Machiavelli: Stability over Ideology

March 28, 2011Leave a commentGo to comments

Machiavelli is widely considered to be one of the most immoral or, at the least, amoral political figures in history, and his seminal work The Prince is largely responsible for this image. However, as I intend to show, The Prince does not fully encapsulate Machiavelli’s complex and subtle critique of the polis and how it ought to be structured. By investigating selections from The Discourses, a larger political theory emerges which values checks and balances and attempts to address the difficulties young republics face as they struggle to become established. Upon this analysis I believe it is clear that Machiavelli supports a form of checks and balances which includes a prince as a strong central ruler who is restricted by laws created by the governed. To this end I shall first discuss the role of the prince as a founder, establisher, and reformer of institutions and laws. From there I shall highlight the weaknesses and dangers Machiavelli associates with hereditary rule, as well as his call for the formation of checks and balances to create a more stable system. Finally, I shall address Machiavelli’s sentiments that ultimately the type of government matters much less than the stability and order of whatever government is established.

The Founder and Law-Giver

Machiavelli begins The Discourses by drawing a dichotomy between cities built locally and those established by foreigners. Those cities built locally either arise spontaneously among inhabitants or are created and united by a single individual who has authority. According to Machiavelli, a spontaneously arising group of individuals who attempts to govern themselves through laws without a prince will rarely succeed, and the city of Venice was only able to do this due to geography and Fortune.[1] Following this, Machiavelli tells us also that a city is most fortunate if a single individual can establish enduring laws: “A state can be considered most fortunate if it can bring forth a man who is so wise that he established laws organized in such a way that the state can exist securely under them without these laws needing to be revised.”[2] Founding a city and establishing laws and institutions takes the drive and power of a single person. As Machiavelli says:

It is a general rule that rarely, if ever, has a republic or kingdom been set up well from the beginning, or had its old institutions entirely reformed, unless this was done by a single man. In fact, it is necessary that one man alone give it form. Its organization must depend entirely on his ideas.[3]

Machiavelli cites numerous examples of rulers who were given absolute power but established enduring laws that protected the common good, such as Theseus, Moses, Lycurgus of Sparta, Solon, and Agis of Sparta. A single individual must necessarily form all of the laws and institutions because groups of men

are not able to come to an agreement on anything due to conflicting opinions, and so the city would fail before it began.[4]

It is also necessary that these laws be established by a single ruler for a long period of time to avoid constant restructuring as different factions take power and gain or lose influence. Such a constant changing of the institutions and orders is destructive to a state and ultimately lead to the downfall of the Republic of Florence.[5] To that end, the prince who utilizes his absolute power to establish strong institutions, like Romulus establishing the senate, deserves praise and not blame for “acting outside the law in order to set up a kingdom or establish a republic.”[6] Once a prince has founded a city and created laws and institutions, these laws and institutions must be cultivated. It is to this point that I shall now turn.

Checks and Balances

Once the skilled founder has established laws and institutions, he must ensure that his power cannot be inherited but most be given. As Machiavelli says:

The founder of a state must be prudent and skillful enough not to leave his power for another to inherit, because…his successor might use with greed what the founder used with skill. A single man might be capable of establishing a state, but the state established tends not to last long if it remains on the shoulders of one man, while it does last when it remains under the control of many and relies on many to maintain it.[7]

This passage points to the instability of a city whose sole power passes from one individual to another, since even a wise and just founder cannot ensure that the next ruler, or the one after him, will be as just or as wise, and so a principality can easily degenerate into a tyranny. Similar issues plague the ruler who seeks to establish an aristocracy, which inevitably slides into an oligarchy where the nobles think more of their own power than the stability of the state. Similarly, a democracy would soon devolve into nothing more than chaos and disorder.[8] From here Machiavelli proposes that a truly wise ruler who seeks to establish an enduring government will avoid a pure system which can become corrupted and instead will mix these types. This leads to the development of checks and balances. On this he says:

Prudent rulers setting up laws were aware of this shortcoming, and steered clear of each of these forms in itself, choosing a government that combined them all, judging it steadier and more stable, because

one form can keep the other in check when there are a principality, an aristocracy, and a democracy in the same city.[9]

Machiavelli offers up an example of such a system working well, namely that established by Lycurgus of Sparta. This system, which combined all three forms of government to create a system of checks and balances, was able to last over 800 years without changing at all.[10]

In this system of checks and balances it is important for some laws to exist that limit the scope of the prince’s power. When such laws are made and the people see that the prince will not violate them, the prince is able to do what he is required to do and the people are able to feel safe and secure. A government that does not set up such a system of controls will regret it later on the line.[11] One such example of laws successfully checking the power of a single individual which Machiavelli cites is that of the Roman dictator. By establishing laws that allowed the Senate to elect a dictator during times of crisis, but which also restricted the power of the dictator, Rome (according to Machiavelli) never experienced a corrupt dictator. Some of the checks against the dictator’s power were that (1) he was elected by the Senate, and so his power was temporary and was due only to the consent of the people, (2) he could only be dictator for a maximum of 6 months, and (3) he was not allowed to alter the institutions of Rome, such as disbanding the Senate, etc. [12]

In a similar spirit, Machiavelli encourages that in this system of checks and balances, no one institution should have the ability to block all of a state’s proceedings. As an example of this, Machiavelli cites an instance when two Roman Consuls were in disagreement about how to govern but would not allow the Senate to appoint a dictator, Rome benefitted from having the Tribunes which successfully kept the Consuls from blocking all political progress.[13] In this way we can see that Machiavelli values the stability which a system of checks and balances can provide. Now I shall turn to a discussion of Machiavelli’s desire for stability.

