IMAGINING OTHER
POLITICAL
PHILOSOPHY – A PRIMER
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 – 1527) and the “early
modern” period. (pp7)
Revised
June 2017.
Links: Imagining Other
Index Page
Political Philosophy Contents Page
1. Introduction:
Machiavelli
is one of the best-known names in political philosophy. He is also one of the
most controversial writers, since his study “The Prince” (1513) recommends that
a ruler should be entitled to use any means (including treachery and murder) to
keep power and stability in his kingdom. The term “Old Nic” is sometimes used
as a synonym for the Devil – this is derived from Machiavelli’s first name,
Niccolò, such was his evil reputation!
Aside
from his reputation as an evil writer, there are also disagreements:
(i)
did he really mean what he wrote?
Machiavelli’s recommendations seem so immoral
that some critics have said that he was writing ironically, in order to expose
the evils of the Medici regime. See
for example: ‘Be Like a Fox’ by Erica Benner.
(ii)
was he really a political philosopher? He writes perceptively about power, but
does he deal with any of the “deep” questions of human nature, political power
or
ethics?
(iii)
on the other hand, he could be said to be a political ‘realist’ (see later, on
‘realpolitik’), and therefore ahead of his time!
These
notes will follow a slightly different pattern to previously, in that I shall use quotes from The Prince as I go
along, to illustrate points made by Machiavelli. (Extracts are also
available separately – go to: Extracts)
The Extracts are mainly presented in the order they appear in the book, rather
than as a systematic or logical sequence: again, the work is not strictly a
philosophical one – not a logically-presented system of ideas. However I hope
to present Machiavelli’s thought in such a way that he comes across as an
original and highly significant thinker.
2. Machiavelli and his time:
For
detailed notes on the broad historical and cultural context, see the previous
two topics. Note that we are not following a chronological order here, since
both Luther (whose ‘Wittenberg Theses’ were written in 1517) and Calvin (whose
‘Institutes’ were published in 1559) were later than Machiavelli.
Rather,
Machiavelli in his thinking shows more “modern” features than the Protestants.
He also serves as a useful introduction to Hobbes (next topic). His influence
could be seen especially strongly in twentieth-century social thinkers such as
Pareto and Mosca – theorists of ‘elitism’ (see the references at the end). A
recent issue of Radical Philosophy (182) also has an article (by Knox Peden)
suggesting he has similarities to very recent thought, such as that of
Merleau-Ponty and above all Claude Lefort – especially because Machiavelli does
not think about society and politics as fixed and obeying ‘natural laws’ (he
was very pre-occupied with ‘fortuna’, or ‘fate’). He was, then, from this point
of view, a humanism who ‘confronts the relationship of man to man and the
constitution of a common situation and a common history between men as a problem’ [my emphasis] (p 29, quote
from Merleau-Ponty). For Lefort, politics must ‘negotiate the contingencies of
fortune’ and must display ‘openness to the future’. (p 30, quote from Lefort).
2.1 The Renaissance, the late 15th
to early 16th centuries (see
below (*)
for dates of contemporaries of Machiavelli):
A
key feature of this time in terms of politics is the emergence of kings (or
‘Princes’ in Machiavelli’s terms) – individuals who would eventually have
ultimate power (“sovereignty”) in their territories.
At
the same time, political thinking is secular and more individualistic – two
features that are carried over into modern liberal thinking (“the sovereignty
of the individual” as Berki puts it). The state is seen as a means to an end –
mechanistically (in keeping with the more scientific outlook of the early
modern period) – “the end” being individual security and happiness.
However,
the period also had many features that ‘belong to’ the Middle Ages: cruelty,
superstition, and the struggle between various power-centres, i.e. guilds,
cities, and local laws and customs against the king’s power. In Italy there was
conflict between city states such as Florence, and nations such as France and
Spain, as well as the Papacy. The struggle around the emerging power of the
king developed from the situation where the king was “primus inter pares”
(first among equals). In keeping with feudalism and with Christian teaching,
the king was – again at first – subject to the law. As already noted, the
renaissance (and the reformation) marked a time of transition.
Machiavelli
(1469 – 1527) is characteristic of the renaissance in:
-
his references to
classical learning; his fascination with individual psychology;
-
his concern for “virtu” - though he used the word in a
different sense to classical writers, viz. a more militaristic sense, and he
applied it to both citizens and rulers (not just the latter);
-
his practical
outlook (what is important is what will work). He was very much concerned with
issues surrounding the power of the monarch, and what we now call the concept
of sovereignty.
He
was born in Florence, at a time when Italy was not unified as a state, but
split into (sometimes warring) cities: Florence, Venice, Milan, Naples, and the
Papacy. France and Spain both interfered in Italy.
2.2 Historical sketch:
The
most powerful family at Machiavelli’s time was the Medici (whose power grew
from their organising the first major bank). The history of Florence is really
the history of this family – and there were constant changes due to the
different character of individual members of the family, as well as the
power-struggle going on between Florence, other city-states, the Pope, and
neighbouring countries.
