Considering the political landscape of Italy during the latter part of 1513 where there were intense waves of political unrest it can be argued that Machiavelli’s cynical and some critics argue cold blooded stance on politics are justifiable. (Curry, Zarate, and Appignanesi, 2011) The Prince was written due to Machiavelli’s observation of the previous failed and turbulent leadership of Cesare Borgia and was written as a guide to prevent the demise for the future Prince of a United Italy. (Heywood, 2013) As citied in Nederman’s Machiavelli a Beginners Guide one of the conventional arguments surrounding Machiavelli’s The Prince is the claim that Machiavelli intended his writing to be a resume to re-establish himself with a political entity. (Nederman, 2009) Machiavelli can be criticised for the bias context of these writings as critics have argued it is a job application intended to be presented to the Medici Family as a gift. (Nederman,2009) Scholars went on to brand Machiavelli as an instrument of vice with others primarily labelling him a patriot. (Jensen, 2016) However interpreted Machiavelli’s writing resulted in Machiavelli being regarded as a fundamental political theorist. Machiavelli’s foremost contribution as a political philosopher can be seen in the Prince derived from his observations of failing rulers. In the Prince Machiavelli explains how a Prince must act or appear to be to sustain government control and the qualities one must appear to possess to keep this control. (Benner, 2014)
In the Prince and especially with his comments on what ought to be done Machiavelli is arguing that if the Prince fails to recognise the turbulent situation of Italy or recognise how fickle human nature is then it will lead to his own downfall. Machiavelli argues that it is essential to see the world how it is in all its fault rather than be idealistic and the hope for the best attitude. It is essential to be practical and not idealistic. (Machiavelli, 1513) In the Prince Machiavelli explains how certain principles and morals that government figures are ideally meant to abide by are impracticable and simply leads to governmental demise. Leach understands Machiavelli as a realist philosopher who was one of the first political thinkers to view politics in a realist manor in comparison to idealist politics which does not work in theory. Before Machiavelli the ideas on how governments should act was based on ethnics and not politics in practise. (Leach, 2008)
“Machiavelli might rather be considered the first modern political scientist, describing and analysing politics how it is rather than how it ought to be” (Leach, 2008: 190)
Leach explains how many theorists today believe Machiavellism directly translates into the ideals of political realism and the abandonment of conformist moralism. Critics have argued that Machiavelli’s cynical ideas that translated into political realism were dissolute. In the Prince Machiavelli comments that it is not essential for the ruling Prince to abide by all rules and regulations that are seen to be moral as he argues the Prince simply must appear to have all the quantities whether he does or does not possess them is irrelevant. (Leach, 2008) Machiavelli’s quote on how we ought to live will lead to one’s downfall, is explained by Leach here, the idea here is that it becomes essential to disregard morals and laws in the best interest of politics as ethics will lead to political demise.
“It appears to more appropriate to follow up the real truth of the matter than the imagination of it: for many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have to be seen and known because how one lives his life is so from how one ought to live that he who neglects what is done to be done sooner effects his ruin that his preservation,” (Machiavelli, Carr, Garner, Ferdinand, and Lawson, 2012, pg. 353)
Benner in Machiavelli’s Ironies: The Language of Praise and Blame in the Prince writes that contemporary readers all appear to support Machiavelli’s view that leaders are forced to dismiss their moral and conventional standards to preserve themselves and their institutions. (Benner, 2014)
“Winners know when to ignore conventional restraints. They understand that their own constituents’ best interests can sometimes can be served only if they violate agreements.” (Benner, 2014. Pg 61)
Benner interprets Machiavelli’s ideas in a realist way and comments that although we all have visions of how we want society to be run if it is run in this manor it will simply lead to governmental demise. This has a direct impact on how government officials would rule, Benner promotes Machiavelli’s idea that leaders should not consider ethical values when making difficult decisions and should base his decision on what is best for societies and to consolidate power.