Stability Over Idealogy

Conspicuously absent from Machiavelli’s discussion of political systems is any claim of Natural or Divine Law which dictates that all men must be given certain rights. Rather, as I have shown, his treatment of this topic centers on the stability of a government rather than pursuing a pure form for idealistic purposes. This can be seen in passages like the one below, where Machiavelli discusses order and stability. Discussing the various types of states, Machiavelli says, “Of these states, the most unfortunate is the one furthest from order, and the state furthest from order is the one whose institutions stray from

the path that could lead the way to a perfect and proper existence.”[14] His discussion elsewhere of the three types of government also is devoid of any idealistic language and instead focuses on the longevity of a government and how no single, pure type of government can resist degradation without checks and balances: “Thus if the founder of a republic institutes one of these three kinds of government [principality, aristocracy, or democracy,] he cannot hope for it to last long, for no precaution can keep it from lapsing into its opposite.”[15] Similarly, his discussion of liberty and freedom does not stem from a normative, populist ideal that freedom ought to reside with the people but instead he frames his investigation in terms of security and stability.[16] In this way Machiavelli’s focus is on the stability of a government rather than pursuing a theoretical ideal, and the exact composition of the government matters less than whether it is ordered and stable.

Concluding Remarks

In short, it does Machiavelli and his corpus of work an injustice to take The Prince and its various machinations as the sole voice of Machiavelli’s political theory. Rather, I believe I have shown that it should serve only as an introductory chapter. This is because the establishment of a strong and stable government first requires a powerful ruler to take control and dictate the laws and institutions. Sometimes this requires extreme measures, as in the case with Romulus: “While his actions might accuse him, the result excuses him, and when the result is good, as it was in the case of Romulus, the result will always justify his actions,” and again when he says that Romulus is one of the rulers who should be pardoned for murdering his brother to gain power, since what he did was for the common good.[17] The Prince can also be seen as an introduction to Machiavelli’s wider theory in that he cites the same figures as exemplar in both The Prince and The Discourses: Moses, the profit who used force but also set up laws, Romulus, who founded the Roman Empire as well as the Roman Senate, and Theseus, who united the Athenians and made later Athenian superiority possible.[18] In this way, by emulating these figures, a ruler would hopefully also emulate their establishment of enduring institutions. I believe Machiavelli wrote The Prince in hopes that a strong and uniting prince would emerge to unite Italy, and wrote The Discourses to plant the seeds for the necessity of forming checks and balances to ensure that Italy remained united.[19] As I have shown, when taken as a whole, Machiavelli’s collected works present a systematic approach for not only establishing a strong city or state but also ensuring that it remains stable for as long as possible.

Niccolo Machiavelli taught that political leaders must be prepared to do evil that good may come of it, and his name has been a byword ever since for duplicity and immorality.

Essays in History, Politics and Culture Copyright R. James Ferguson © 2004

Political Realism, Ideology and Power: -

A Discussion and Critique via Machiavelli, Morgenthau and Sun Tzu

Topics

1. Introduction: From Machiavelli to Realism

2. The Philosophical and Historical Background of The Prince

3. Central Themes of The Prince

4. Morgenthau and Power Politics Among Nations

5. Critical Discussion: Contradictions and Implications

6. Broader Implications and Alternatives

7. A Brief Comparison With Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War'

 

1. Introduction: From Machiavelli to Realism

Several world-views underlie the main strands of thought in politics and international relations. How power is defined, used and assessed is one fundamental theme in the analysis of states, nations, diplomacy and war. Likewise, the guiding role of ideas is also crucial in analysing historical trends and their meaning. Today, we will look at 'realism' in it political sense in some detail. Realism focuses on several claims and which are held to limit the 'utility' of idealism, values and ideals. Some of the key components of the realist position in plitics and international relations include: -

o Must look at actual 'real' situation in the world, including negative aspects.

o Emphasis on power, and augmentation of power in international relations

o Emphasis on the state as the key actor in international relations.

o Emphasis on national interests as the basis for the motivation of leadership groups

o Emphasis on behaviour and outcomes, not ideaso Tends to have a negative view of human nature as being

essentially self-interested

The classic statement which helped established these values in the modern Western tradition is found in the short work called The Prince, written by Niccolo Machiavelli. We will approach Realism by looking at his works, plus one main representative of modern realism, the thought of Hans Morgenthau. It is no accident that both these books were written during periods of crisis, when nations in Europe were under major turmoil.

Niccolo Machiavelli lived in the later 15th and early 16th century and died in 1527. The Prince studies the way that principalities should be ruled. Principalities are states ruled by a single leader, who may be a prince, a duke, or a king. Here, Machiavelli is making a direct contrast with Republican forms of government, which have some level of representation of the other classes in society, and issue which he took up in another, lesser known work, Discourses on Livy, which seems to show his preference for this form of government. Indeed, Machiavelli had been an adviser to the Florentine republic and upon the takeover of the Medici was tortured and then exiled (Lukes 2001, p570, footnote 40). The fact that Machiavelli wrote both these works suggests we need to carefully assess the context of The Prince rather than take it at face value as a political prescription. It is not enough to suggest that Machiavelli is 'the sycophant who solicits his republican soul for aristocratic patronage' (a point made in Lukes 2001, p561). Nor is it enough to suggest that the Prince is a 'practical handbook' whereas the Discourses are a more reserved historical and intellectual text (as suggested by Lukes 2001, p569) - the two texts offer divergent approaches and recommendations.

