INS 280, Spring 2008: Il Principe
Machiavelli, Power and Realism
Assignment: 1) Do you think Machiavelli’s advice on power and its use is relevant and makes sense even today? 2) Do you think Machiavelli’s views on human nature are accurate, or do you lean to one of the alternate views. Finally, 3) to what extent do you think Machiavelli’s theory was shaped by the conditions in which he lived – Florentine politics at the start of the 16th century?
Machiavelli and Power
The concept of power in politics has been both self-evident and evasive. Power is obvious when coercion or force is used, and less obvious but just as present when the power is diffuse or subtle (propaganda, economic class, etc.). But when is power justified? Who can and should rightfully use power? Two major theories are idealism and realism, exemplified by Plato and Machiavelli.
Plato: One answer comes from Idealists like Plato: violence can never be just unless it is for self-defense. But that isn’t the end of power for Plato. Plato also sees legitimate power, preferably not coercive force, for the STATE to create a polis wherein individuals are secure and can achieve the greatest happiness.
This kind of power, or rule is legitimate because the state (polis) is a natural outgrowth of human action, with the purpose of promoting happiness, or bettering the polity. Plato rejects democracy, comparing the masses to prisoners in a cave, able to see only shadows on the wall, believing those shadows to be reality. In such a state of delusion, the masses cannot be expected to exercise proper judgment. Instead a class of philosophers should be educated to rule, and a utopian Republic is ruled by a “Philosopher King,” who through education and training has learned to, in Plato’s metaphor, leave the cave and see reality for what it is, gaining the wisdom to govern. Power is a means to an end; an end that is just, using means that are proper. However, power can only be used justly, the philosopher king must be virtuous, and instill virtue in the polity. (To that end Plato has radical ideas about how the philosopher class should live)
Machiavelli: Machiavelli represents a Realist view of power. To Machiavelli, humans are not deluded by shadows on the cave wall, humans are animals. In his main work, Il Principe, Machiavelli gives a view of politics and power that is amoral: the ends justify the means, and human nature is brutish, prone to evil and avarice. This work, published after Machiavelli’s death, has become standard fare for those studying political theory. It clearly, without rationalization or attempt to justify on high moral grounds, lays out the ideal of power politics. Power is the goal; you get it by whatever means necessary. Many call Machiavelli the father of political science because he analyzes power in a manner that posits the is/ought distinction – let’s study the world that is, not the world that ought to be.
It remains now to see what ought to be the rules of conduct for a prince towards subject and friends. And as I know that many have written on this point, I expect I shall be considered presumptuous in mentioning it again, especially as in discussing it I shall depart from the methods of other people. But, it being my intention to write a thing which shall be useful to him who apprehends it, it appears to me 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 never been known or seen, because how one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil.
Machiavelli the man: Machiavelli lived from 1469-1527, and served in the Florentine Republic until the Medicis returned to power in 1512. Yet it is unclear what motivated him to write The Prince. Another book published after his death, Discorsi sulla prima deca di Tito Livio, provides a theory of governance that actually makes an argument for morality and a strong, uncorrupted political system and culture. In Istorie Fiorentine (History of Florence) he also provides a view that is Republican in outlook.
Some argue that The Prince was a satire, or perhaps a critique of the politics of Cesare Borgia (son of Pope Alexander VI, and a ruthless, unscrupulous character). Others believe (as a serious read of The Prince would suggest) that Borgia was for Machiavelli the perfect ruler. Those who look to his other theoretical works and see a different Machiavelli may see The Prince as something not meant in the way we take it; but those who read some of Machiavelli’s plays, such as Mandragola see in his characters a very cynical view of human nature, something which is obvious in The Prince. Still others, noting that the Prince (released after his death, but presented to the Medici ruler far earlier) think Machiavelli was just trying to get in good with the Medici family, who distrusted his Republican roots. The Republicans never really trusted him after they regained power. I believe that it was a serious work, and moreover, it is not in contradiction to the other works. Rather, he addressed a specific set of conditions, in which the “moral” or proper ends were, in his opinion, unachievable without an amorality of the means.
ITALY AND FLORENCE at the time of Machiavelli
When Machiavelli was just 25, French troops crossed the Alps and plundered much of Italy. Spain and France would fight for control of parts of Italy, joined by German mercenaries who, in Machiavelli’s lifetime, sacked and devastated Rome, among other cities. Moreover, in official service, Machiavelli saw violence even amongst Italians. For a while, Florence had a Republic – during Machiavelli’s youth it was ruled by Savonarola, a moralist (we’d call him a religious extremist) who nonetheless believed in the basics of Republicanism. The Republic lasted after his fall (1497), with Machiavelli playing a lead role from 1498 to 1512, when the Medici family was put back in power. Since he had been working for the Republic, Machiavelli was imprisoned and even tortured before allowing to retire to his estate and write. The Republic was re-established in the 1520s, but they distrusted Machiavelli. Here’s what Machiavelli saw around him:
1. The rest of Europe was seeing the major consolidation of what would become the fundamental nation-states of Europe: France, Spain, and Great Britain. The Germanic and Italian principalities, however, were not undergoing the same process.
