Machiavelli: Political Philosophy
Introduction
Few names in the annals of political theory stir as much debate as Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527). Famous for penning The Prince (c.1513), a work that has become a cornerstone in Western intellectual history, Machiavelli has earned the epithet ‘Machiavellian,’ symbolizing a ruthless approach to power politics.
Yet, Machiavelli’s legacy presents a conundrum. While The Prince is often perceived as advocating authoritarian rule, his other writings, such as the Discourses on Livy (c.1517) and the Art of War (c.1519–20), suggest a strong republican sentiment. This apparent contradiction raises crucial questions: Was Machiavelli truly a monarchist or a republican? Or was he merely an eclectic thinker with no coherent ideology?
When reading the philosophies of a political thinker, one must maintain a multi-dimensional perspective, taking into account three fundamental aspects that significantly shape and enrich one’s understanding of their work.
· Firstly, the personal life experiences of a philosopher. These experiences, whether marked by triumph or adversity, invariably mould their worldview and beliefs, influencing the very foundations upon which their philosophical edifice is constructed.
· Secondly, contextualising a philosopher within the socio-economic and political milieu of their era. The prevailing conditions, whether marked by social upheaval, economic inequality, or political transformation, provide the backdrop against which their ideas are formulated. The philosopher’s engagement with the socio-political dynamics of their time, their reactions to the prevailing power structures, and their critiques of existing norms all serve as windows into the pressing issues of their day.
· Lastly, the temporal dimension of a philosopher’s life and thought. Just as seasons change, so too does the human mind evolve over time. The age at which a philosopher articulates their ideas holds intrinsic importance. Early writings may exude the fervour of youthful idealism, while later works may reflect the wisdom borne of experience and reflection. The process of refinement, reformulation, or even the outright transformation of philosophical views throughout a philosopher’s life is a testament to the dynamic nature of intellectual inquiry. Understanding this evolution, punctuated by shifts in perspective, allows us to grasp the depth and breadth of their intellectual journey.
Thus, these three interwoven facets — personal life experiences, socio-economic and political context, and the evolving nature of a philosopher’s thought — are vital threads that together compose the fabric of their ideas.
Machiavelli was no exception.
A. Machiavelli: His Life
Machiavelli (1469–1527) belonged to a rich but very religious Italian family. He developed a hatred for religion, travelled a lot as a diplomat, and was imprisoned for plotting against the Medici family, but was forgiven, and given a minor post again. He wrote his book for one of the Medici princes.
B. Machiavelli: His Times
To properly appreciate Machiavelli’s political philosophy, one must keep in mind the prevailing socio-political conditions of Italy during his period. Three events are crucial.
· Italian Wars
· Sacking of Rome
· End of Church Oppression
1. Italian Wars
With much of Europe involved, the Italian Wars were fought over city-states in Italy from the late 15th to mid-16th centuries. Soon degrading into a power struggle between France and Spain, these wars created misery among people who demanded defence against foreign invasions.
2. Sacking of Rome
The Sack of Rome, then part of the Papal States, followed the capture of the city on May 6, 1527, by the mutinous troops of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. People believed that had there been a courageous leader, this could have been avoided
3. End of Church Oppression
Machiavelli believed that the Pope failed to defend Rome because of the papal belief in Platonic philosophy that rulers should be of upright, moral character. In contrast, Machiavelli claimed that leaders need to be selfish to stay in power and stop invasions.
C. Core Ideas of Machiavelli
Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” in the tradition known as the “Mirror of Princes”, or a private advice book. Many of the great Christian students of politics had done the same: Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas. His core ideas can be listed under six headings:
1. The type of city-state determines the style of governance.
2. Virtue is Morality-neutral
3. Fortune favours the Brave
4. Expect, and be Ready, for the Worst
5. Politics as Two Humors
6. Ends Justify the Means
Let me explain them in a bit of detail
1. Type of City States determines the Governance Style
Machiavelli believes that all states are either republics or principalities; the latter can be divided into hereditary and newly acquired by force or deceit. He maintains that a hereditary prince has “less cause and less necessity to offend his people.”
However, a ruler who has acquired his state through force or fraud cannot expect love from the people. As the new prince cannot enjoy that security, he faces greater challenges, but these also present him with a lot of opportunities to excel in leadership.