Machiavellianism is the adjective often given to the doctrine that the end not only justifies the means, but that all political actions and

policies can only be properly judged through their outcomes. In such a theory neither intentions nor ideals are important except in so far as they allow persons or nations to reach their goals. In such a context, a ruthless and manipulative approach to political goas, including deceit, murder and the use of force seem justified. As we shall see, this is a somewhat exaggerated version of Machiavelli's political position, but seems to have been one dominant interpretation of his thought in the following centuries. Thus later interpreters often emphasised the sly strategies of the fox that are utilised in The Prince, rather than the parallel discussion of the virtues of the lion (including courage, sociability and courage) that are also put forward by Machiavelli (Lukes 2001).

Machiavellianism, of course, is more severe than the general notion of political realism. In political realism a set of assumption or arguments are often made: -

o that actors (leaders/states/groups) act to pursue their own interests

o there is no point in trying to achieve aims which are unrealizable or impractical -

o therefore, politics is 'the art of the possible'o we shouldn't expect too much of corruptible individuals

or institutionso all social and political systems are imperfecto the ability to carry out an action, i.e. power, is a more

important determinant of events than ethics or ideology.

Political Realism claims to be: -

o a practical approacho focuses on the actual needs of states and leaderso guards against threats and criseso based on an accurate assessment of both history and

contemporary affairs.

 

2. The Philosophical and Historical Background of The Prince

In order to understand the significance of Machiavelli's The Prince it needs to be placed against the tradition of ideas to which it refers.

This requires a brief glance at the history of Renaissance Italy, as many of the examples in the text refer ether to ancient history or to the peculiarities of Italian politics and diplomacy in the 14th & 15th centuries. 

2.A The Tradition of Political Philosophy.

The Prince has been described as a handbook for Princes (rulers), in the tradition of such books written in the Late Middle Ages. These books were sometimes called 'Mirrors of Virtues', in that they list and explain the good qualities a ruler is supposed to have in order to rule as an effective king and to defend Christianity.

However, it is important to place The Prince within a broader philosophical tradition. Political philosophy is almost as old as philosophy itself, based on the idea that man is essentially a social, communicating animal who conducts his activities and lives most fully within a community or state: in the Greek case the polis or city-state. Thus the citizen is involved in politics, festivals and other social activities, in sports and games, in literature in art, in voting in the assemblies, holding minor offices, being a juror in the courts, and in fighting in the army. Politics, then, was originally a study of the life of the citizen within the city-state, and an analysis of the different forms of political life and governmental constitution.

With this in mind, many of the Greek philosophers, naturally, wrote texts on the nature of the state, on how it should be run, both ideally and practically. The Republic by Plato is one attempt to frame a Utopian city in which justice can be found. He had a more pragmatic attempt to frame the basis of an operational state in his very conservative work, The Laws. Though in Plato's view the state had to rule with the consent of the government, it was also crucial that the state should be guided with those who had the knowledge of constitutions and government - he was thus led the idea of a military and philosophical elite (or a philosopher-king) who should control the state and its laws.

Aristotle, too, was deeply interested in the way polities operated and wrote a foundation treatise called the Politics in which he analyzed the different types of constitutions, the way they developed and were overthrown, and the legitimate basis of their rule. This treatise

called upon numerous actual examples known to him from the Greek world, and was not Utopian in its methodology and implications, as was Plato's Republic. Rather, Aristotle states that we have to assess the best constitution for 'the majority of states', i.e. his claim is that his analysis is based on facts, and that its recommendations are practical. Essentially, Aristotle feels that the middle class provides the most stable group to rule the state, but draws up various appropriate constitutions relevant to the class structure of the city involved (Politics IV.3).

Aristotle's thought had enormous influence on what came to be called political theory, as well as early constitutional and legal thought. His comparative and constitutional approach is very much with us today in many modes of political analysis. In passing we might mention that some of his ideas were put into practise by the tyrant Demetrius of Phaleron, who came into power in Athens after 322 B.c., and gave that city 10 years of fairly stable but morally austere government. Likewise, Aristotle's conception of the mixed constitution, including institutions reflecting the democratic, aristocratic and monarchical elements, was used by a later Greek historian, Polybius, to explain the dramatic successes and military might of the Romans as they conquered the entire Mediterranean world.

It is quite possible that Machiavelli's method of analysis in some ways followed Aristotle's in the use of examples to support a set of recommendations which he feels are practical. This is something of a 'case analysis' approach, where individual examples are used to support and demonstrate general principles.

Greek thinkers were very much concerned with the stability and justice of states; for through 500 years of the Greek city-states most of them had suffered regular upheavals and continual warfare. Politics sought for constitutions which were both robust and able to survive inter-state warfare. That is to say, internal and external politics were connected. These issues were also extremely important in the unstable world of Italian city-states during the Renaissance. For Machiavelli, as we shall see, good laws are dependant on 'good', i.e. efficient military forces (The Prince, Book XII). However, for Greek historian Polybius, the ability to raise and maintain an efficient army is dependent on a stable state which

avoids internal revolution and conflict through having a balanced constitution. In modern terms, the effective strength of an organization is based on its stability and integration as much as on its brute strength or total size, a point also recognized by the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu. States also need to be able to face and survive external threats, without destroying the bases of their own societies. We shall return to this point in our later discussion.