Lorenzo
de Medici ruled Florence from 1469, the year of Machiavelli’s birth, and at
this time there was a period of stability. Lorenzo de’ Medici (“The
Magnificent”) set up treaties between states, using ambassadors, and he
established embassies abroad.
A
later Medici, Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ Medici was to become pope Leo X (– The
Prince is dedicated to Giovanni’s nephew Lorenzo). Nepotism and the buying of influence were
common at this period – even in the election of a pope!
Charles
VIII of France invaded Italy in 1494, shortly after the death of Lorenzo
(1492). Then his successor Louis XII got Spain involved by bargaining with them
for the partition of Naples. Within a few years, Spain owned the southern part
of Italy.
When
the French invaded, Lorenzo’s son Piero de’ Medici left Florence to try to
negotiate with Charles, and was declared a traitor in his absence. The republic
was re-established under Savonarola – notorious for the ‘bonfire of the
vanities’ since he believed that works of art and literature had become decadent.
Then
a friend of Machiavelli’s, Soderini, was in control. Machiavelli had become a
government official in 1498, age about thirty. He held senior posts, involving
diplomatic activity, for 14 years. So he was at the centre of political life in
Florence (Jones). He was favoured by Soderini, and went on missions to France,
to Cesare Borgia (who was the son of pope Alexander VI by his long-term
mistress!), to Rome, and to Maximillian among other journeys. He saw the
factional fighting at first hand, and experienced humiliation at the hands of
foreign diplomats, and hence longed for stability and unity in the state.
He
was given the task of recruiting militia troops for Soderini, but they failed
in fighting against Pisa and against the Spaniards, leaving him with a distrust
of ‘mercenaries’.
In
1512 the Holy League (the Pope (Julius II), together with the Venetians and
Ferdinand of Spain) forced the Medici back into office, and re-took much of
Italy from Louis. Ironically, Machiavelli was suspected of being opposed to the
Medici and spent 3 weeks in prison, suffering torture, in 1512. He wasreleased
when the Medici fell. He retired from public life and continued his writing. He
made attempts later, when the Medici returned, to get back into favour, but
without success.
Later
there were Medici Popes (Leo X and Clement
In
1527, when Rome was sacked, there was a brief rebellion against the Medici, but
they were re-established by the Emperor Charles V, and stayed in Florence
“sinking into decadence, for some two hundred years.” (Bull)
It
is significant that the Catholic Church was very corrupt during this period:
Pope Alexander VI (who took on his mother’s surname: Borgia…) was described by
Machiavelli as “a great liar and deceiver” in secular politics (Mackenney);
when Alexander moved to annul the marriage of his daughter Lucrezia, her
husband Giovanni Sforza accused both Alexander and Cesare of having had
incestuous relations with Lucrezia! (source: Wikipedia). Although Alexander VI
was probably the most notorious of the popes, others were also capable of
decadent and criminal behaviour (e.g. when there was a plot to assassinate
Lorenzo de’ Medici, pope Sixtus IV was aware of it). (Mackenney).
Incidentally,
Wikipedia also tells me that Cesare had at least eleven illegitimate children,
and wore a mask to cover the symptoms of syphilis!
3. Machiavelli’s writings:
It
is fairly clear that his experiences are reflected in his writings – for
example his preoccupation with such issues as: how rulers can hold power
effectively, how to build up a strong reputation as a ruler, his mistrust of
militias and of the nobility, and his sense of the danger of people betraying
you. He was clearly impressed by those with power, such as the Borgias.
In
terms of political philosophy, it can be said that he asked a new question: not
“how do we create a good state?” as discussed by Christian and classical
thinkers, but “why should we obey a ruler at all?” and “how does power work?”
In other words, his thinking is surprisingly modern...
In
addition, he no longer saw religion as the basis of the state – in fact he was
a materialist in his outlook on the forces that affect society (fate vs.
virtu). He simply recognised that if rulers appear religious, and their
followers believe in a religion, this could help hold the state together.
Religion was a political instrument, as far as Machiavelli was concerned, a
view probably held as a result of being aware of the corruption of the papacy!
His
best-known work is The Prince (first
distributed in 1513, published 1532), which deals with “how principalities can be
governed and maintained”. He wrote this after his release from prison.
Another
important work, written in the same year, is the Discourses on Livy (the Roman historian) – here he presents
(surprisingly to those who only know of his reputation from The Prince) a
democratic republican viewpoint: where a people is sufficiently politically
mature they can – and should – choose their leader.
By
“republic” here is meant a state where politics is a “public” affair – i.e.
there is an element of democracy (this reflects classical attitudes, since a
“democracy” was seen as rule by the crowd or the mob).
