There are many individuals who change the world in one way or another, some individuals have the intent to do so and sometimes it is a matter of happenstance. We tend to classify these individuals as leaders in our society. Society needs leadership of some kind to help find purpose and direction. Today we will be discussing someone who was not necessarily regarded as a great leader, however his words of advice have helped to shape the ways in which individuals lead others, interact with one another, and make decisions. The “little book” as the author refers to it as, was not actually written with the intent of public consumption; it was written to advise the Prince of Florence at the time, Lorenzo De Medici. During the late 1400’s to early 1500’s, the rulers in Europe were constantly trying to acquire new territories and Niccolò Machiavelli, the subject of the following discussion, wanted Italy to become a more unified territory. More specifically, unifying each city-state, which was for the most part being ruled by individual princes, and not one overarching King. The city-state landscape made the territory more fragmented with military infrastructure and populations, it made each territory more vulnerable, while also making it more opportunistic for expansion.
Machiavelli was a studious pupil in the art of war and governing. He believed in using his learned history to better his current strategies that he would deplore once in-action. In “The Prince” he uses these sources not as thought-starters but more a narrative backbone to his own thoughts. Often quoting the source of his expanded theory or strategy, he sources his thoughts as if his embracing of those concepts is as valuable to the source that they are to him. Confident to a fault, he both celebrates the successes of past leaders he admires as if they were old pals co-conspiring on while also adding his personal validation that their decisions wore worthy of his admiration. Machiavelli focused his research on past kings and their ancient war practices. Focused on the man behind the decisions as much as the consequences of those decisions, one would likely conclude that he made all case studies personal to the changing landscapes surrounding him.
If one were to take “The Prince” and for objective purposes of this analysis categorize it as an official syllabus for a case study ruler, it could be compared to other similar text like “The Art of War” and the term, the art of war is even referenced in the book, “The Prince”. Taking the fallout of the strategic decisions of his studied military leaders, Machiavelli works backwards into the circumstances surrounding strategic military decisions from the head-honcho and the circumstances that prompted them to make the decisions they did, whether it was the right decision or not.
After his studies into these ancient and current governments, Machiavelli determined that his own nation was susceptible to attack. He considered the geography of where Italy was exposed, what nations near by had the capabilities to execute a potential attack scalable of risking Italian freedom, and who was behind the decisions of those countries. If a territory were logistically capable of an attack, would the leader in question be so charged as to launch an attack? What qualities did these leaders possess that would drive them to launch an assault?
In addition to his vast research on the previously mentioned historical and current events, Machiavelli also took a hard look internally. What areas of his own infrastructure left Florence weak or open to attack? If he put himself in the mindset of his studied leaders, where would they see openings for takeover? Currently, Florence was being governed by a young prince and where did his weaknesses lie that could also leave the territory open to foreign invasion? He also answered many of the que
It is these surrounding circumstances that set the scene to drive Machiavelli to put his thoughts to the pen in an effort to help prepare his homeland from being susceptible to an assault. So, he wrote his best advice to the young impressionable prince, but did not title the “little book”. It was not until five years after his death in 1532, that the book was first published, that is when it was given the name “The Prince”. While these thoughts may have been collected and put to paper with the best of intentions at heart, they were certainly not originally received with open minds and a thankful audience. In fact, it was quite the opposite reaction. Historically, some of the most groundbreaking ideas have been met with fear and disdain only to later be proven prophetic. While many today may not title Machiavelli’s work “The Prince” as ‘prophetic’ or even morally sound, one cannot argue the impact it had on both literature and governance. Therefore, this is yet another historical case study, where some of the original audience outright rejected the work that would later become historically impactful.
This was not the first time Machiavelli faced political opposition though. Prior to penning “The Prince” he was already a political activist in his own right. When the political party Machiavelli was outspoken as being against gained power and in 1513, they accused him of a conspiracy and threw him in prison, where he claims he was tortured. After some time, a new Pope took over and freed Machiavelli, under the condition that he was banned from the city of Florence. So Machiavelli retreated to his vineyard outside of town, where he wrote the little book we now refer to as “The Prince”.
