Essay: Machiavelli – political theorist or political scientist?

Machiavelli is widely recognised as one of the greatest political minds in history, having his work ‘The Prince’ still read over 500 years after it was written. However, there remains a considerable debate as to whether he should be characterised as a political theorist or political scientist. In this essay, though contending arguments are both strong, I will argue the latter under the premise that Machiavelli bases many of his principles on what people really do and what actually happens rather than on theories, and how people ought to act. Being named by some as the father of political science, his theories founded upon the concepts of fortuna, virtue, and gloria that have lasted from the Renaissance era to current day, have shaped the very definition of politics and leadership throughout the world.
Before Machiavelli’s status as a political theorist or a political scientist can be determined, the difference between the two must be understood. The principle foundation of political theory is based upon values, concerning the study of society and how people ‘ought’ to act. A key distinction between political science and political theory is that when political theory is analysed, it is almost impossible for members of the public to agree with each other, due to the fact that people have different values and morals. Relating to the nature vs nurture debate, if everyone in the world were to be raised in the exact same way with identical experiences and circumstances, they would most likely have extremely similar if not indistinguishable views and values. However, as long as people are raised differently by parents who have contrasting views and ethics, groups of citizens such as populations of a country, families, members of parliament, and even partners, are never going to wholeheartedly agree on every aspect of life. Therefore, to study politics in a purely non bias and scientific manner, the basis of theories and opinions must be factual, not just dependent on values.
Machiavelli’s philosophy is based upon genuine occurrences rather than what would happen in an ideal world. This is illustrated on many occasions in his 16th century work written during his time as a Florentine diplomat. Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’ is deemed as quite the contrary to the work considered as the first literary utopia ‘Plato’s Republic’, one of the most popular political theory books ever written. Chapter XV onwards includes an array of examples of the fundamental political science of Machiavelli, “many have imagined republics and principalities which have never been seen or known to exist in reality; for how we live is so far removed from how we ought to live” exhibits coherently the basis of Machiavelli’s thoughts in the Prince and shows how his political science is so outstanding. Should his philosophies be based upon political theory, he would argue an ‘ideal’ leader morally and ethically should behave a certain way based upon goodness for the benefit of everyone as a whole. However, as seen throughout his treatise, him advising this quintessential behaviour as a leader is not evident, shown in the quote “it is necessary for a Prince, who wishes to maintain himself, to learn how not to be good”. Machiavelli’s perception of effectiveness is correlated utterly to that of being able to prioritise maintaining power and revenue, no matter what it takes, over prioritising a reputation as a liberal and respected leader. As when this is done, Machiavelli states that the respect from the people for maintaining financial stability and security of the state overpowers the initial hatred towards him, enhancing his argument in the Prince regarding the necessity for occasional immorality, though unethical, remains effective from his viewpoint.
Additionally, the definition of political science implies that as it refers to genuine behaviour and societal norms, it can actually be applied by, for example, a politician in power. The George Osbourne we saw in 2015 has been referred to as a much more Machiavellian character compared to the 2012 Osbourne who delivered the supposed ‘omnishambles’ budget that caused outrage within the media and public. Conservative writer Iain Martin claims George Osbourne has become proficient in the art of Machiavellian politics by learning from his mistakes previously and applying Machiavelli’s ‘tactics’ to a reformed budget. It is claimed that his ability to withhold power regardless of being liked by the public is phenomenal, reflecting harmoniously with the realist attitudes of Machiavelli. Through applying Machiavelli’s methods, he started to positively target groups whose support would aid the conservative campaign and strategically made the opposition seem “amateur”.  Machiavelli’s views on separating politics and ethics seem to link closely with the choices that George Osbourne made, whether they were successful or not. This initial separation of morals and politics was a completely new concept at the time as the two had been so closely bound by previous politicians and philosophers; especially when it came to people in a position of power, hence it being deemed by many to be the birth of political realism.
One particular factor that unites every political theorist is their strong beliefs about morals and ethics. Aristotle claims that a stable equilibrium of the soul is what constitutes as character, and that “moral virtue is the only practical road to effective action”, essentially asserting the outright opposite to Machiavelli. Again, here the contrast between political theory and political science is apparent. The dissociation of morals and ethics from politics can be seen as not solely a dangerous step in strategic political development, as it removes the majority of the interest from social justice and equality, but can also be seen as a revolutionary theory that enhanced competence in authority and leadership.
Machiavelli’s reputation for being the “first honest teacher of dishonest politics” reflects many of the policies included in the Prince. When looking at the aims of being a political theorist compared to a political scientist, theorists focus intensely on “sharing a concern with the demands of justice and how to fulfil them”. The longing for a world full of justice may in fact be exactly what Machiavelli is trying to accomplish long term, however the short term advice that he puts in place to achieve this are most definitely those of a political scientist, since his advice to the Prince as a politician is so unequivocal. It is based on fact rather than opinion and values, it is objective to the best interest of the public socio-economically, and by doing this it is most beneficial to Florence and to the Prince. He implies that a truly successful leader puts aside his values, morals, and ethics and to only heed how the public will act. According to Machiavelli, keeping a promise that will affect a leader badly is worse than making a promise and breaking it to preserve revenue and power.
There exists reasonable argument favouring Machiavelli’s status as a political theorist, based fundamentally on the fact that his overall intentions when writing the Prince were unclear. After all, The Prince was written with the intention of gaining a position of authority under Lorenzo de’ Medici
Perhaps Machiavelli believed that deception and fear mongering were values that people should in fact have, and having morals and ethics was underrated.