He
even goes so far as to say: “For a prince, who knows no other control
but his own will is like a madman, and a people that can do as it pleases will
hardly be wise. If now we compare a prince who is controlled by laws, and a
people that is [restricted] by them, we shall find more virtue in the people
than in the prince; and if we compare them when both are freed from such
control, we shall see that the people are guilty of fewer excesses than the
prince, and that the errors of the people are of less importance, and therefore
most easily remedied. For a licentious and mutinous people may easily be
brought back to good conduct by the influence and persuasion of a good man, but
an evil-minded prince is not amenable to such influences, and therefore there
is no other remedy against him but cold steel… The excesses of the people are
directed against those whom they suspect of interfering with the public good;
whilst those of princes are against apprehended interference with their
individual interests. The general prejudice against the people results from the
fact that everybody can freely and fearlessly speak ill of them in mass, even
whilst they are at the height of their power; but a prince can only be spoken
of with the greatest circumspection and apprehension.” See Ball and
Dagger 1999. p 30.
Other
works include: The Art of War; A History of Florence.
4. The Prince:
Introduction: The Prince was in fact a reply to writings about the
Roman authors Cicero and Seneca, by fellow Italians (Pontano, Castiglione –
whose names are forgotten now!). Where these writers reflected Cicero’s
concerns with “virtues” that a ruler should possess, Machiavelli argues that
such virtues would make a ruler weak!
-
on generosity: he said it was better to be parsimonious towards your subjects
than to risk running out of money.
-
on Cicero’s opposition to cruelty: as we shall see, Machiavelli believed that
cruelty could be “used well” to bolster the ruler.
-
on keeping promises: rulers should only do this if it serves their power.
-
on selflessness: all rulers, and their advisors, expect rewards for their
efforts, and bribes should be used if necessary.
However,
(see below), it could be advantageous to the ruler to appear to have some of these virtues!
4.1 On the “prince’s” power – a study in
the nature of power-relationships:
The
Prince is primarily a practical book, describing and analysing
power-relationships in the state. It is because the book appears more descriptive
than philosophical that it is sometimes said that Machiavelli was more of a
political scientist than a political philosopher. Re-reading it today, I find
it is more like the work of a military strategist!
Much
of the book is advice to would-be “princes” – what we now might in fact call
kings: individuals ruling with either absolute power or only partly restrained
by law.
However,
Machiavelli does recognise the importance of the two sides to a
power-relationship: “to comprehend fully the nature of the people, one must be a prince;
and to comprehend fully the nature of princes one must be an ordinary citizen”.
(Letter to Lorenzo de’ Medici – Machiavelli’s dedication of The Prince).
[Isn’t this a
remark which actually goes very deep? It implies that we cannot know ourselves:
we need the insights of others… But isn’t it also rather cynical, or
pessimistic? Is it not possible to imagine how other people see us?
The
book begins in a systematic way: he will not be dealing with republics,
as he has “discussed them at length on another occasion” (in The
Discourses).
4.2 Taking over different types of
principality – a ‘manual’ for would-be conquerors:
He
then identifies three kinds of principality – (i) hereditary (where a new
prince simply takes over and continues the existing traditions, which should
not pose much of a problem to the new prince) in Chapter II; (ii) newly
acquired (Chapters III and IV); (iii) newly conquered principalities may be
attached to another state (a kind of ‘mixed’ situation) – Chapter III, and
there is much of interest in this Chapter.
In
taking over a new state “difficulties may arise” – “men willingly
change their ruler, expecting to fare better… but they only deceive themselves,
and they learn from experience that they have made matters worse.” This is because “you are opposed by all those you
have injured in occupying the principality, and you cannot keep the friendship
of those who have put you there.” Consequently “a prince is always compelled to
injure those who have made him the new ruler.” (Ch III, first
paragraph).
Here
is a first indication of Machiavelli’s outlook: many have criticised him for
advocating ruthlessness and cruelty, but it could be argued that he is merely
being a realist who is dealing with all-too common power-struggles.
This
point is reinforced later, for Machiavelli is acutely aware that the powerful
will always struggle amongst themselves: “whoever is responsible for another’s
becoming powerful ruins himself, because this power is brought into being
either by ingenuity or by force, and both of these are suspect to the one who
has become powerful.” (Ch III, last sentence). So, you cannot trust people who have helped you rise
to power, as they may want more power themselves!
As an example of a statement that has given Machiavelli
his bad reputation there is this advice: if the prince “wants to keep hold of his new
possessions, he must bear two things in mind: first, that the family of the old
prince must be destroyed; next, that he must change neither their laws nor
their taxes.” (Ch III, third paragraph)
Note here, (as so often with Machiavelli!) (a) the
apparent lack of any sense of morality (it is not wrong to kill a ruling family
whose territory you have taken over) coupled with (b) a startling insight into human psychology: people
don’t want to change their customs and laws – though they might not mind having
their ruler changed!
Machiavelli
is clearly, in this text, most interested in the problems posed by
newly-conquered principalities. He stresses that a new ruler will have more or
less difficulty according to the expectations
and previous experiences of the population – already he is dealing with, in
modern terms, states of mind, or – going rather further, what I would call “political culture”.
