for power and eventually will try and sabotage those
above them. In contrast, people who are weak-spirited will always savor their relationship with
a prince because it allows them to feel safe and that they belong to his tribe.
When it comes to resistance, Machiavelli recognizes resistance as an omnipresent force. That is
because people are naturally resistant to change and reform. Especially people who benefited
from the old order will resist fiercely.
Princes who keep the old order around will inevitably need to keep fighting them and
that suggests a waste of time, resources, and trust.
Ergo, people who resist, need to be fought fast so that the prince can focus on reassuring
the followers of the strength of the new order and the benefits that will follow.
In Chapter 25, Machiavelli tries to conclude his ideas with the main strategy to be followed
by countries and individuals in order to increase their chances of success.
Free will vs determinism has always been a hot topic amongst thinkers. Machiavelli’s
stance on the matter is, again, very pragmatic. According to him, success is the point where
preparation meets opportunity.
A person cannot control the world, but he can definitely control most of his actions.
Through foresight, people can shield themselves against misfortune and self-sabotage.
Moreover, because time changes, a prince needs to adapt and embrace malleable characteristics.
On the whole, impetuosity surpasses caution and fortune favors energetic youth over cautious
age.
Machiavelli and his ideas might come across as devious and manipulative.
I personally try to view them with an open mind.
I know that “The Prince” is suggested in most political science programs around
the world as a must-read. This is not by accident. These principles have been espoused and applied
by the most influential political figures of our past and our present.
In our current epoch, politics is not considered anymore an elusive concept that seems so far-fetched
and abstract, but more like a skill with certain mechanics that can be construed and cultivated.
Knowing and understanding certain tactics used by politicians, can be a crucial step
forwards in redressing the balance within ourselves and, eventually, within our political system.