Niccolò Machiavelli died in Florence on June 21st in 1527 due to his declining health conditions. He was only fifty-eight years old when he passed away, and received his last rites of the Church that he in fact criticized constantly. Machiavelli was buried at the Church of Santa Croce in Florence, and was an epitaph written on his grave honoring him. An epitaph is a phrase or statement that is written on a grave honoring someone who has recently passed away. His epitaph is in Latin and reads, “Tanto nomini nullum par elogium.” In English, this epitaph means, “There is no eulogy to befit so great a name,” which is interesting because he did so much for Florence, and was recognized everywhere, and he also had written numerous books about the politics in Italy. It is also said that he was actually first buried outside in the churchyard, but was later moved inside the church. He was finally buried inside the church in the 1700s because the people of Florence felt it was right to move him inside. People that were buried within the church were among the most influential and “brilliant minded” people. This is why the people of Florence decided that he should be among these other great individuals, because he himself had shown his greatness.
During Machiavelli’s time, there was a lot going on in Florence, he also saw that there were many flaws with the French invasion that took place in 1498. During this time, he also became the secretary of the Ten. He was the secretary for a great deal of time until 1512 when the republic had fallen. Niccolò Machiavelli was asked by Leo X to draw up a report on the reform of Florence. Later, in 1525 when the defeat of the French at Pavia occurred, Florence was in a great deal of trouble. Emperor Charles V was advancing with his troops, Machiavelli strove to avert the troops in Florence and send the invading army to Rome.
It was customary for individuals to bring gifts to the Prince, gifts of the highest value. Machiavelli decided that his intellect in studying others was the most valuable gift he could present to the Prince. Machiavelli also believed that the book was his ticket to becoming the Prince’s advisor, and treated it like a job application in a sense. Unfortunately, his goal was not met because the Prince, Lorenzo De Medici, most likely never read the manuscript and the Pope who freed Machiavelli, banned the book from the city (as well as its author). Machiavelli failed at his mission to be the Prince’s advisor.
Machiavelli discusses the fact that the when many people give advice, they do so with an ideal world in mind, however the world is far from perfect and therefore, Machiavelli wished to focus on giving advice that fit the reality of situations the Prince would face, not the ideal. Some leaders are able to lead with their kindness and morals; however that usually exists in an ideal world, Machiavelli advises on how to make some of the more difficult decisions. He also gives advice as to how to operate an army and other successful war tactics. With every suggestion he makes in the book, he then gives a real historical reference to a leader or prince or king who either completed this suggestion successfully or the ones that failed at maintaining their territories. The saying that “An optimist hopes for better wind, a pessimist complains that the wind is not ideal, but a realist adjusts his sails” could be a topline description of Machiavelli’s political mindset. He believed that at the time there was too much emphasis on the idealist approach to governing and that those theories simply were not based on the ‘real world’ of the times.
In addition to the idea of conquering, Machiavelli was as focused on overall governance and what to do once new areas had been forcefully acquired. In the book, Machiavelli talked about how to conquer a territory and keep it under your control. He suggested that you need the support of the inhabitants of the area in order to conquer and control a new territory. If they are unhappy with their current government you will most likely be able to gain support. Once a territory has been conquered, do not try to force your own customs on the locals. Also, having a common language will be beneficial. A leader should move to the area that has been acquired. People can grow to love a prince who they can go to directly. Also, if a problem arises it can be solved much more timely and effectively if the leader is present. If you send in an army in you anger the people and spend a lot of money. He advises that sending in an army is only a good idea when taking over certain territories, which are sure to be loyal to the previous ruler or someone else, then he suggests wiping out those who are loyal to another. He cautions that you check for invasion from someone of equal power or anyone in the surrounding territories who could pose as a threat. One should use the smaller groups of citizens who oppose the main power for support when overtaking a territory. You must gain friends and support in the area from as many as you can and sometimes “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”; so the smaller rebellion forces in the area may be good people to turn to for support since they already wish to overthrow or make change. Some saw this as a radical approach to put such an effort of gaining the happiness of the everyday commoners in newly acquired territories. Niccolò however saw the value in having a population that was loyal and even happy. In making an effort to use a common language, yet preserve the customs of the newly acquired people he was both uniting the peoples who recently became joint citizens while also letting them stay true to their original cultures and practices.