2. Virtue is Morality-neutral
The most fundamental of all of Machiavelli’s ideas is virtù. Although difficult to characterize concisely, Machiavellian virtue concerns the capacity to shape things and is a combination of self-reliance, self-assertion, self-discipline, and self-knowledge.
Machiavelli suggests that virtue is not obedience to the commandments of God but seizing opportunities in fortune. Past writers on republics and principalities, he says, have taught men what they should do rather than showing them how men act in fact.
For Machiavelli, virtue includes a recognition of the restraints or limitations within which one must work: not only one’s own limits but social ones, including conventional understandings of right and wrong.
3. Fortune favours the Brave
Fortuna stands alongside virtù as a core Machiavellian concept. It is reliably translated as “fortune” but it can also mean “storms at sea”. Machiavelli often situates virtue and fortune in tension, if not opposition.
At times, Machiavelli suggests that virtue can resist or even control fortune. But he also suggests that fortune cannot be opposed and that it can hold down the greatest of men with its “malignity” Fortune accompanies well with evil and evil with good.
4. Expect the Worst, and be always Ready
Machiavelli urges us to think of war, especially in times of peace. Machiavelli says that a wise prince should never be idle in peaceful times but should instead use his industry (industria) to resist adversity when fortune changes.
Machiavelli came to this conclusion while watching Italy fail to properly prepare for the Italian Wars. He maintained that Italian cities didn’t expect the worst from France, and it proved to be disastrous! If Machiavelli had been in charge, perhaps they would have remained free.
5. Politics as two Humors
Describing politics as a game in which interests clash, Machiavelli shows the prince how to situate himself concerning two humors that dominate political life — that of the great who wish to rule, and that of people who do not wish to be ruled.
Machiavelli’s science presents political life as the product of this competing humor. The nitty-gritty of a ruler is the preservation and stability of the State as well as the preservation of himself in power with everything possible.
6. The Ends Justify the Means
As the ultimate aim of a ruler is the preservation and stability of the State as well as the preservation of himself in power with everything possible, he is entitled to use any means to attain this end.
The reason is that it is the end that counts, the means used to attain it is inconsequential. For this one, Machiavelli didn’t pull any punches, as he wrote, ‘In actions of all men, and especially princes, where there is no court of appeal, the end is all that counts.’
Machiavelli insists, for example, that a prince should use cruelty sparingly and appropriately; that he should not seek to oppress the people; that he should not spend his subjects’ money or take their property or women; that he should appear to be merciful, faithful, religious
Was Machiavelli really a Machiavellian? Did he believe in all that?
Now, before condemning Machiavelli, keep in mind that Machiavelli wrote many books, but unfortunately, The Prince is the only one that has ever been widely read and widely misinterpreted. There are as many theories about the true meaning of The Prince as there are scholars of the subject.
However, the real Machiavelli is not the wicked figure of popular tradition if we read the books to which he himself attached the most importance, the Discourses and the History of Florence. In his book Discourses, there emerges another Machiavelli. While in Prince, he endorsed even cruelty when necessary for princely success, it does not appear with quite such force in the Discourses.
In Discourses, the subject is republican rather than princely government and defence of party government. Contradicting Aristotle who thought that faction begat strife, Machiavelli suggests “that the disunion of the plebs and the Roman Senate made that republic free and powerful.”
Machiavelli suggests that rather than weakening a city, the conflict of humors provides a source of energy that can be directed outward, toward the conquest of other regimes. The management of the different humors could lead to a more secure and better outcome.
Which is true about Machiavelli? The Prince wala or the Discourses wala?
There are different points of view.
A. It is a Serious Work
This is the mainstream narrative considering “The Prince” as a serious work of Machiavelli, based on his vast knowledge of statecraft, his life experiences, and most importantly, based on the prevailing situation in the Italian city-states. During Machiavelli’s time, Italy was plagued by political instability, with frequent changes in leadership and foreign interference. Machiavelli himself experienced the tumultuous political climate firsthand. Machiavelli was not immune to the political intrigue of his era. His own career as a diplomat and politician was marked by shifting alliances and betrayals. Accordingly, they have interpreted “The Prince” as a commentary on these turbulent times as a serious political treatise. It is akin to the “Leviathan” written by Thomas Hobbes under similar conditions of anarchy in England during his time.
