Essay: Niccolò Machiavelli’s writings

Niccolò Machiavelli’s work is seminal in that it is amongst the first few philosophical texts of the 16th century recognizing the politico-theological crisis that characterized the zeitgeist of the time. This crisis had put in question the temporal power of the church and more broadly, the role of religion in politics. Machiavelli saw political reality as flawed and restricted; he saw a world which was morally ambiguous and had religion as a restriction that prevented rulers from exercising complete control. Being a radical pragmatic, his maxim ‘ends justify means,’ completely challenged the Christian doctrine of life after death, because he believed in acquiring earthly temporal power as an incentive that could realistically be gained tactfully.
Machiavelli attempted to diagnose the crisis that religion, in particular Christianity, had brought in current politics, and sought a way to resolve it. Essentially Machiavelli, sought to establish ultimate control by signifying that the temporal government needed to reach its peak, as it were in the time of Moses, to its place of honor and purpose beyond ecclesial control, so that temporal government could be well-founded and efficaciously maintained. The role of religion in politics had made it weak and corrupt. However, if used correctly this same religion could assist in creating the complete aristocracy Machiavelli aimed for: justifying ends through means. Therefore, he writes down his ideals in the Prince and the Discourses to restore an understanding of political reality that was more efficient at ruling and maintaining control than Machiavelli’s contemporaries were.
Machiavelli saw that religion, particularly Christianity, had created a vague and ambiguous power struggle that was inefficient and lacked strength. Religion aimed for the rulers to be people of principle and morality that aimed at creating a better life for the people, taking away absolute control from the rulers. And Machiavelli sees this as a huge weakness, because to him a ruler needs to be ruthless.
“Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.” (The Prince)
He alludes to the ‘prophets’ (Moses, Numa) in The Prince, and the Discourses, as the greatest of new princes, the glorious and brutal founders of the most novel innovations in politics, and men whom Machiavelli assures us have always used a large amount of force and brutality against their own people. He observed that beyond the founding prophets, religion had weakened political institutions by making them more about morality and being virtuous. He felt that the “good politician(s)” who used moral and religious righteousness were always outdone by the more unscrupulous, cunning and ruthless politicians who were willing to use criminal malfeasance to further their power grab.
Machiavelli stated that by gaining first-hand experience in politics and by observing the effectual truth of politics, he had understood what it took to gain and maintain complete power, a power that couldn’t be afforded if religion was the sole political construct that permeated the political climate. Therefore, it can be said that Niccolò Machiavelli invented secular politics.
In one sense, Machiavelli evokes the medieval controversies revolving around the relation between the temporal and the religious power and between emperor and the religious leader. The power and legitimacy of the religious leader belong to a sphere separate and independent of the temporal. To show further the weaknesses of the political system that includes religious doctrine, he refers to the church’s lack of absolute control, despite being a position of doing so. He mentions in the prince “the pope alone has states and does not defend them, subjects and does not keep them in order; yet his states, through being undefended, never are snatched away; and his subjects, though not being kept in order, never feel any concern, and do not imagine being alienated from him and cannot be.” (Prince) Machiavelli shows that the church is in a vague position where it avails benefits because people have faith in the institution, but still church is uninterested in being active in gaining and maintaining temporal control because it assumes that this control is protected by God.
Machiavelli associate’s religion with the world’s weakness. Religion has taught human beings to renounce goods of the earth and to pursue the goods of the heaven, the misplaced efforts of the ancient romans instructs Christians to undergo greater travail for the eternal city. Thus religion “has rendered the world weak” because it teaches that the state for which one must fight is “paradise” in the next life and that this battle requires virtues very different from those that enable one to glorify their homeland. (Discourse II:2) Machiavelli seems willing, for the sake of temporal benefit, to disallow the New Testament as the medium in which Christ’s teachings are conveyed. Therefore, he strips from religion’s doctrines any reference to a power higher than human.
However, despite all the negative consequences of religion, Machiavelli conceptualizes a use for religion in his guide to power. He views religion as a tool that can be applied in his concept of ‘Virtu’ used to keep the state in line, so that it ensured the morality and patriotism of its citizens is kept on a high ground, whilst the leader maintained supreme control. Machiavelli explains repeatedly that he sees religion as man-made, and that the value of religion lies in its contribution to social order and the rules of morality must be dispensed with if security requires it. He had a different idea of virtue than most religious thinkers at the time. His concept of “Virtu” isn’t focuses on moral virtues, but the characteristics of courage, strength, bravery, boldness, fearlessness and when necessary, ruthlessness and criminal acts. His political theory develops a politics without moral, theological, and religious foundations
Machiavelli makes it clear that the sincerity of the ruler’s piety is of no importance: “Everyone knows how praiseworthy it is in a Prince to keep faith, and to live uprightly and not craftily.  Nevertheless, we see from what has taken place in our own days that Princes who have set little store by their word but have known how to overreach men by their cunning, have accomplished great things, and in the end got the better of those who trusted to honest dealings.”  (Prince)
Machiavelli does not dispute the notion that faithfulness is a popular virtue, but he is arguing that while the Prince (i.e. the ruler) should take care to be seen as ideally faithful by his subjects, his actual actions need not be limited by any pious restraints.
In Discourses 1.11 to 1.15, he discusses the various ways religion may be used in forming and strengthening the state, as well as in training, disciplining, and organizing an army, both at home and in the field. Religion is especially useful in power struggles, and in party and factional strife, where opposing groups appeal to the religious beliefs and fears of the people. Throughout these chapters, what is important to Machiavelli is that wise and prudent “rulers of a republic or of a kingdom” are to accept “whatever comes up in favor of religion, even though they think it false.” It seems to imply that to be good requires no extraordinary effort, or, perhaps, that weakness appears in the guise of goodness. Therefore, goodness is merely the camouflage of weakness. On the one hand, to be good would mean to lack the power not to be good, and goodness becomes the weapon of those who have no alternative but to be good, On the other hand, not to be good demands conscious effort and direction, as well as the expenditure of energy and power. In any case the truth that leads to life or to death is not what it seems; in the same way life or death is imbued with an apparently paradoxical and shifting meaning.