All of this advice can, in some way or another, be useful to leaders and managers today. With globalization rising and American businesses sending jobs overseas, we see a lot have cross-cultural conflicts arise in our business industries today. If your company has acquired another company, after deciding the direction the newly acquired company will go in, they should send someone from a higher level of management to the new company to work out any kinks, deal with any potential disasters, make sure the workers are happy, check for disloyalty or threatening employees, and look for ways to gain support. Even on a more basic level, just the mentality of happy employees can be tied back to this text. Similar to a government putting extra time and effort in the populace of newly acquired citizens, we see companies putting more effort into happy employees. Recently, the idea of a healthy work life balance has been a focus of businesses and their culture. In fact, having an inviting office culture and healthy work life balance has become a competitive recruiting tool for companies to bring in the top talent. Companies in the technology industry like Google and Facebook recently started an overall business resurgence of creating the most inviting culture for their employees. This has started a trend of free food, perks, giveaways, and creative physical offices that set the tone for relaxing environments. Google headquarters has napping pods and free food created with top-talent chefs, etc. Facebook has no dress code and allows their employees flexible schedules. Similar to the Machiavellian mindset, these companies have recognized that the culture of the employees is directly related to their loyalty. The time it takes to replace and employee (or conquer a new set of citizens) is much greater than the effort to create an environment that will make them happy enough to stay with the company. Now obviously the subjects in Machiavelli’s scenario may not have had the option to just apply to a competitor nation, but the same thought process applied: a happy population is much more valuable to the success of the overall nation than an unhappy population.
After a territory has been successfully conquered, Machiavelli suggests that the people need to be vulnerable so that when a new system (oligarchy) is set up they can be happy and prosper. Oligarchy is a small group of people having control of a country, organization or institution. He suggests the actions a leader should take immediately after conquering a territory are, “First by devastating them; next, by going and living there in person; thirdly, by letting them keep their own laws, exacting tribute, and setting up an oligarchy which will keep the state friendly to you.” He believed if you make your citizens dependent on you they would be faithful to you. When taking over a republic city-state he gave harsher advice than usual. Republics had freedom and therefore, they usually had loyalty to their institutions. Since you do not have their loyalty and that is a threat, according to Mr. Machiavelli, “In their case (republics recently conquered) the surest way is to wipe them out or live there in person.” If you destroy them, they are dispersed and scattered they forget their prior institutions, whereas if they are not, they may unite behind these aforementioned institutions.
To Machiavelli, this is the best way to create and maintain peaceful lands. He also points out that if you rule in the name of God you will have more ease. We can see this played out in our political arena today, where conservative, Christian individuals are refusing to vote for Trump for many reasons, but one is that they do not believe that he rules in the name of God. Even the Pope has accused Trump of not being a Christian. In this country I don’t believe the Oval Office has ever held a non-Christian. Trump, however does claim to have Christian faith, but he struggles in convincing others. They have even produced polls to find out what percentages of Americans believe he practices faith compared to his running mates. This comparison is not about Christianity specifically, but more the idea behind having common-ground morals. It shows that the people being governed need to know their leader has a set of guiding rules that will keep him balanced. Religion, while still a driving force in political alignment, is much less critical now than in the overall history of the country. However, the voters still need to know there is a moral rulebook that their leader will follow and actually believe in.