Machiavelli, in fact, was reacting to wide range of traditional learning, much of which had an idealistic imperative, i.e. it was concerned with improving the state and the life of the individual. There were several texts in the ancient tradition to which Machiavelli was reacting. For, example, Cicero's De Officiis was an attempt to define the way an office holder or official should execute his duties. Essentially, he advised that the highest moral standards should be adhered to, and that officials should also be generous and just in their dealings. These claims, which greatly influenced Renaissance thought, were largely rejected by Machiavelli as either inefficient, or actually dangerous to the rule of the Prince (The Prince XVI). We might also mention Cicero's Republic, another book attempting to define a Utopian republic in which political extremes are avoided. Democracy is allowed some small place in this constitution, but liberty is not allowed to become license. More importantly, Cicero recognized that for a Republic to work, there had to be a certain commonality in the aims and values of its people: without some level of shared aspirations and goals, different classes within the society would eventually tear it apart (for Machiavelli's divergences from Cicero, see Lukes 2001, pp562-563). Now it is true that many modern European states originally began as ethnic and cultural unities. However, with the expansion of states across larger territories, and with a growing cultural and religious pluralism, such a unified world-view is often impossible. It is for this reason that the seminal Chistian thinker, St. Augustine, in his the City of God, decided that no earthly republic could be truly just, nor without conflict, a view which Machiavelli also sought to transcend.

Another work which Machiavelli reacted against was Seneca's De Clementia (which means 'Concerning Clemency' or 'Mercy'). Seneca here denounces cruelty, but one of the key doctrines of The Prince is that cruelty can be 'used well', i.e. it is a valid and efficient tool of policy. There is one last ancient writer who had a profound effect on

Machiavelli - the historian Livy, who wrote a long, moralizing history of the Roman Republic. Machiavelli himself wrote a series of Discourses on the work of Livy, in which he analyzes the bases of Republics. Machiavelli, like other Italian writers such as Petrarch and Dante, was strongly impressed by ancient Roman learning and the type of administrative and military virtues which had made Rome great from the 3rd century B.C. till approximately 500 A.D. Machiavelli was in fact an ardent supporter of the Florentine Republic until the rule of the Medici was restored in 1512. The Prince, itself, was probably written after some of these Discourses had begun (Adams 1971, p93), and is therefore one special case of the analysis of a state ruled by an individual leader. The Discourses have a very different tone and content to The Prince. For example, in this work Machiavelli, speaking of the early Roman kings says -

The prince consequently soon drew upon himself the general hatred. An object of hatred, he naturally felt fear; fear in turn dictated to him precautions and wrongs, and thus tyranny quickly developed itself. Such were the beginnings and causes of disorders, conspiracies, and plots against the sovereigns, set on foot, not by the feeble and timid, but by those citizens who, surpassing the others in grandeur of soul, in wealth, and in courage, could not submit to the outrages and excesses of their princes. (in Adams 1971, p97)

This model of the ruler's actions based on fear is a different view to that found in The Prince, where the noble leader takes necessary actions in his own interest. Furthermore, in the Discourses, Machiavelli follows Aristotle and Polybius in recommending a mixed constitution, stating that; -

In fact, when there is combined under the same constitution a prince, a nobility, and the power of the people, then these three powers will watch and keep each other reciprocally in check. (in Adams 1971, p98)

This notion of the rule of law and a balance of powers are not highly valued in The Prince, the work for which Machiavelli is today (in)famous. There are two ways of relating these three political groups of the prince, nobility and people. Usually they are viewed as a potentially stable hierarchy of classes. However, it terms of political alliances, it is quite possible to view them as a wheel in which internal alliances, external interventions (from France, Spain or the Holy Roman Empire), or the use of mercenaries (Condottieri) can bring about a literal revolution. In this system the prince might ally with the people if the nobles get too strong, or use the nobles to

crush the people. Likewise, the nobles might ally themselves with the lower estates to remove the Prince. Machiavelli uses both models, depending on the state of affairs under discussion.

In part, Machiavelli was reacting against the elevated political standards argued for in Christian scholarship. During the later Middle Ages and the early Renaissance period, Christianity, with its emphasis on the spiritual life of man, on his inner virtues and intentions, had set a much higher standard for its Princes than even the ancients had. Indeed, the Prince was supposed to be a model of Christian virtue, and fulfil a religious function in defending the Church and propagating its virtues. Taking for example, the work of Egidio Colonna in the 13th century, we see that the Prince both in his personality and in his administration of his household and state is supposed to attain the highest levels of talent and morality. The picture is ideal, and deduced from general Christian principles of conduct (Adams 1971, p155).

However, in the thirteen century, the works of Aristotle were being rediscovered and discussed, largely through texts and commentaries preserved in Arabic sources. Aristotle had left a huge legacy of clearly written texts that used observation and the collection of data as methods - studies of biology, physics, politics and political constitutions. This approach, from the time of the Dark Ages on, came to be regarded as being in contradiction to the revealed truth of Christianity. But Thomas Aquinas (1225-74 A.D.) managed to resolve this problem by arguing that the truths of faith, and those of sense experience, as discussed by Aristotle, were fully complementary and compatible. Religious Truth was still held to be the high truth, but it was now possible to systematically study the principles of the world and the way it worked without undermining revealed truth.

There was a second aspect to this. Politically, St Augustine saw the divine order and the political world, which he expressed as the heavenly city and the earthly city, as essentially in disharmony. There could be no truly holy empire, nor genuinely spiritual world order. Aquinas, however, thought there could be a harmony between the two, if the law of the earthly kingdoms corresponded firstly to natural law, and therefore to divine law. For Aquinas, the order of the physical world was put in place by God, therefore, it

reflected God's will. Furthermore, the working out of this natural law could be understood by reason and act as a guide to behavior (implied in Aquinas Summa Theologica I-II, Third Article, Question 94). For Aquinas, true kingship could be one of the best ways to run a state, but only if the common good was being pursued, and if there is some level of consensus between the king and his subjects. The king in his coronation swore to do justice to all men, and he was, in turn, responsible to God. Legitimate government, therefore, must conform to this divine law.