For
example, in another comment on Cicero, who argued that rulers must behave in a
way that is superior to animals, and must not use force or deception,
Machiavelli says that rulers must be able to be both like a lion (forceful) and
like a fox (cunning); but they must also appear to be virtuous, and should not
antagonise the people.
Here
he is emphasising the people’s attitude to their rulers – and he says something
he will re-iterate several times, that rulers need the support of their people.
“For
always… to enter a conquered territory one needs the goodwill of the
inhabitants” (Ch V, paragraph 1)
and “it
is a very easy matter to hold on to [the people] when they are not used to
freedom.” (Ch III, paragraph 3) Note that this is consistent with
Machiavelli’s views in The Discourses: a people who are used to freedom will
expect to have some say in running their own affairs, and will pose more
difficulties for a would-be conqueror. He says that “in republics there is more life,
more hatred [of a conqueror], a greater desire for revenge; the memory of their
ancient liberty does not and cannot let them rest.” (Ch V, last
paragraph).
“So long as their old ways of life are undisturbed [viz.
by a conqueror] and there is no divergence in customs, [i.e. so long as a
conqueror does not try to change the way they live] men live quietly.” (Ch III, paragraph 3)
This illustrates what I call Machiavelli’s tendency to
see conservatism as a people’s main characteristic (see below): people do not
like change.
[One wonders if the Americans would
have dealt with the problem of post-invasion Iraq differently if they had read
this part of Machiavelli’s work?!
In
Chapter V Machiavelli describes the problems of taking over a city or
principality with a long-established tradition of its own laws and freedom. He
makes the kind of point already noted in regard to the Discourses: “A
city used to freedom can be more easily ruled through its own citizens… than in
any other way.” (First paragraph). And: “Whoever becomes the master of a
city accustomed to freedom, and does not destroy it, may be expected to be
destroyed himself; because, where there is a rebellion, such a city justifies
itself by calling on the name of liberty and its ancient institutions…” (second
paragraph) and this is followed by the quote given above, that “in
republics there is more life…” (last sentence).
If new territories with different languages etc are
acquired, “… to hold them one must be very fortunate and very assiduous. One of
the best, most effective expedients would be for the conqueror to go to live
there in person”!! (Ch III, paragraph 4) I comment on the word “fortunate” below…
[Does a huge Embassy and several military
bases count here?
In conquering territory where the culture is different,
the prince could “go and live there in person” (chapter III paragraph 4) in
order to establish his hold on the people; but it is better to “establish
settlements in one or two places” since this only injures a few people
(those whose land has been taken to give to the settlers), and if you scatter
the settlements, the injured people will not be able to unite against you! “Settlements
do not cost much, and the prince can found them and maintain them at little or
no personal expense. He injures only those from whom he takes land and houses
to give to the new inhabitants, and these victims form a tiny minority, and can
never do any harm since they remain poor and scattered.” (Chapter III,
paragraph 5).
[This is another quote that I find truly
amazing in its general and modern applicability, since inevitably the case of
Israel and Palestine comes to
mind here..
Thus, if the ruler goes and lives among them he
presumably shows that he is prepared to live as they do, or at least that he
does not regard them as “aliens”; living amongst them he might also convince
them that he cares for their well-being: “the subjects are satisfied because they
have direct recourse to the prince; and so they have more reason to love him…”.
This is in addition to the practical benefits of “being on the spot, [so] one can
detect trouble at the start and deal with it immediately…” (Ch III,
paragraph 4).
[Machiavelli is
clearly advocating what we now would call “colonialism”– assuming that the
old-style colonialism meant the citizens of the colonial power going and living
among the “natives”; I wonder what he would have said about “neo-colonialism”
with its more “hands-off” approach?
4.3 The People are
Conservative – Machiavelli’s view of human nature:
There is some disagreement over
Machiavelli’s understanding of human nature; my own view, based on these and
other extracts, is that he regards people as
conservative (wanting to hold on to what they
are used to) – but that they can be changed if a ruler is clever enough.
Machiavelli also says that people are: “creatures
of circumstance” (hence the point about not changing their laws or
taxes). Some writers say that he believes that they are selfish (see Sabine,
but contrast Berki), greedy or even wicked. I think this is at the least an
overstatement, if not a distortion…
On the other hand, Machiavelli’s account of how rulers
should behave is so ‘cold’ - surely a clear example of ‘realpolitik’? - that it
is not surprising if he is read as being totally cynical about human nature in
general:
“… men must be either pampered or crushed, because they
can get revenge for small injuries but not for fatal ones. So any injury a
prince does a man should be of a kind that there is no fear of revenge.” (Ch III, paragraph 5).
Again, this is a statement that can be interpreted as
justifying immoral conduct in war – and yet, once you have conflict, is this
not good advice?
[Given this outlook, which I imagine most in the military would share,
is there any hope of establishing effective ‘laws’ for the ‘moral’ conduct of
war?
On the subject of politico-military strategy, isn’t much
modern ‘realpolitik’ also based on Machiavelli’s idea: a ruler whose country has
other powers on its borders should “make himself the protector and leader of
the smaller neighbouring powers, and he should endeavour to weaken those which
are strong”?! (Ch III, paragraph 6).
