Related questions:
- Machiavelli’s “the prince” is both an advice to the prince and an expose of the prince’s methods to the public. How far do you agree with this view?
- Evaluate the assertion that Niccolo di Bernado Machiavelli's socio political doctrine is an admixture of absolutism and power realism.
- Politics and morality are complimentary. How then do we reconcile Machiavelli's “the end justifies the means”?
(YOUR INTRODUCTION)
THE STATE SITUATION IN MACHIAVELLI’S TIME
In connection with the fact that the political ideas and theory of a philosopher is connected to the circumstantial happenings of his era, Machiavelli is not an exception. Unfortunately, Machiavelli (as an Italian) lived during a time when the state experienced radical political instability. There was a constant overthrowing of governments and political powers, such that the state was synonymous to insecurity and strife. To begin with, Italy was divided amongst five large states; “the kingdom of Naples”, “the duchy of Milan”, “the aristocratic republic of Venice”, “the republic of Florence” and “the papal state (where the pope was in charge)”. For Italy to be divided amongst itself was a problem, as it was like the head of a man saying ‘I do not need the body’ and the body saying ‘I do not need the legs’ and so on. Italy was in a total state of confusion. It was all about whom and who had the opportunity to take all.
Machiavelli whom lived in the republic of Florence was forced to engage in some political writing, when the republic was overthrown by another in 1512. This made Machiavelli somewhat idle and led him to write about the possible fate of a state which was incapable of handling its political security; of a form of government which found it difficult in facing the political forces of its day. For any state to survive the tough terrain of political instability and insecurity there was a lot that the ruler had to do. This is what Machiavelli (whom out of necessity and not really conviction) set out to prescribe in his political writings. Most importantly, his major political works were “the prince” and “the discourses”, of which he finished the former at about 1513. Some of his ideas in “the prince” were readdressed in his later work “the discourses”. Both books talk about the same issue which is “the reason why states fall and rise and how statesmen can make them permanent”. The “prince” which contains Machiavelli’s major political thoughts talks about absolute governments and monarchies. Some philosophers see it as an advice to the ruler on how to absolutize power while others see it as an expose on how the ruler betrays his subjects. But the underlying essence of the book is how to attain political stability (which was the basic need of the state during Machiavelli's time).
MACHIAVELLI’S METAPHYSICAL ORIENTATION OF MAN
For Machiavelli, the unchanging nature of man was one of the foundational elements in the establishment of his political theory of state. For him, man is a being driven by the urge for material interest and the desire for power. Man was an egoistic being whom cared only about personal interest and who sought after self-preservation. Due to the state of arrested political development in his day, cruelty and murder had become the status quo of government and truthfulness, faithfulness, gentleness and the likes were perceived as immature characteristics which any enlightened individual who desires progress should avoid. Force, cunning, deception and selfishness were right as long as they produced the desired result; and this result was their justification. This era is usually referred to as “the age of bastards and adventurers”. Political survival had a possibility only when the individual recognises the fact that he had to stand alone, and that every other person that breathes is a potential enemy. Hence, Machiavelli is seen as a political theorist of the masterless man, of a society in which the individual stands alone, with no (other) motives and no (other) interests except those supplied by his own egoism.
MACHIAVELLI’S IDEOLOGY ABOUT POLITICS
From a general point of view, there is the idea that politics and morality are complimentary; for politics exists to establish peace in the state and peace can only operate where there is morality. But for Machiavelli, it is a different ball game. Politics is not connected to anything whatsoever; it is an end in itself as it stands alone. The need for politics is found in its ability to create stability in the state and to do this one does not have to follow the way of morality. Morality could work within the religious atmosphere but for politics, it is a different ball game as political life is a struggle. Religious virtues are largely a threat to political effectiveness as it would soften men and weaken a political society. Hence, the purpose of politics is “to stabilize and increase political power itself”. The standard for politics is that anything which would help to successfully retain or attain power is just and acceptable. Therefore, the end justifies the means. Power is open to all but it is mainly for those who have the skill to seize it in a free competition. Machiavelli advocates for a constitution that gives legal rights only to those who have wielded real power, as revolutions would almost be impossible under such a rule.
MACHIAVELLI ON HOW TO ATTAIN POLITICAL STABILITY
For Machiavelli, success simply is an achievement of your purpose, regardless of how you achieve it. Also, in order for a ruler to attain a political end, power is usually very necessary. A ruler will perish if he is always good. Thus, it is necessary for a ruler to learn how not to be good. He must be as cunning as a fox in order to overcome his opponents and fierce as a lion in order to intimidate his enemies. One way to surpass one’s enemies is via the use of deceit. A prince must sometimes be unfaithful but he must learn how to disguise this character well.
Machiavelli perceived power as an end in itself to be achieved without regard to moral standards or ethical character. A wise ruler would eliminate those who may have helped him in attaining superior position; for they would understand the evil schemes used by the ruler and could thus be a threat to his stabilized rule. So, everyone is a potential enemy. Although Machiavelli advocated immoral means in attaining political end, he still held that moral corruption amongst a people makes good government impossible. However, he still places stability (stable governments) above good governments. Even though moral virtues are good, it does not mean a ruler must practise them, if he ever wants to succeed politically. If the prince becomes good, he will hurt and ruin himself as politics is a very rough terrain that accommodates only the tough minds. In other words, whether the prince chooses to be loved or feared by the people should not be a difficult choice. Even when the people are no longer willing to submit, the ruler must be ready to make them do it by force. It is better (according to Machiavelli) to be feared than to be loved, for you cannot force others to love you but you can compel them to fear you.
MACHIAVELLI’S ADVICE TO THE PRINCE
The prince must learn to be independent in every aspect. He must possess the virtue of “creative force” which is the key to maintaining a state and warding off enemies. A prince must train his own army and captain his own troops. He must never succumb to employing or borrowing mercenary troops from other states in order to fight a war. Under no circumstance should he rely on or take advice from outside forces, foreign powers or institutions, as they could bypass and betray him. He must rely on himself alone and therefore create his own fate if he has to be at least safe to some large extent. If a prince fails or succeeds, it is by his own hands. So, a prince should have the talent and the ability to counterfeit (fake) virtue. He also admonishes the prince to be undisturbed by the question of whether his actions would be called virtuous or vicious. It is what works that matters; the end justifies the means. A prince ought to do whatever is needed for the challenge at hand, as long as it leads to success. He could murder, be lenient, be loyal or be wicked and hard hearted. The choice of action depends on the circumstance. This finally goes to show that Machiavelli was mainly concerned with political stability and efficiency, and not really being evil or good per say.
(YOUR CRITICISMS AND CONCLUSION)
Back to "200 LEVEL- FIRST SEMESTER"
Back to "ARCHIVES AND RESOURCES"
Back to "PHILUZOPHY"
Back to "200 LEVEL- FIRST SEMESTER"
Back to "ARCHIVES AND RESOURCES"
Back to "PHILUZOPHY"
