Essay: Machiavelli on violence, strong government and Christianity

Machiavelli believed that violence was a necessary aspect of state building, this in not only creating a state but also maintaining power and order of the state. By this Machiavelli means that for states to be created it means that much of the time a conflict led to the creation of new states, historically we can see that this makes much sense as most large wars have ended with either the fragmenting of a large empire that had been defeated and was subsequently dismantled and no longer seen as its own state, we can see this effect with the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the creation of new governing bodies such as the kingdom of Burgundy, that of the Franks, the Ostrogoths, etc… War is also very present and descivive in independence related feuds, as we can see with the large amounts of countries that exist today that had to fight an opposing country to become independent from a country they wished to become independent from for whatever reason including poor representation, mistreatment by the host country (targeted persecution) or a strong national identity. There are many countries in the world today that were created that had to first fight for their independence for them to govern themselves, we can see this phenomenon with the United States for example who revolted against the British government because of lack of representation in their Government. Consequently they declared their independence from the British and a war was thought in which they were to gain their independence from the UK. Using War to build a state as we can see is an incredibly common occurrence as be seen with colonized countries in Africa for example whom had to fight off their european european governors. Once a State Is built it should be the job of the Aforementioned Prince to maintain the State, where the Prince could rule by fighting with either Law or force. The law serves as the more moderate way for the Prince to maintain his kingdom and if a Law becomes inefficient then it is the job of the Prince to know when to use the force of his army or police to be able to crackdown on dissent quickly and efficiently. Law serve as a guideline but the method of beasts (force), so the law should be freely enforced by military means in places where law is insufficient. This viewpoint directly links Machiavelli’s idea that a country with a powerful and organized military shows that this country is also one of order and a country where the citizens are in accordance with the law. Machiavelli’s belief that military might and conflict show how a war ready state and one that favoured the military is a State that would be able to create itself and maintain itself successfully.
Machiavelli’s idea of a strong government was that of singular Prince whom needed to have certain characteristics to be able to rule and maintain power over the people without being dethroned or overthrown. According to Machiavelli a Prince had to be both fortunate (lucky) enough and be skilled enough in his power gaining abilities to acquire power. In machiavelli’s ideas of the Prince he favored certain characteristics for the leader including but not limited to: Mercifulness, sincerity, ruthless, crafty, ambitious and finally tight fisted ruler. The Prince had to aim to be a populist, a champion of the people so that they would always support him because Machiavelli thought that without the favor of the people a Prince could easily lose power. To gain the favor of the people the Prince should how to be flexible: display mercy when it is necessary but yet be savage with repressions when dissent is too strong, with the goal at then end of the day to always aim to maintain his image and please the people. The prince always needs to aim to  present himself in a positive light (control of media helps) and carefully craft his image as someone to be either be feared or loved and if possible both. However if a Prince is not able to make himself loved by the populace then he should be aim to be feared while at the same time avoid being hated. The Price can make himself feared or respected by maintaining an iron grip of control over his populace, where his military force can act harshly and make an example of those resisting his rule by acting with necessary brutality over them. We can see this sort of leadership style with the way Vladimir Putin currently runs the Russian Federation, he makes quick work of his political opponents by finding loopholes in the law or accusing them of a crime and then without much consideration arresting them. Many journalists in Russia that opposed Putin have also died or disappeared in mysterious ways that would let one think that Putin may have ordered the death in some sort of secret manner of these people. Putin also as described by Machiavelli invests much of the national budget of the government in funding a large and equipped army, which he uses to maintain order and stability while also crushing dissent or independence related separatists.  Despite these underhanded and questionable methods of ruling, Putin stays an incredibly popular leader, carefully crafting his image presenting as a macho keeper of order, by taking hard line, zero tolerance stances on certain issues or even by using staged photo shoots where he is depicted shirtless riding horses, avidly attempting to project to the population a “macho”,  “strong” and “masculine” image of himself. This is why just as the Prince described by Machiavelli, Vladimir Putin plays very clearly into the character of the ideal Prince able to lead his State.
Machiavelli held a critical view of Christianity, because he thought that it was man-made and it served the government and clerics as a way to control the population by leading them to believe certain morals and laws that in reality aligned mostly with the view of the State. This means that Machiavelli held a firm belief that religion was a tool to maintain social order in a society. Machiavelli however describes the Prophets of religion as some of the greatest Princes because they introduced new ideas and thought archaic social order, he also admired them for their deliberate and frequent use of force and their armies against the populace to inspire fear and respect. Some of the examples of the Prophets that Machiavelli admired for this reason included Moses leader of the Israelites, Romulus the founder of Rome or even Theseus the legendary founder of Athens. Despite the importance of religion for Machiavelli in the running of the state, he thought that a good Prince could not usually practice religion for himself as religious guidelines could hinder a Princes ability to rule, and that the Prince would have trouble respecting the scripture of his religion because of the style of rule that was required in controlling a population. Despite this it would be ideal for the Population to follow a religion as their submissiveness to the will of God would make them easier to control and serve as another tool for the Prince to exploit in the control of the people. Machiavelli’s lack of belief in any religious orders can be attributed to his empiric world-view and mindset. Machiavelli frequently analyzed the past (especially looking at the way in which rulers took action histroically) and thought that it was the best way to be learn.