Finally, I find the following statement quite revealing
of Machiavelli’s assumptions, especially about human motivation for power: “The
wish to acquire more is admittedly a very natural and common thing; and when
men succeed in this they are always praised rather than condemned. But when
they lack the ability to do so and yet want to acquire more at all costs, they
deserve condemnation for their mistakes.”(Ch III paragraph 12). This is
why ‘lame duck’ leaders have such a hard time with their critics!
In
the next chapters, Chapters VI – XI, Machiavelli goes on to list, and comment
on, 5 ways of conquering a state, showing us more on his view of human
nature:
In
Chapter VI he describes the first
way: by force of your own arms (the best way) -
though it may be easy to conquer a state, but then difficult to bring in
new laws: “there is nothing more difficult to
arrange, more doubtful of success, and more dangerous to carry through than
initiating changes in a state’s constitution. The innovator makes enemies of
all those who prospered under the new order…” (Ch VI, paragraph 4)
To
deal with this, the ruler should use force: “all armed prophets have
conquered, and unarmed prophets come to grief.” “The populace is by nature
fickle; it is easy to persuade them of something, but difficult to confirm them
in that persuasion” – so the ruler should try to arrange things so that
“they
can be made to believe by force.” (ch VI, paragraph 4)
Here
is one of the oft-quoted statements Machiavelli made about ‘human nature’:
“One can make this generalisation about men: they are ungrateful,
fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while
you treat them well, they are yours… Men worry less about doing an injury to
one who makes himself loved than to one who makes himself feared. The bond of
love is one which men, wretched creatures that they are, break when it is to
their advantage to do so…” (Chapter XVII, paragraph 3)
4.4 The nature of effective political
power:
In
Chapter
Here
there is a long account of the struggles of Cesare Borgia, on the other hand,
who is held out as a good example of someone who laid “strong… foundations” for
power by “destroying all the families of the rulers he had despoiled, thus depriving
the pope of the opportunity of using them against him; second, by winning over
all the patricians in Rome… in order to hold the pope in check; third by
controlling the College of Cardinals as far as he could…” etc! He is praised because “if he could not make whom he
wanted pope, he could at least keep the papacy from going to one he did not
want.” However, in the end “old injuries” he had caused to others
defeated him.
4.5 Power is different to glory, and
cruelty must be used economically:
Chapter
VIII deals with the third way of conquering a state: by crime (murdering the existing political leaders! – risky!!). In
the course of this chapter Machiavelli makes an interesting distinction: “yet
it cannot be called prowess to kill fellow citizens, to betray friends, to be
treacherous, pitiless, irreligious. These ways can win a prince power but not
glory.” (Paragraph 2).
I
return below to the question of whether Machiavelli’s standpoint was immoral –
but it is clear to me that he here distinguishes between ‘power’ (neutral) and
‘glory’ (praiseworthy), so he is hardly refusing to acknowledge morality.
One of the most famous – notorious? – quotes follows
this:
Machiavelli writes: “For I believe 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 evil) when it is employed once and 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.”
(Paragraph 4).
This has been described as a case for “economy of
cruelty” – if you are going to be cruel, do it at once and don’t drag it out; “Violence
should be inflicted once for all; people will then forget what it tastes like
and so be less resentful. Benefits should be conferred gradually; and in that
way they will taste better.” (Last paragraph).
Machiavelli here does
recognise that there is morality involved in how violence and force are used.
Cruelty should only be used for the benefits of one’s subjects, and when one’s
safety depends on it.
[This reminds me of more recent attempts at limiting the amount of
suffering that war causes, or justifying pre-emptive attacks (permissible only
in the case of immediate danger – the attack which led to the current Iraq
conflict has been condemned for not fitting this criterion).
However, of course, another part of the point is
addressed at the practicalities only – unnecessary cruelty causes more problems
than it solves, in the form of “resentment”!
4.6 A ruler needs
the support of the people:
In
Chapter IX Machiavelli describes
what he calls The Constitutional Principality (the 4th kind of
situation/power) i.e. the ruler has gained power by election (but how to please
the voters, and when you have done so, how to avoid them weakening your power).
Here he discusses the three-way conflict between the prince, the nobles and the
people. Machiavelli’s distrust of the nobles is expressed here: “A
man who becomes prince with the help of the nobles finds it more difficult to
maintain his position than one who does so with the help of the people… The
people are more honest in their intentions than the nobles are, because the
latter want to oppress the people, while they only want not to be oppressed.” (Paragraph
2)
So
the prince is secure if he relies on the people’s support (the nobles are
rivals in power) – though if he loses the support of the people this is not so
bad as losing the support of the nobles, as the latter are likely to try to
kill him! The chapter concludes: “Therefore a wise prince must devise ways by
which his citizens are always in all circumstances dependent on him and on his
authority; and then they will always be faithful to him.”
He goes so far as to say:
“...so
the best fortress that exists is to avoid being hated by the people.” (Chapter XX:
On Fortresses, last paragraph).