In “The Prince”, he wrote about the difference between fortune and power. Fortune is based on money and is something that can be lost, but someone who possess and maintains power can have a much greater influence and effect on society. I associate this with people who possess charisma; they have a natural power and advantage. So ultimately fortune and money are not as important as power. And power itself can be nothing if one does not recognize and seize opportunities. When the opportunity presents itself, take it! And when your nation is in a time of peace, his recommendation is to plan for war. According to Machiavelli, this is how you will be prepared. Always taking steps to prepare yourself for your enemy is a good practice to implement in life. This is also an interesting reflection on today and specifically this current American election. Trump has been met with more opposition within his own party than almost any future president elect in recent history. Could this tie to the fact that his ‘power’ is directly influenced by his ‘fortune?’ Many believe that Trump holds absolutely no power that is not directly tied to his fortune. This could be why many see him as a weak leader because his power and fame was purchased and not earned. Whether you agree with this sentiment or not, one cannot ignore that this opinion is held by many of his adversaries.
Some of Machiavelli’s advice was viewed as a bit too harsh for those who believe that they truly live moral lives and that they have a right to judge others. In America, some have even considered him to be the antichrist. (He does not have this reputation in Europe.) The term Machiavellianism was even coined to describe individuals who act cunning or sly. He spoke of running people out of their home and making them poor for new inhabitants. “Men must either be pampered or crushed.” he claims, or “Indeed, there is no surer way of keeping possession than by devastation.” (Machiavelli). He felt that if you crush your enemy, they would not dare to take revenge; if you injure someone lightly they may come back at you full force. So instead of being moral he shows being realistic.
One of the more famous quotes (on the front of the book for some versions) was made in reference to keeping one’s word and it reads, “he (the Prince) must learn from the fox and the lion; because the lion is defenseless against traps and a fox is defenseless against wolves. Therefore one must be a fox in order to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten off wolves.” In Machiavelli’s eyes, people were dishonest, so his advice in response to this behavior was, “A ruler cannot, must not, honor his word when it places him at a disadvantage… because men are wretched creatures who would not keep their word to you” (Machiavelli).
A warning list of things not-to-do after conquering a territory also exists within the goldmine of a book. It is natural for humans to want more and when we accomplish we are praised, but he warns that when you lack the ability to acquire more, but if you are willing to do so at all costs you deserve condemnation. When forcefully over-taking a territory, do not destroy the weaker powers, such as groups who opposed the last principality. Instead, gaining support from these groups. Do not allow someone in the area who has power to increase his power. Do not avoid away from the territory; reside there; settle the people until there is stability and an oligarchy (or some government). Make sure you set up an establishment if you fail to establish settlements there, the land will remain in disarray. And finally, do not disappoint the inhabitants by forcing your own customs (religion, taxes etc.)
One of the chapters in The Prince, he titles it, “the need to avoid contempt and hatred.” This chapter solely talks about how to basically avoid being hated, and gives examples on some things that a person could do. Machiavelli says, “If you cannot be loved by all, make sure you keep the powerful people on your side.” This goes back to being feared over being loved, it is key to keep powerful people on your side because that is what you want. By having the most powerful people beside you, then you are almost guaranteed to be powerful, and will be able to be a good leader/controller. He also states that you should appoint someone to do the “dirty work” for you. While this sounds wrong, it is a good idea because as a leader you do not want to be seen as being a person who is doing more bad than good. If someone else is doing the dirty work, then you have a clean slate, and no one will know what is going on.