Various 15th century writers including Platina and Patrizi, followed up these notions - they were particularly interested in the education of the prince towards virtue, and the application of these virtues in the practice of an ethical administration. These 15th century humanists began to develop catalogues of virtues, list of qualities the prince should have, perhaps under the impact of Aristotle's Ethics and Cicero De Officiis (Adams 1971, p157). Some idea of the extent of these virtues can be seen by looking at Castiglione's Book of the Courtier. This work was actually written shortly before Machiavelli's, but it really tries to distil the concepts of the Middle Ages into a vision of the completely rounded, ideal knight or courtier. He is a man who has the skills of war, but also those of literature, music, athletics, a deep understanding of the intellectual tradition of the West, and to top it all, is a lover and protector of women.

Although Machiavelli's The Prince superficially fits into the mould of these humanist tracts, he actually undertook to refute these catalogues of virtues, especially in books XV-XIX (Adams 1971, p163). There are two clear grounds for this attack.

First, Machiavelli claims to be focusing on what really happens rather than mere theories or speculations (The Prince Book XV). Second, that adhering to what should be rather than what actually occurs can lead to self-destruction. This is the basis of the general claim by many of Machiavelli's commentators that he is a realist on two counts: first, that he bases his discussion on historical and contemporary evidence which provides an empirical base for his work. Second, that in refuting ethical and moral claims and substituting them with the 'real' principles underlying statecraft, he is freeing the leader from any obligation to follow these ideals, i.e.

Machiavelli is perhaps the Renaissance grandfather of real-politik. This term real-politik has been extended to cover the notion of the blending of power, self-interest, and some limited credence to morals, into a 'policy of the possible'. (for example, in post-world war II political thought, as expressed by H. Morgenthau, see below. In most democratic forms of government, legalists would prefer to modify this approach to 'the policy of the possible and the permissible').

As we shall see, both these claims made on behalf of Machiavelli can be challenged. However, before turning to the text itself, it may be important to assess the degree of realist thought found in other humanist thinkers, stretching over 200 years. Diomede Carafa (1406-87), for example, wrote a 'survival' handbook for a princess who had just married the Duke of Ferrara (Adams 1971, p160). However, this political memorandum was not published. The division between theory and practise was rarely discussed. It is Machiavelli, however, who shocked his contemporaries by publicly pointing out the hypocrisy of this situation. Thinkers such as Erasmus, Sir Thomas More and Cardinal Wolsey did seem to subscribe to these high ideals of political practice - Erasmus wrote a text on the education of Christian princes, while More's Utopia is a sharp critique of current society. The point here is that these thinkers not only knew the realities of politics, but were themselves actively involved in Church and State affairs. Thus Cardinal Wolsey's Treaty of London in 1518, although overtly designed at defending Europe from the Turks, actually contained numerous provisions for the arbitration of disputes and the limitation of aggression within Europe. Erasmus, of course, was deeply involved in the Catholic Counter-Reformation, which hoped to stem the Protestant movement in northern Europe. Sir Thomas More was both a parliamentarian and a diplomat. These humanitarian thinkers were aware of the ruthlessness of political life. Rather than suggesting a naïve idealism, they were trying to set up a standard, or norm, by which the reality of the time could be judged. It was not that they lacked knowledge of the corruption of public and private life, but that they wished to reform it. Further, by making princes and rulers publicly agree to this high ideals, they set up a way by which their conduct could be criticised and judged. Ethical and ideal standards are themselves tools and means of statecraft. Social and political

criticism implies the existence of some criteria to judge events against.

Interestingly enough, Machiavelli's Discourses makes it clear that he thought that the Italians had declined from an earlier, more virtuous state in the times of the Roman Republic. He states in the Discourses: -

. . . when we see . . . the wonderful examples which the history of ancient kingdoms and republics present us, the prodigies of virtue and wisdom displayed by the kings, captains, citizens and legislators who have sacrificed themselves for their country - when we see these, I say, more admired than imitated, or so much neglected that not the least trace of this ancient virtue remains, we cannot but be at the same time as much surprised as afflicted (in Adam 1971, p94).

Machiavelli feels that these ancient virtues were no longer present in his own time and that people had become much more corrupt and difficult to rule (Lukes 2001, p565). Part of his willingness to embrace the idea of a Republic is based on the view that these ancient virtues can, at least in part, be revived. It is possible that the defeat of the Florentine Republic may have somewhat soured his view of this project. The rather more cynical and pessimistic view expressed in The Prince may result, in part, from bitterness rather than irony. It is also possible that once Machiavelli was forced to recognize the Medici control of Florence, that this led to sustained elements of irony in The Prince, even if much of it did provide sound advice for rulers (see Lukes 2001, p561).

2.B History of Machiavellianism

Machiavelli's The Prince, in condoning immoral actions on the basis of necessity, managed to shock his own generation and thinkers of the following 300 hundred years. The book, written in 1513, was dedicated to Lorenzo de' Medici by 1519. It circulated as a handwritten copy for about 20 years. The Prince was published officially in 1532, and went through seven editions in less than 20 years (Adams 1971; Machiavelli 1988). By 1640, the Prince had been translated into French, Italian and English, though it came to be placed on the Index of banned books by the Catholic books (see Adams 1971; Machiavelli 1988).