(Chapter X
briefly adds points about the importance of the prince’s army, which
Machiavelli deals with in Chapter XII).
4.7 Religion:
In
Chapter XI: Ecclesiastical
Principalities, he discusses how a ruler can base their power on religion, and
even ideally by becoming Pope! (The latter would be good because religion is a
powerful way of holding people together – see below). (The fifth way).
Ecclesiastical
principalities are a different kind of regime altogether: they may be “won
by prowess and fortune” but they are “kept without the help of
either.” For religion holds the people and the ruler together. “These
principalities alone are secure and happy. But as they are sustained by higher
powers which the human mind cannot comprehend, I shall not argue about them;
they are exalted and maintained by God.”
Nevertheless
Machiavelli briefly goes into the history of Alexander VI’s rise to power, to
show how temporal power can be acquired for the church, using “money and armed
force”.
Here
we see Machiavelli as – realist or hypocrite? Religious authority presumably
cannot be used alone to go about conquering territory – but the fact that
Machiavelli discusses religion in this “instrumental” way has led to much
criticism. Later, Machiavelli reinforces this point – perhaps cynically – about
religion being a most effective way of keeping a state in order.
4.8 The role of ‘arms’
Chapters
XII – XIV deal with this, and the
controversial position Machiavelli takes (no doubt drawing on his own
experience of organizing mercenaries) is that power, (often based on the
ability to use force), comes first – justice comes second, as in this point
about the army:
“The
main foundations of every state… are good laws and good arms; and because you
cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good
laws inevitably follow…” (Chapter XII, paragraph 1)
[Writing this out again, I wondered if
Machiavelli isn’t being slippery in his use of the word “good”? Does he simply
mean “effective”? Or is this connected
with the point quoted above, about the “economy of violence” – that is, force
used to pursue a good end?
[It is worth commenting also that the
French political philosopher Jean Bodin, and in more recent times German
sociologist Max Weber, defined sovereignty
as the ability to use enough force to keep order. The state, from Weber’s point
of view, always ultimately rests on force – as we can see when rulers face determined opposition.
Machiavelli
then turns to a discussion of “(good) arms”.
This Chapter is often quoted, for its advice on the use of military
organisation, and in particular mercenaries.
Machiavelli
does not trust mercenaries or auxiliaries (soldiers from another state): “Mercenaries
and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous… Mercenaries are disunited, thirsty
for power, undisciplined, and disloyal; they are brave among their friends and
cowards before the enemy…” and so on! (Chapter XII, paragraph 2). Both
kinds of troops are unreliable. So he argues that the army must be under the
control of the prince in a principality, or the people in a republic. The
prince, in fact, should make control over the arms of the state his central
concern (Opening of Chapter XIV): “A prince, therefore, should have no other
object or thought, nor acquire skill in anything, except war, its organisation
and discipline. The art of war is all that is expected of a ruler…”
4.9 On utopias:
The
next few Chapters: XV - XIX contain
some of Machiavelli’s most interesting points about how a ruler should behave,
but first he rejects imaginary utopias: “Many have dreamed up republics and
principalities which have never in truth been know 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 to self-preservation.”
[Thomas
More’s Utopia was written in 1516…Machiavelli may well have been aware of the
work.
4.10: How a Prince should behave:
A
prince must “learn how not to be virtuous, and to make use of this or not according
to need.” (Chapter XV, first
paragraph).
This
is an instance of Machiavelli at his most controversial, since he is not
advocating good behaviour unless it actually does good for the prince.
Conversely, what is wrong with bad behaviour if it brings good results? There
is one very ambiguous element in this statement, when Machiavelli warns a ruler
“to
escape the evil reputation attached to those vices which could lose him his
state” – (paragraph 2) – and note that it is the reputation that has to be avoided, not necessarily the vices
themselves… This could either lead a ruler into better behaviour because of
anxiety to avoid such a bad reputation that he falls from power – or it could
lead him to try harder to cover things up! (Think of President Nixon and
Watergate...) Some have defended Machiavelli along the lines that he was
advocating that princes try to ensure they have at least a moral appearance. This does not convince me,
especially in this age of spin!
Chapter XVI illustrates how generosity can ‘back-fire’: it is no
good being generous if all you want is to appear generous - the only way to
convince people of your generosity is to over-do it! But this will lead a
prince to spend more than he can afford, and he will have to raise more taxes,
thus defeating the whole point of the exercise!
So – better not to try to be generous at all!
Chapter XVII is one of the most-cited parts of the book: “whether
it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse”.
Machiavelli’s advice to princes on the feelings they
should try to evoke in their subjects is a good example of his psychological
precision – he describes what, to me, is a “balancing act” that a prince should
attempt:
“A prince should try to avoid, above all else, being
despised and hated…” (Chapter XVI end)
“…a prince should want to have a reputation for
compassion rather than cruelty… but a prince should not worry if he incurs
reproach for his cruelty so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal. (Chapter XVII, paragraph 1)
“[then there is the question] whether it is better to be
loved than feared, or the reverse. The answer is that one would like to be both
one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far
better to be feared than to be loved, if you cannot be both. (Chapter XVII, paragraph 3)
“The prince should nonetheless make himself feared in
such a way that, if he is not loved, at least he escapes being hated.” (Chapter XVII, paragraph 4).