An example of having someone do your dirty work could be Remirro de Orco and the Duke who were also discussed in this section of the book. In short, Cesare Borgia, the Duke, had won control of the Romagna. He appointed Remirro de Orco, who was a harsh and cruel man, to pacify and unify the territory. Remirro de Orco had such great power now, and Cesare Borgia had decided that he did not need this anymore. So, Borgia wanted to control the minds of the people and to win them over and show them that they could trust him. Borgia wanted to show the townspeople that Remirro de Orco’s cruelty was inflicted by his doing, not by Cesare Borgias’s doings. The following day, Remirro de Orco’s body was found in pieces at the piazza at Cesena. This was done so the townspeople would be confused, and keep the secret hidden that Cesare Borgia was actually the one behind all of this.
As stated numerous times in our presentation, Machiavelli was a very inspirational and powerful leader. He was not afraid to speak the truth, and he was most definitely not afraid to take charge and make decisions. His decisions may not have been what the people of Florence wanted, but his decisions were made for what he thought was right for the country. His political leadership can be shown in a number of people today, among these people are, Tony Blair (United Kingdom), Angela Merkel (Germany), and finally Margaret Thatcher (United Kingdom). All three of these people exemplified qualities and styles that Machiavelli himself had shown throughout his time in Florence as an author and political leader.
The first example of a Machiavellian public figure is Tony Blair of the United Kingdom; he was also a political figure just like Machiavelli. Blair was a British Labor Politician, and he also served as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He was their Prime Minister from May of 1997, and was Prime Minister for ten years, which had ended in June of 2007. Machiavelli had said, “To succeed, there must be optimism and possibility about it.” This means that in order to succeed, one must fail, and one must not be afraid to fail in these situations. Machiavelli had used “fear” tactics that were described in his most famous book, The Prince, Tony Blair was also not afraid to be “feared.” It is not that people “feared” these two individuals; it is more about them not being afraid to contribute new ideas to the table. Tony Blair had come up with a “New Labor” policy, which significantly distinguished his Pro-Market policies from the previous Socialist policies. Also, with the war in Iraq going on, Blair was not afraid to participate and voice his opinions on this war. He supported the United States’ U.S. Foreign Policy, and he participated in the Afghanistan invasion in 2001, as well as the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He was not afraid to get out there and show that he wanted to be involved, and that he was not afraid to voice his opinion. Jonathan Powell also wrote a book called, The New Machiavelli, which discussed how Blair’s time as Prime Minister was “Machiavellian.” That book, just like The Prince, was centered around how to hold power, but instead of in Florence, this book was centered around how Tony Blair and his chief of staff were closely related to Niccolò Machiavelli.
The next political leader who exemplified qualities of Niccolò Machiavelli is, Angela Merkel of Germany. Angela Merkel was a German Politician as well as a former Research Scientist. In addition to this, she is also the Chancellor of Germany, which she has been since 2005. She is also Germany’s first female chancellor, and she has been the leader of the Christian Democratic Union since 2000. In the words of Machiavelli, “Must only stick to what he said yesterday if it brings him positive advantages today.” By this, Machiavelli is saying that one must stick to their word and what they have said. Do not change your idea, or what you are going to do unless it will bring you something more positive in that present moment. Angela Merkel was also a leader who had “last minute rescues.” This meant that she would sit back quietly, then at the last minute would “save the day” just in time. There was a time when a nuclear plant in Germany was going to fail. Merkel had a feeling that she knew what was going to happen, instead of telling anyone, she at the last minute said something and saved the day. Also, Machiavelli believed that political leaders use fear over love as a tactic. Merkel said, “Abroad I am to be feared, at home I am to be loved.” In this context, Angela Merkel is saying that she wants the people of Germany to know that she has power, and she will use her power, and will use it when necessary. This reiterates Machiavelli’s point on fear over love, because she believes that she should not be “loved” by her fellow colleagues or other political powers. She wants to use the concept of fear to show them that she has more power of them instead.