To understand some of the controversy which later on developed around the figure of Machiavelli and of The Prince, we need to turn

to specific event in 1572. In 1572, on St. Batholomew's night, the Catholic leaders of France attempted to wipe out the entire Huguenot (Protestant) population of France (Adams 1971, p229), killing up to 50,000 people. It turned out that the mother of the king of France was Catherine de' Medici, and the claim was made that this was act of mass murder was done directly under the influence of Machiavelli's ideas. It is from this time onwards that a series of books were written against Machiavelli's The Prince, and that the term 'machiavellian' came to mean an entirely unprincipled rogue who will use any means to gain his/her end (a view which certainly exaggerates Machiavelli's views).

It was only after the French Revolution and the Enlightenment that Machiavelli was rehabilitated, with the French philosopher Rousseau first praising his Republican viewpoint. Later on, with the rise of the empirical sciences, Machiavelli's intention to describe what was he saw to be the 'reality' of affairs was supported by the rational and critical spirit of the Enlightenment period. In particular, his discussion of political systems based on power and authority has struck a cord with twentieth century sociologists and political theorists. The Prince is regularly studied in courses in politics, business, and philosophy. In some ways this is unfortunate, since the Discourses are equally important. However, as we shall see, the reasons for the emphasis on the ideas in The Prince are tied up with current ideologies which largely dominate the political, social and international arenas.

2.C Historical Background to The Prince

Machiavelli claims to be accurately describing politics and social relations as he understood them. His method was essentially that of a case-study approach: he would always illustrate his ideas using one example from the ancient world, and one from contemporary 16th century Italian affairs. However, is Machiavelli describing these events as accurately as he claims? Second, are these affairs typical of the period or are they specific and unrepresentative examples?

Several key aspects of Italian politics directly influenced the writing of The Prince. First, the states under discussion, e.g. Florence, Milan, Genoa etc., are city-states which developed from the Middle Ages as trading and craft centres which controlled fairly small inland

territories. Most of these states had no established ethnic or geographical region which could readily set stable boundaries between them. The leaders of these states tried to extend their territories, swallowing up or dominating smaller neighbours. This resulted in an intense period of conflict on the Italian peninsula, with numerous internal divisions and feuds within the cities fuelling wars and revolutions between 1300 and 1455. The result was a smaller number of relatively powerful states dominating neighbouring cities. In Machiavelli's youth the main players included Milan, Venice, Florence, the Papal States and the Kingdom of Naples.

One major trend of this period was that continual warfare seems to have contributed to a decline in the welfare, wealth and population of these states, especially Florence and Rome. J.H. Plumb gives an example of the severity of this kind of conflict in the city of Bologna: -

. . . at Bologna in 1445 the people, enraged by the slaughter of their favourite family, the Bentivoglio, hunted down their enemies and nailed their steaming hearts to the doors of the Bentivoglio's palace, as token of their love. (Plumb 1978, p31)

Both interstate and civil war were common. According to Garret Mattingly this was the result of the fact that the State could only think of itself. 'The natural egotism of a political organization with no higher end than its own self-perpetuation and aggrandizement may come nearer to explaining' the difficulties of this period than more complex economic-historical theories (Mattingly 1973, p85). However, there were attempts to limit the excesses of this warfare, especially the so-called 'Concert of Italy', where there was an agreement to leave affairs at the current territorial extension of the major Italian states. In particular, there was an attempt to avoid allowing any of these players to call in one of the major European powers, such as France or Spain. This diplomatic agreement didn't last forever, but it did defer any major intrusion from the greater European powers until 1494, when the Milanese called in the French as their allies. After this there quickly followed the intervention of Spanish forces, first in Naples, and later against Florence, while in 1527 Rome itself was sacked by the Holy Roman Empire (essentially a coalition of Austro-German forces).

However, the events described in The Prince are not really typical of European politics before or after. First, there was an extreme lack of security in these city-states, partly due to the fact that many of their rulers had no legitimate basis on which to claim their right to govern, except perhaps the Papacy, Venice, and states which had a republican system. Essentially, there was no guiding claim which made the rule of one family or group intuitively, legally or popularly acceptable. The only consensus underlying these states was that imposed by power and persuasion. The politics in this period was essentially dynastic, i.e. making sure that your line ruled, rather than being national, social, or democratic governments. In most cases these dynastic lines did not go back far enough to have strong claims to legitimacy.

Persuasion in most of these states did not derive from developing a particular ideological claim. For instance, traditional kingships refer to the traditions of the remote past, to ancestral claims and obligations, Marxist states claim that they serve the interests of the workers, while democracies claim to be representing the people. The only claim left to some of these dynasts, e.g. Cesare Borgia, was the appeal to naked power and the ability to coerce their subjects - hence it is easier to rule by fear than love (The Prince Book XVII). Greed was the motivating factor only for the few, necessity was the motivation of the many. In the last three hundred years numerous other claims, including notions of the rule of law, of a social contract, and of the ultimate benefit of the state or the people have been used to help stabilize governments. After 1494, Italy more and more was drawn into the broader political fabric of Europe, and many major powers fought their differences out Italian soil. Politics in Italy during Machiavelli's lifetime were far from normal, either in relation to the Middle Ages or the early modern period. Therefore, Machiavelli's solutions are not really generalizable, nor were his recommendations in the end effective for Renaissance Italy. Italy in turn would only be unified after the legacy of the Napoleonic wars through a mix of nationalism, liberalism and republicanism (which led to a constitutional monarchy) and the effective exclusion of foreign powers. The Prince has been over-rated as a guide book for rulers, and at best provided guidance for very particular political environments.

3. Central Themes of The Prince

In this section, we will explore some of the main themes of the text of The Prince, and make a brief comparison with some of the main strands of 20th century political realism. We can then briefly evaluate certain aspects of this realist tradition.