This last point is reinforced in Chapter XIX: The need to avoid contempt and hatred. This includes
the cynical suggestion that rulers should “delegate to others the enactment of
unpopular measures and keep in their own hands the distribution of favours”.
In sum, Machiavelli is always most concerned about the
practical effects rather than the
innate praiseworthiness or morality of a prince’s behaviour – is this defensible
in any way?
4.11 Chapter XVIII
–
XXIV: different standard of morality for
rulers. Also the importance of military success (Chapter XX).
This part of the book reinforces the point that is often
made, that Machiavelli is laying down a different
standard of morality for rulers than for ordinary people. Princes are
judged by their results – the common people are always impressed by success!
“There are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The
first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way
often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second. So a prince
must know how to make a nice use of the beast and the man.” (Chapter XVIII paragraph 2)
“One must know how to colour one’s actions and to be a
great liar and deceiver. Men are so simple, and so much creatures of
circumstance, that the deceiver will always find someone ready to be deceived. (Paragraph 3)
“In the actions of all men, and especially of princes,
where there is no court of appeal, one judges by the result. So let a prince
set about the task of conquering and maintaining his state; his methods will
always be judged honourable and will be universally praised. The common people
are always impressed by appearances and results.” (Paragraph 6)
“Nothing brings a prince more prestige
than great campaigns and striking demonstrations of his personal abilities.” (Chapter XXI, first paragraph).
4.12 Chapter XXV:
on “fate” (fortuna):
There are two key terms that Machiavelli uses: “virtu” (meaning, roughly, “manliness” in
the sense of being able to overcome difficulties that fate throws at you) and “fortuna” (meaning “fate” – things over
which we seem to have no control: what Harold Macmillan called “events, dear
boy, events.”). This is another point at which – perhaps – Machiavelli gets
close to dealing with a philosophical issue… it is not fashionable now to
believe in fate or pre-destination, but there are still arguments over the
extent of our “free will”… (A significant – if erroneous – criticism of Marx
centres on his determinism…)
“I believe that it is probably true that fortune is the
arbiter of half the things we do, leaving the other half to be controlled by
ourselves.” (Chapter
XXV, paragraph 1).
This distinction is mainly applied to the prince: when
the prince does control things himself, he exhibits “virtu”. If he is lucky, he can make policy coincide with “fortuna”:
“As fortune is changeable, while men are obstinate in their
ways, men prosper so long as fortune and policy are in accord; and when they
clash they fail. I hold strongly to this: that is it better to be impetuous
than circumspect; because fortune is a woman and if she is to be submissive it
is necessary to beat and coerce her.” (Chapter XXV last sentence).
[The question of political philosophers and
their attitude to women is a subject in its own right… I am aware of a similar
statement to this one of
Machiavelli’s, made by Francis Bacon,
the originator of “scientific method”,
where he says that nature is like a woman, and has to be forced to give up
her secrets…
On the other hand, there are other instances in The
Prince - as we saw - which reflect the idea that it is best to try to go along
with “fate” or circumstance – in the ‘conservative’ sense (or is it realism?).
Thus, when he warns citizens not to expect good things from changing their
ruler: “Men willingly change their ruler,
expecting to fare better… but they only deceive themselves, and they learn from
experience that they have made matters worse... (Chapter III, first paragraph).
But see Chapter VI:
“the less a man has relied on fortune the stronger he has made his position.”
(Paragraph 2)
The reason that leaders such as Cyrus, Romulus and
Theseus were great was that “they do not seem to have had from fortune
anything other than opportunity. Fortune, as it were, provided the matter but
they gave it its form; without opportunity their prowess would have been
extinguished, and without such prowess the opportunity would have come in
vain.”
In other words, - and Machiavelli is surely showing a
very ‘modern’ frame of mind here – circumstance
and character cannot be separated when it comes to achievement. For even if
fate presents an opportunity to someone, they have to have the ability (“virtu”
is probably the same as “prowess” here) to use it; and even a man with
“prowess” needs the opportunities that fortune brings. (This throws a slightly
different light on the words above: fortune is the arbiter of half the things
we do…).
5. Summary
Comments:
Machiavelli’s lack
of scruples (or even of morality?):
It is worth noting that Machiavelli passes no judgment
on the rights and wrongs of conquest:
“The wish to acquire more is admittedly a very natural and common thing; and
when men succeed in this they are always praised rather than condemned.”
And he goes further, in not hesitating to recommend the
use of force and cruelty. As we saw, not only are new rulers “compelled to
injure” even those who have supported them, but in conquering a new people:
“first, the family of the old prince must be destroyed”…
However, since Machiavelli’s aim is always to give
practical advice, the important question is “will it work?” not “is it right or
wrong?”