As explained in Machiavelli’s The Prince, Machiavelli’s view on human nature is cynical, Machiavelli believed the existence of humans was to serve the interests of the power. Machiavelli questioned citizen’s loyalty:
“One can say this generally of men: that they are grateful, fickle, pretenders and dissembles evaders of danger, eager for gain. While you do them good, they are yours, offering you their blood, property, lives, and children, … when the need for them is far away, but when it is close to you, they revolt.” – (Machiavelli, 1998, pg 66)
Machiavelli went on to recommend that due to the nature of mankind the Prince should not hesitate to break their promises when events demanded. (Leach, 2008) The idea of Machiavelli encouraging governmental figures to break their promises to their societies and disregard moral standards may seem absurd but when it is put into context with Machiavelli’s cynical view of human nature it appears realistic. Machiavelli advised that when the liberty, freedom or safety of the government or country is at risk then he must not consider morals he must ignore all what may be classified as unjust or cruel and his main motive must be security. (Garner, Ferinand and Lawson. 2012)
“Because they are wicked and do not observe faith with you, you also do not observe it with them.” (Garner, Ferinand and Lawson, 2012, Pg 69)
Zuchett in Machiavelli and the End of Nobility in Politics comments on Machiavelli’s idea that it is better to be feared that loved and argues that even though leaders would like to be both loved and feared in an idealist world this is not tangible. Zuchett comments on Machiavelli’s view that human nature makes fear a more reliable source of loyalty:
“Human beings will promise much out of love so long and they are not actually asked to do it: but when pressed to do what they have been promised, they refuse and revolt… people will not fulfil their promises to you if you do not have the means of forcing them to do so.” (Zuchett, 2013:94)
Zuchett goes on to emphasise Machiavelli’s view that if leaders can only be one they must be feared. Machiavelli believed that to prevent governmental demise the Prince does not necessarily need to be loved but the must prevent being hated. (Zuchett, 2014) In the Prince Machiavelli warns of the consequences if the ruling Prince is hated and advises against certain actions that will result in him being hated for example lavish spending. Machiavelli went on to comment how to prevent being hated by the population and suggested how the Prince should injury his troops a sufficient amount so that they will fear him although not enough so they hate him. This explains the consequences of how the Prince will rule when doing what ought to be done rather than what should be done to prevent the Prince’s downfall. Although certain people might not agree with direct violence on troops to ensure they fear you, it is not exactly ethnical but it is necessary to consolidate the Prince’s control and to ensure he is feared. Zuchett emphasising Machiavelli’s point on “How we live is so different from how we ought to live that he who studies what ought to be done rather than what is done will learn the way to his downfall rather than to his preservation.” Here Machiavelli explains that in an ideal world the leader would rule with the absence of coercion and simply be admired and love however as cited in Zuchett Machiavelli argues that to survive a Prince must be feared. Machiavelli argues that to preserve the state vice must not be condemned and that virtue ought to be relinquished to secure the state. (Donaldson, 1992) Due to the context of Italy in the 16th Century Machiavelli stated that the Prince must control the population with fear because love is not a reliable means to secure loyalty. Machiavelli believed that love could not be relied upon because people were more willing to defy a leader they loved and more less willing to disobey someone they feared. Machiavelli concluded that fear is the most effective way to control his subjects. (Nederman, 2009)
This directly affected how the Prince would rule, Machiavelli suggested that the Prince should not hesitate to make difficult decisions in fear it was not popular with the masses because this is what is ought to be done to prevent the Prince’s downfall and ensures dominance. This may result in the Prince using violence as a direct means to control the population, however Machiavelli insisted that the Prince should use enough violence that the subjects fear him and he must not use too much violence so that they grow to hate him. This may result in the masses failing to love the Prince but instead fearing him which Machiavelli believed was more essential. The corrupt nature of human kind lead Machiavelli to believe once difficult times descends and power weakens subjects who love the Prince will defy him easily. (Conway, 2015)
Nederman in Machiavelli a Beginner’s guide explains how Machiavelli believed that the ruling government officials should have complete control over every aspect and decision made by the state and how policies should be put into place that serve the best interests of the ruling commander if they classify as ethnical policies or not. Nederman went on to comment on what attributes Machiavelli believed the Prince should possess, the main one being ‘virtú,’ As a Machiavellian term virtú can be defined as a leader:
“who is capable of varying his conduct from good to evil and back again as fortune and circumstances dictate.” (Neverdan, 2009:51)
Machiavelli insisted that a Prince must have ‘virti’, a characteristic of virti is the Prince being able to do what is ought to be done with the absence of a moral conscience, Machiavelli noted that to prevent his demise the Prince must be willing to use vice. Nederman argues that ‘virti’ meant that there would be periods that the Prince would have to perform deeds that would not be considered as virtuous but this is what ought to be done to prevent governmental downfall. These views of Machiavelli had a direct impact on how one would rule, they would never hesitate making controversial decisions and would instil fear upon his citizens. (Nederman, 2009)
To conclude there are many different political thinkers that have interpreted Machiavelli’s writings in a range of ways but the common denominator they all comment on is how realistic Machiavelli’s views were rather than idealistic. They all comment on Machiavelli’s fickle view on human nature and how this impacts on how the Prince should rule. The Prince must base his actions on the turbulent nature of politics at this time and disregard moral virtues. The Prince must not condemn vice and should embrace it, what needs to be done must be done or else it will result in governmental demise.
2016-11-14-1479117711