The central concept of reporting what really occurs, and its moral implications, are expressed by Machiavelli:

But since my intention is to say something that will prove of practical use to the listener, I have thought it proper to represent things as they are in real truth, rather than as they are imagined. Many have dreamed up republics which have never in truth been known to exist; the gulf between how one should live and how one does live is so wide that a man who neglects what is actually done for what should be done learns the way to self-destruction rather than self-preservation. The fact is that a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous. Therefore, if a prince wants to maintain his rule he must learn how not to be virtuous, and to make use of this or not according to need (Book XV, Bull translation, pp90-91. The Bull translation is used throughout unless otherwise stated).

Notice several key statements here: firstly, self-preservation, and maintenance of the rule of the prince are accepted as valid goals. Secondly, one cannot afford to be always virtuous because those around us and with whom we deal are not: in other words, the lack of public morality forces the prince to immoral means. Lastly, virtue, instead of a final goal, now becomes a tool to be used where appropriate to the aid survival of the prince and his government. We need to distinguish these moral values from the more specific sense of virtu as deployed by Machiavelli, which includes the notion of being able to understand and act on the opportunities provided by time and fortune, to simulate difference virtues or qualities as needed, and to combine cleverness and charisma (Lukes 2001, pp568-569, p573).

In particular, the prince should feel no obligation to honour his word, or obligations placed on him by the aristocracy or the people. In Book XVIII this is part of a broader pessimism concerning contemporary human nature: -

So it follows that a prudent ruler cannot, and must not, honour his word when it places him at a disadvantage and when the reasons for which he made his promise no longer exist. If all men were good, this precept would not be good; but because men are wretched creatures who would not keep their word to you, you need not keep your word to them. . . . Men are so simple, and so much creatures of circumstance, that the deceiver will always find someone ready to be deceived. (Book XVIII, pp99-1000)

Nor can such corrupt human beings be securely ruled by an appeal to their better natures, nor by an appeal to the common good or public interest. Other means must be found to ensure their obedience. So, speaking of cruelty and compassion as political tools, Machiavelli explains: -

Taking others of the qualities I enumerated above, I say that a prince must want to have a reputation for compassion rather than for cruelty: nonetheless, he must be careful that he does not make bad use of compassion. Cesare Borgia was accounted cruel; nevertheless, this cruelty of his reformed the Romagna, brought it unity, and restored order and obedience. On reflection, it will be seen that there was more compassion in Cesare than in the Florentine people, who, to escape being called cruel, allowed Pistoia to be devastated. So a prince must not be worried if he incurs reproach for his cruelty so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal. By making an example or two he will prove more compassionate than those who, being too compassionate, allow disorders which lead to murder and rapine. These nearly always harm the whole community, whereas executions ordered by a prince only affect individuals. (Book XVII, p95)

Pistoia was a subject-city of Florence in which Florentines didn't intervene soon enough to stop serious fighting between two factions. The leader Cesare Borgia, on the other hand, was renowned for his ability to use force and cruelty to control both subjects and enemies. We can see here the emphasis on achieving long-term goals, even if cruel means are required. Likewise, we see an emphasis on the welfare of the whole community, but specifically in terms of law and order. Indeed, Machiavelli has something of a utilitarian doctrine, which treats pains and pleasures in a kind of control calculus, e.g. kill a few to keep many in order.

These considerations lead Machiavelli to the following dictum: -

I believe that here it is a question of cruelty used well or badly. We can say that cruelty is used well (if it is permissible to talk in this way of what is evil) when it is employed once for all, and one's safety depends on it, and then it is not persisted in but as far as possible turned to the good of one's subjects. Cruelty badly used is that which, although infrequent to start with, as time goes on, rather than disappearing, grows in intensity. Those who use the first method can, with divine and human assistance, find some means of consolidating their position, . . . the others cannot possibly stay in power. (The Prince Book X, pp65-6)

Here we can see that Machiavelli recognizes that such actions may morally unacceptable, i.e. evil, but he still recommends them as tools to consolidate the safety and power of the prince. Furthermore, he assumes that in the end such means are turned to 'good' ends defined as the welfare of the prince's subjects, but notice this is only 'as far as possible', i.e. after the survival of the

prince has been assured. Machiavelli elevates this to a principle of necessity, based on making the best of situations to ensure the continued, and hopefully increasing, power of the prince and his state.

The prince, therefore, must rely on what he can control: -

So, on this question of being loved or feared, I conclude that since some men love as they please, but fear when the prince pleases, a wise prince should rely on what he controls, not on what he cannot control. He must only endeavour, as I have said, to escape being hated. (The Prince, Book XVII, p99)

With this in mind, according to Machiavelli it is only by successful outcomes that a prince should be judged. Moral and religious considerations, which are sometimes referred to by Machiavelli, must take a secondary role. They are luxuries which can only be afforded once stability and power have been established through more effective means.

In this light, we can see that there are few notions of legitimacy developed in The Prince. One implicit notion is that the ruler, through his intelligence, effectiveness, and his willingness to take the moment as it is delivered to him by 'Fate', has demonstrated fitness to rule. In other words, it is the ruler's strength, his special virtue in the sense of effectiveness, in the end, which entitles him to a position others lack. From this perspective, the prince or ruler may be glorious, but he is unlikely to be good in any other sense.