Some have detected in Machiavelli a desire to get
conquerors to question their ways and to be more subtle and less barbaric.
After all, the times were very different to today…
Or it has even been suggested that Machiavelli is not
serious in his advice to use cruelty: that he intends to shock his readers. I
think the latter is most unlikely (and it didn’t work anyway – Stalin and
Mussolini were both admirers of Machiavelli!). If his advice leads to rulers
being less barbaric, this would only happen as a ‘by-product’ of his
essentially ‘realistic’ and pragmatic outlook. However, he may have felt that
if he were to propose something radically different from the norm, rulers would
not take his advice seriously.
A ruler needs
popular support:
As we saw, again, Machiavelli was sufficiently realistic
not to try to make a case for ruthless control despite resistance: and he warns
princes not to trust the “nobles”. And,
although he describes ordinary people as “fickle” etc, he has more faith in
them –collectively – than he does in the nobles. Hence the prince should always
try to get popular support (more evidence of Machiavelli trying to ‘nudge’
rulers into being less barbaric? (“A man who becomes prince with the help of
the nobles finds it more difficult to maintain his position than one who does
so with the help of the people… The people are more honest in their intentions
than the nobles are, because the latter want to oppress the people, while they
only want not to be oppressed… I shall conclude that it is necessary for a
prince to have the friendship of the people; otherwise he has no remedy in
times of adversity.”)
Again, I believe this is an important indicator of
Machiavelli’s ‘balancing act’: he is telling rulers that they should get
popular support for their own benefit.
This is not a philosophical, principled or ethical case for democracy (it is
not a normative statement) – merely a realist’s way of advising a ruler! The ruler needs to understand the psychology
of his people in order to be able to keep them in control.
“Ends and means”:
It is important, I believe, to be careful how we
describe Machiavelli’s position on the use of force, cruelty, deception
etc. He believed that it was justified
if it helped to bring about stability and order in the state (“peace” if you
like). Some writers say that Machiavelli
believed that “the end justifies the means” – this is not strictly true: he
believed that one end, the stability
and well-being of the state, justified almost
any means (killing rivals in particular – but not persecuting the ordinary
people).
This is one issue where Machiavelli moves near to
philosophical discussion – and note the precision of his point. It reminds me
of an example used when I was a student of philosophy: there is a world of difference
between the statement “inflicting pain on people is wrong” (which is open to
dispute – ask a doctor or dentist!), and the statement “inflicting pain on
people, without their consent, and purely for your own pleasure is wrong”.
Machiavelli: military
strategist, political scientist, or philosopher?
Machiavelli makes no claim to be a philosopher – yet his
words are often studied: and there remain two issues that might be called
“philosophical”:
(i) He puts great stress on “appearing” to be successful,
having a “reputation for compassion rather than cruelty”… some have suggested
that the only way to appear compassionate is to be compassionate, and that
Machiavelli was therefore not really advocating immoral behaviour. (I have
already said that I do not agree with this). As I understand Machiavelli, a
ruler may be compassionate if they can do so without being weak.
Is it possible, though, to appear to be ‘compassionate’ etc whilst in fact being cruel, or
indifferent?
[It does seem to me, though, that Machiavelli has put his finger on a
key aspect of political success with this point about ‘appearances’ – he would have understood the use of “spin
doctors”!!!
(ii) Perhaps the most important question for political
philosophy that Machiavelli raises is: should rulers be “above the law”? If (as
so many seem to believe) a state needs a sovereign ruler to keep it in order,
isn’t that ruler by definition above the law?
(Think of Berlusconi, Nixon and others…). But if the sovereign is above
the law, are we not back to Thrasymachus with ‘justice is the will of the
strongest’? This philosophical stance was taken up later by Nietzsche: leaders
have superior qualities (Übermenschen) that mere citizens cannot understand. I
imagine Hitler was under this delusion!
Final question:
Why do you think
Machiavelli’s ideas were met with such horror? Is he not simply describing
things “as they are” in the murky world of politics?
(*) Other figures from the
period:
Christopher Columbus: 1451
– 1506
Leonardo da Vinci: 1452
– 1519
Nicholas Copernicus: 1473
– 1543
Michelangelo: 1475
– 1564
Cesare Borgia: 1476
– 1507
Thomas More: (1478 – 1535).
Main Sources Used:
Ball, T. and Dagger, R. –
Ideals and Ideologies, a Reader – Harper-Collins 1991. 0 321 00539 2
Berki, R.N. – The History of
Political Thought – Dent 1977. 0 460
11177 9
Mackenney, Richard; Sixteenth
Century Europe: Expansion and Conflict, Macmillan History of Europe, 1993. 0
333 36924 6.
Introduction
by George Bull, to Penguin Classics edition of The Prince (first published
1961).
For
Pareto and Mosca:
Consciousness
and Society: The Reformulation of European Social Thought 1890 – 1930, By H
Stuart Hughes, Harvester 1979 (OU Set Book)