The Prince is and was a massively controversial text. In it, Machiavelli divorces the theories of politics from ethics and instead redefines politics based on his own original ideology. His political ideology was one based on reality and focused on achieving and retaining power. Machiavelli well understood both the shortcomings of failed leaders and the strengths of leaders who were successful. It was with this knowledge of history that helped him form this unique political ideology. However, Machiavelli’s ideology as expressed in The Prince is thought to be disturbing by many. It is my view though that Machiavelli’s ideology is neither inherently good or evil, but rather that his ideology can be both dangerous and beneficial to society depending on the ambitions and character of those who employ his thinking.
Machiavelli’s thoughts aligned with a darker view of human nature, foregoing the popular religious teachings of the need for people to be good, and instead focusing on the advantages of not being such. Machiavelli saw great opportunity in defying the need for one to be good.
Machiavelli’s idea of good vs bad is laid out in plain language in chapter XV when Machiavelli says, “if a prince wants to maintain his rule he must be prepared not to be virtuous”. He goes on to point out that it of course would be great for a prince to hold all the virtues viewed as honorable by society, but because of the conditions in the world it is impossible for a prince to have and observe these qualities completely. Machiavelli says that a leader need not worry about his vices nor virtues because he will find that some things that appear to be virtues will in practice ruin him while other things that appear to be vices will bring him security and prosperity (The Prince, 51). Machiavelli’s acknowledgment of the impossibility for a ruler to be wholly virtuous in the modern day speaks to his ability to see things how they really are, which is an important staple of Machiavelli’s political ideology.
What I believe Machiavelli is trying to say in regards to the roll of ethics and morality in politics is that although morality is good for the individual, those in power must not be bothered by their own personal morality because it can prove to be counterproductive for society as a whole. For that reason, a prince, to be successful in ruling, must forego his own personal morality for the sake of the society he rules over. In chapter XVII Machiavelli highlights the reputation of Cesare Borgia to prove this theory. He states that although Cesare Borgia as a person was regarded as cruel, his cruelty brought about reform in Romagna and brought with it unity and restored order and obedience (The Prince, 53). This example from history feeds into another principal of Machiavelli’s political ideology, the idea that the end justifies the means.
The idea that the end justifies the means is an important theme throughout The Prince. In chapter VIII Machiavelli describes the rise to power through crime. In this chapter, Machiavelli highlights the rise of two individuals, Agathocles of Syracuse and Oliverotto of Fermo. Both men rose to power through violent massacres of those previously in power. Yet their horrific acts were justified in the mind of Machiavelli. Machiavelli goes on to ponder the question of how after such cruelties these men could go on to live and rule securely in his own country and hold off foreign threats. His conclusion is that the success of these two lies in the fact that they only employed this evil once and for all to establish power, and once that power was attained, the cruelty ceased and the original evil was turned to the benefit of the people (The Prince, 31).
These ways of thinking as described above can be both dangerous and beneficial to society. Examples of this are plentiful in modern politics. When one thinks of the word Machiavellian they may conjure up the names of rulers like Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini. This is understandable, but I’d argue that although the word Machiavellian has a negative connotation saved for the most tyrannical and cunning of world leaders, in a broader sense some of the greatest world leaders have employed the thinking of Machiavelli for good as well. I make this broader connection believing that The Prince was the text that gave birth to modern political thinking and strategy, and of it were born ideas that are dangerous to society only if employed wrongly or for an evil means and can just as easily be employed for good. Among the many examples two examples in particular come to mind that illustrate the extremes to which Machiavelli’s thinking can be used for both good and evil, the rule of Stalin in Russia and the presidency of Abraham Lincoln.
Stalin abided by all 3 Machiavellian methods drawn from The Prince. He believed in crushing all opposition and was a master of displaying false character. It was in the third method that he triggered his own demise; the end justifies the means. Stalin in his attempt to turn Russia into an industrial superpower made one very large mistake in applying Machiavelli’s ideology. Although his aspirations to industrialize Russia were just, the means by which he attempted to do so caused repeated pain and suffering of the people of Russia to the point of killing millions. This is contrary to Machiavelli’s thinking. In The Prince Machiavelli says “I believe that here it is a question of cruelty used well or badly. We can say that cruelty is used well 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.” This mistake in the application of Machiavelli’s thinking (among other things) caused him to remembered in history as a cruel and failed ruler.
Abraham Lincoln had to apply thinking reminiscent of Machiavelli’s when presented with the issue of slavery in America. Lincoln was forced to think about whether the means of going to war within his own country justified the ends of having a free and equal nation. Lincoln knew that tragedy had to ensue to achieve these means, he knew that he must stand up and revolt against the south in spite of the fact that there was to be massive amounts of pain and suffering by soldiers on both sides. He recognized though that after this suffering was over there would come unification of the country and freedom for its enslaved. Lincoln executed Machiavelli’s thinking of the end justifying the means accurately and in good conscience and of it came one of the greatest humanitarian successes in history.
In summary, the political ideology described in The Prince can be used as a tool for both good or evil. The means of coming to power and decision making as described by Machiavelli are good if they are employed by a prince to unify and benefit the people, and bad if societal needs are overlooked and a society is repeatedly disadvantaged by its prince.