In a sense, Islam too, like Christianity, removes emphasis and power from the leader. In Islam, the only rule is that of Law (Shariah), which is given to the Prophet in the shape of the Quran. And because it is the world of God, everybody is subject to it, because the ultimate sovereignty belongs to God. Therefore, from the ruler (Khalifah) to the commoner, every individual is the same, in front of God. Prophet Muhammad said in his last sermon, “…also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black as any superiority over a white except by piety and good action,” this goes on to show that Islam strives for moral excellence in this world to be rewarded in the future. And because the ultimate sovereignty belongs to God, people are free from being slaves to other people because their ultimate master is God. Therefore, a ruler thinking of himself as above others would not be a suitable leader. This virtue negates Machiavelli’s worldly approach to politics, because the goal of the leader of the would be to be moral and not tyrannical because he would want to improve his chances of a better future, hereafter, rather than the opposite.
Islam declares leadership as a trust, that can solve problems of humanity and guide them to the eternal betterment of here and the hereafter. Leadership, therefore, is a contract between a leader and his followers that he will try his best to guide them, to protect them and treat them fairly and with justice. The leader, himself, is not above the law and cannot create his own. He merely works on the interpretation of the Law that is translated by Ulema (religious scholars). Islam therefore, allows autocracy that rests absolute political power to the ruler, bolstered by the religious scholars. This relationship results in a mutual consensus. In contrast to Machiavelli, Islamic leaders cannot break laws or use force against one’s own people. If they were to do so, Islam instructs and prioritizes rebellion against such rulers. The first caliph Abu Bakr said in his first address as Caliph, “Obey me so long as I obey God and His Messenger, but if I disobey God and His Messenger, you owe me no obedience.” To use the Arabic conception of this notion, Hakimiyyah, that is true sovereignty, only rests with God in Islam, and the Caliph is just someone who ensures this remains the case.
Hakimiyah, derived from hukm(law), is the obligation to rule only by what God has revealed and any other additions to ruling methodology is a sin. According to Quran there is no human being that can rightly claim to possess dominion of hakimiyah, only God possesses it. One must confess that divinity belongs to God, essentially, forbid any other practices. And once you believe in Hakimiyah, you follow the Quran, which serves as a relationship with God and requires you to follow the Qutb, law written in the book, in all dealings. If you do not do so you are part of Jahilya(astrayed people). Therefore, the leader of Iran is an individual that believes in the sovereignty of God and acts in accordance with the Quran. In terms of Machiavelli, this virtue is completely unacceptable, because it undermines the power of the Prince, who can do nothing on his own. Machiavelli’s prince would appear to be working for other people, but he would only be strictly working for his own benefit. Both Quran and the Prince are in direct contention on this aspect.
Another aspect of Islam is that it lays out a code of conduct for life, for Muslims, and the primary objective of Shariah is mercy among the fraternity of Islam but also beyond. This is not a simple formality and that too of a political nature such that all of humanity – whether or not they have the qualities of brotherhood – should be classified and grouped together as brothers of one another. Rather, the purpose of making the believers brothers of one another points to a series of noble societal and ethical goals and responsibilities that take shape within the greatness of the Islamic brotherhood that the believers must manifest to one another. This leads to the idea of consensus amongst Muslims. The leader is to consult Shura (a counsel of elite representatives), that consult with the leader on issues. The Shura and the Khalifa is supposed to take merciful actions. An incident in Prophet Muhammad’s life allude to this: he avoided enslavement of people of Makkah(city in Saudi Arabia) and forgave them, after its conquest. Allah here is teaching both the Prophet and all Muslims an important lesson in leadership: that it is love not blind obedience that makes a great leader and this is what Machiavelli tries to negate in his arguments. He says that it is better “to be feared than to be loved” and that a leader should instill fear before he can be loved. From Islam’s perspective leader must not let scars fester. Quran mentions, “Allah has promised to those among you who believe and do good works that He will surely make them Successors in the earth, as He made Successors from among those who were before them.” (Quran Ch.24:V.56). Therefore, it is imperative that Muslim leaders are altruistic and work for the betterment of the Muslim community, because only then can they get to heaven. The second great caliph, Umar, is an example of the importance Islam puts on this virtue when he mentioned, “if a dog dies hungry on the banks of River Euphrates, Umar will be responsible for the dereliction of duty.”
Machiavelli in his writings arrives at many generalized conclusions of human nature. Though these generalizations may seem pragmatic, they characterize humans as falsely shallow. They blur the boundaries that distinguish between the animalistic creeds and human activities. And the Prince needs to “be able to exploit both the man and the beast in himself to the full” (Prince) to be able to govern. This idea stems from the lack faith in a being that will hold everybody accountable. The problem with Machiavelli’s conclusions is that to stay in power the Prince would continually have to be doing malicious deeds, otherwise he would be overthrown. Therefore, it is an individualistic book. Islam, however, strives for a balanced community that improves each member in it. The role of the leader is to maintain this society in accordance to what God has commanded. And the leader has to be able to do it, because his condition in the afterlife depends on this. Machiavelli’s exclusion of religion is therefore understandable if we take in the fact that everybody is a power-hungry maniac. However, in reality humans being social animals can’t always adopt a self-serving approach to everything, and this is where Machiavelli’s argument falters and religious arguments bolster. Because religion sees humans as error prone creatures capable of being better versions of themselves.