A second claim to legitimacy is developed in the last book of the The Prince, under the title 'Exhortation to Liberate Italy.' Here Machiavelli argues that a strong leader is needed to impose order on the entire Italian peninsula, and in particular to liberate them from the inroads of the greater European powers, as well as the wounds of internal stability. Machiavelli is here pleading for a 'prudent and capable man to introduce a new order, bringing honour to himself and prosperity to all and every Italian' The Prince, p134). This chapter may be a genuine appeal, in which case to would furnish an end directed towards the common good, justifying the actions of Machiavelli's ruthless notion of a ruler. Here we may also be witnessing an early foreshadowing of the nationalism which was at a later date to help unify Italy. However, bearing in mind that this chapter was especially directed as an appeal to the Medici Dukes

who then ruled Florence, it is also possible that a great deal of flattery and self-promotion are involved in this chapter as well.

Niccolò Machiavelli and "The Prince"

In the late medieval period and the early Renaissance, Italy was in a bad situation. The country was being invaded by powerful foreign nation states such as France and Spain. In Rome, the corrupt Alexander Borgia won the Papal election through bribery, and he rapidly appropriated the church's wealth for his own family's benefit. In Florence, the once-powerful Medici family, patron of the arts and civic projects, was in decline, rapidly losing and gaining power in alternate decades. Parts of Italy became Republics such as Genoa, but other cities like Venice fell to dictators. There was no hereditary monarchy to rule the country and no centralized government existed. Each Italian city was like a little nation unto itself, ruled by oligarchic families who viciously eliminated business competitors in a manner that would make the modern Mafia turn pale. Italy was literally tearing itself apart, and it couldn't unify itself or defend the peninsula against aggressors. It was a bad time to be an Italian.

Niccolò Machiavelli was born into this unstable time of shifting fortunes in the year 1469. He served in a number of minor government positions, and was banished or imprisoned at various points of his career. One of his most notable positions was serving as a sort of political advisor to the Borgia family. The head of the family, Alexander Borgia, was Pope; the eldest son was Cesare Borgia, a bloodthirsty young warlord; the younger daughter Lucrezia was rumored to have poisoned her way through several husbands in order to stuff the Borgia coffers with golden inheritances. The name "Borgia" was synonymous with betrayal, murder, and powermongering.

Machiavelli, disillusioned with the ineffectual bickering and infighting among the Italian cities, saw the effectiveness of the Borgia family members in seizing and maintaining their power. He formulated his own theory of effective government in a treatise known as "The Prince," and he based his ideal "Prince" on Cesare Borgia's life. He famously asserted that

good rulers sometimes have to learn "not to be good," they have to be willing to set aside ethical concerns of justice, honesty, and kindness in order to maintain the stability of the state. The idea was shocking to contemporaries, who had inherited medieval ideas about divine kingship, in which the king was appointed by God for the express purpose of serving as a sort of celestial deputy on earth, upholding law and justice. In popular medieval belief, the king was thought to be a "primate," an avatar of human virtue with innate authority over lesser beings in the cosmological hierarchy. In contrast, Machiavelli argued that the most successful kings were not the ones who acted according to dictates of law, or justice, or conscience, but those willing to do whatever was necessary to preserve their own power--and thus indirectly preserve the order of the state. His title, "The Prince," in fact, is a subtle mockery of the idea that rulers should be noble in their character. The implication of his title is that the idealized Prince Charming is a mere fairy tale. Machiavelli was excommunicated for espousing his views, but his arguments had a profound effect on Renaissance attitudes toward government. In literature such as Renaissance drama, the "machiavelle," or machiavellian villain, became a moustache-twirling stereotypical villain--the bad guy who appears to be good in front of all his companions in order to betray them all the more effectively. "Machiavellian" became a by-word for treachery, sneakiness, ambition, and ruthlessness.

The following snippet may not be historically accurate. It first appears in German propaganda nearly a hundred years after Machiavelli lived, and it purports to be an account of Machiavelli's advice to Cesare Borgia in quelling a rebellion lead by the Duchess of Sforza. All we can be certain about from contemporary records is that Caterina Sforza did rebel, and that Cesare Borgia did succeed in capturing her and re-conquering the district. However, though this passage is apocryphal in origin, it does capture the essence of Machiavellian politics, and adequately reflects the way his contemporaries viewed "The Prince." The duke of Sforza had just died, and rebels in the Compagna of Italy rose up against the Borgia rulers under the widowed duchess, Caterina Sforza. The rebel forces fought for three months of bloody fighting, laying waste to the countryside. The crops stood unharvested, rotting on the stem. Common people starved, and entire villages burned down during the ruinous warfare. Cesare Borgia asked Machiavelli what to do. Machiavelli supposedly advised him thus,

"My Prince, I advise you to treat with Caterina Sforza under a white flag. Her troops are too strongly encrenellated in the fortress, and it will take months to root the rebels out. For everyday we fight, more of your loyal troops are slaughtered, more of your good citizens have property damaged or destroyed, and the crops go unharvested and children starve. The battle must be ended. Therefore my advice is this. Treat with Caterina Sforza under a white flag and under the pretense of peace. Then seize her and take her captive. Once she is captive, strip her of her fine garments and place in her in an iron cage to parade her in front of the rebel troops, and rape her before their eyes before you kill her. The enemy forces will know their leader is captured and humiliated, and the magnitude of this deed will so horrify them that in they will flee from battle and fear and never raise arms against your might again."

Cesare Borgia supposedly did so. The war soon ended. For Machiavelli, the end always justifies the means. Among his most famous dictates are that "it is better to be feared than loved" and that "the appearance of virtue" is more important than virtue itself. He also advocates that preparations for war should be the foremost occupation of a leader, and that constant, preemptive action is necessary to prevent others from seizing control. For downloadable excerpts of "The Prince" in RTF format, click here. For the complete text available online, go to http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/machiavelli.html.