B. It is a Satirical Work
Luminaries like Diderot, Rousseau, Spinoza, and Voltaire, have explained “The Prince” as a satire, intended to ridicule, rather than to praise, princely government. To them, “The Prince” is a tongue-in-cheek critique of political machinations rather than a genuine guide for rulers. They maintain that Machiavelli’s writing style in “The Prince” is often characterized by its stark realism and pragmatic advice but it also contains elements of irony and ambiguity, leading them to question the sincerity of its message. This ambiguity may have contributed to the perception of “The Prince” as a satirical work. However, it must be remembered that Enlightenment thinkers like Diderot, Rousseau, Spinoza, and Voltaire were critical of monarchical power and advocated for more democratic forms of governance. In this context, it is not surprising that they would interpret “The Prince” as a critique of authoritarian rule rather than an endorsement of it.
C. Developmental Approach
Members of this camp, such as Hans Baron, argue that “The Prince”, being an earlier work, is not as comprehensive or mature in its writing as the “Discourses on Livy”. They have argued that Machiavelli had a dramatic change of heart and shifted to republicanism after writing The Prince. This camp also places special emphasis on Machiavelli’s historical context.
D. Unity Approach
The fourth camp argues for the unity of Machiavelli’s teaching and maintains that The Prince and the Discourses approach the truth from different directions. They have searched for ‘universal’ principles derived from Aristotle and Xenophon underlying both, “The Prince”, and the “Discourses on Livy”. In other words, he presents the same teaching or vision in each book but from different starting points.
E. Opportunistic Approach
Still others, such as Leo Strauss, have argued that Machiavelli — like Thucydides — lacked any clear political ‘agenda’, but adapted himself to whatever was around. Thus, to find access to the Medici family which had now come into power, he wrote “The Prince” knowing fully well that the new Medici chief, Lorenzo was a tyrant, seeking validation of what he intended to do to consolidate his power.
Which interpretation you would favour depends upon one’s own frame of reference. However, I would go for the last approach, namely, it is an opportunistic attempt to gain favour of the new rulers of Florence who had got him arrested and tortured him for being an important figure in the previous republican regime.
Broken, depressed, and penniless, he saw it as his best chance of getting into the Medici’s good books, and of recouping his losses. Dedicating the book first to Giuliano di Lorenzo de’ Medici — the very man who had destroyed his life — and, after Giuliano’s death, to his nephew, Lorenzo, Machiavelli set out to provide not just a guide to princely government, but a positive justification of all of the terrible things to which he had fallen victim.
Seen in this light, Machiavelli himself appears much less the puzzling proponent of cynical monarchism, and more an innocent victim searching for hope. Indeed, in the end, it seems that Machiavelli was far less ‘Machiavellian’ than we might like to think.
Machiavelli’s Impact
Machiavelli’s ideas had a profound impact on political leaders throughout the modern West, particularly in non-republican governments. The Prince was spoken of highly by Thomas Cromwell in England and had influenced Henry VIII in his turn toward Protestantism,
For the modern materialist philosophy of economics and politics, Machiavelli’s realism and encouragement of using innovation to try to control one’s fortune were more accepted than his emphasis on war and factional violence.
Not only were innovative economics and politics a result but also modern science, leading some commentators to say that the 18th century Enlightenment involved a “humanitarian” moderating of Machiavellianism
Scholars have argued that Machiavelli had a major indirect and direct influence on the political thinking of the Founding Fathers of the United States due to his overwhelming favouritism of republicanism and the republican type of government.
Machiavelli’s new political science claims to demonstrate that men always depend on their arms. When Queen Victoria’s PM, Lord Palmerston, asserted that “we have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal”, he said, echoing Machiavelli
The majority of post-colonial states are passing through the same stage as the city-states of Italy. They are multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, and multi-religious states facing the challenge of nation-building. To them, Machiavelli is a guiding light for suppressing sub-nationalism.
Machiavelli is the first modern political philosopher because he attributes qualities to republican peoples that might be absent in peoples accustomed to living under a prince He also distinguishes between the clash of interests between the rulers and the people.
However, in the Discourses, he explores more carefully the possibility that the clash between them can be favourable. He associates both war and expansion with republics and with republican unity; conversely, he associates peace and idleness with republican disunity.
From the book “25 European Political Philosophers: A Hand Book”, published by Amazon and available at