Finally the last leader who shows “Machiavellian” qualities is Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom. Margaret Thatcher is a British Stateswoman and also a British Politician. During her career she was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990. Also during this time, she was the Leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990. Machiavelli once said, “Always leave yourself a way out.” Machiavelli meant that no matter what the situation is, one must always make sure they have a “way out.” There will always be danger, and one must have an exit strategy just in case if things end up turning for the worse. Politicians, just like Margaret Thatcher are able to “move” with the constantly changing events in the world. There is always change, and something is always happening in the world, being about to change what you are doing, and come up with a different strategy will easily show that you have the power to be a leader. Another quote from Machiavelli is, “A fatal inflexibility in the face of changing circumstances,” this quote means that change is inevitable. Politicians and powerful figures are always dealing with change, and with each change that happens, it just shows people more and more how these people act as a leader.
The question that Machiavelli could propose today is whether or not our country is motivated by fear or love. There is constant havoc in the United States, and many people are fearful of what is going to happen next. There are numerous threats on the United States, and for the most part this country is motivated by fear. With everything that is happening, by being motivated by fear, the United States and all the politicians can anticipate things that might happen, and from there they can act upon what actions they are going to take. Not only are things happening here, but there are also threats all over different parts of the world, like Europe. Two main examples that these places are motivated by fear is the Paris bombing in 2015 and the bombing in Brussels. These two terrorists attacks have put fear upon all of France and Germany, from this they are motivated to fix things out of fear that they will be attacked again. Machiavelli says, “Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.” By being feared than loved, people or countries will not want to bother with you. By being loved, people will just walk all over you, and could then take advantage of you. If a person or country is feared, then people will not want to do anything to be on their bad side. The concept of being feared or loved is talked about in an entire chapter of, The Prince, and highlights how being feared is far better than being loved.
After all of this, leader’s today can learn a lot from Machiavelli and his book. Leaders today should think more realistically, while The Prince was very harsh, Machiavelli was keeping it real, and only spoke the truth and what he thought. People today can think of it as “not putting all their eggs into one basket.” Think about other alternatives before making a decision, make sure each decision made is thought about and has the best outcome. Always have an open mind about things; do not have “tunnel vision.” Do not have just one point of view, be more optimistic and do not be afraid to make decisions that could affect your image. As previously stated, it is better to be feared than loved. If you make a decision that people might not like, then this could potentially be good for you because others might “fear” you, and are aware of the power that you have. Returning to Donald Trump as an example, this man shows clear signs of being Machiavellian. He does not care what others think of him, and he believes that the decisions he will make as president will “make America great again.” Donald Trump is a clear example on the saying that it is better to be feared than loved. Not many people love Trump, a lot of people dislike him, but that is what drives him to continue what he is doing. He is aware that people do not like him, and uses this to his advantage. Many people would argue that his actions are Machiavellian, just like many other political figures.
The leaders of our future may not always agree with the Machiavellian way, however, his books and specifically “The Prince” have so much timeless advice. Every situation and decision, as a leader, requires careful consideration. One must keep an open mind in order to be tactful and find the best possible solution. A leader must gain support from subordinates as well as potential allies and avoid being hated. Be aware of traps and keep people close to you who you trust. Even the harshest of his advice is still practiced in our political arena, and politics around the world. Despite the negative, cunning, connotation the term Machiavellianism holds, many believe that he is a revolutionary and his words are not only advice, but something to live by, a way of life.
Works Cited
- Beck, Ulrich. “The Power of Merkiavelli: Angela Merkel’s Hesitation in the Euro-crisis.” OpenDemocracy. N.p., 5 Dec. 2012. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.
- Cohane, Ondine. “In Tuscany, Following the Rise and Fall of Machiavelli.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 06 Dec. 2014. Web. 4 Apr. 2016.
- Godman, Peter. “Niccolò Machiavelli Biography.” Niccolò Machiavelli Biography. Princeton University, n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.
- Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. New York, New York: Bantam Dell, 1966. Print.
- Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince and The Discourses, Introduction by Max Lerner (New York: Modern Library,1950), pp. 1-105.
- Yin, Ethan Lin. “Tony Blair Leadership.” Leadership With You. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.