2. Violence was everywhere, it seemed. Luther would begin the reformation during Machiavelli’s lifetime, but there were wars on Italy and outside Italy.
Human nature seemed brutish. Machiavelli believed in the Republican ideal he espoused, but did not see it possible to bring that into reality in a world where violence so easily overcame a peaceful Republic, and where human nature seemed so greedy and wretched. Therefore, he decided that first and foremost Italy needed a secure, unified state. Presumably after security was established, and the foreign armies driven out (something that could only be done with a strong, effective leader), then a Republic could be possible. Thus one needed a leader who understood the world as it is in order to create conditions to create a republic that reflected moral virtues.
The essence of realism: the real vs. the ideal. Realists emphasize that the way the world is, is much different than the way it ideally should be. Those who focus on the ideal find themselves ineffective in the real world. Therefore realists need to focus on how the world really operates in order to achieve any success. This does not deny the importance of morality, and even Machiavelli suggests that if moral and virtuous means work (such as within a family) they should be used. However, if you do only what is right, you’ll find yourself in ruin.
Comparison to Augustine: the city of man vs. the city of God. Augustine differed in trying to morally justify the breaking of ideal moral behavior (e.g. just war theory). Realists point out that this effort really is just rationalization, and say that Machiavelli, while sounding far less virtuous, is more honest.
The morality of the ends: For Machiavelli the end justifies the means. That doesn’t mean that any end is moral (e.g., Hitler’s ideals would not be), but rather the end of establishing control, driving out foreign armies from Italy, and providing security.
The town of Pistoia lies near Florence, less than an hour away now by train. In the early 1500’s it was under the Florentine sphere of influence, but a rivalry between two families, the Cancellieri and Panciatichi families, started riots and unrest.
At that time Florence was a Republic, and from 1498 to 1512, when the Republic would fall, Niccolo Machiavelli was Chancellor of the Florence Republic. He was sent to try to broker a peace between the rival factions. He did not like what he saw, he realized that the whole place was going to blow up, and blow up badly. He came back and told the leaders of the Republic that there was no hope, the two sides were going to butcher each other. Florence should avoid anarchy so close to the city, he argued, by going in with its overwhelming power and simply take control from the Pistoians.
In Florence, the premier city of renaissance Italy, public opinion was against such a move. They feared a reputation for cruelty, and instead tried to simply continue to broker a deal. The result was a civil war and unrest in 1502-03 where people were hacked in the streets, and mass killing and anarchy occurred. Machiavelli was to write:
I say that every prince ought to desire to be considered clement and not cruel. Nevertheless he ought to take care not to misuse this clemency. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding, his cruelty reconciled the Romagna, unified it, and restored it to peace and loyalty. And if this be rightly considered, he will be seen to have been much more merciful than the Florentine people, who, to avoid a reputation for cruelty, permitted Pistoia to be destroyed.[*] Therefore a prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow murders or robberies; for these are wont to injure the whole people, whilst those executions which originate with a prince offend the individual only.
This says something profound about Machiavelli’s motives, and displays what could be called a hidden moral agenda. Machiavelli thought a Prince or a leader had to act in a way that assured stability and order; the leader had a duty to the people, in other words. His emphasis on political expediency was not in the service of the personal power of a politician or leader, but in allowing that leader to do what is necessary for the sake of the people. The reason for this often misunderstood aspect of Machiavelli’s thought is evident when looking at his life.
Consider two modern examples: Rwanda and Bosnia. In each case, humanity was at its worst, with a mass genocide in Rwanda that killed 800,000 in 100 days, as people were slashed with machetes, and 75% of the Tutsi population eliminated. The pace of killing exceeded that of Hitler’s holocaust, and was brutal. The numbers were far less in Bosnia, but Bosnian Muslims were butchered, rape was used as a weapon, and the worst of humankind was at the fore. In each case, quick, decisive action by the UN or even a US led coalition would have prevented the atrocities. In each case the international community failed to act, and people now question why.
Machiavelli would have understood. As a young diplomat for Florence, he tried to settle a dispute in Pistoia, a city near Florence (which perhaps we can visit). He urged action, after being unable to settle the dispute, lest the Pistoians fall into civil war. Florence could have prevented the butchery that was to follow, but chose not to. Instead Pistoian engaged in conflict as brutal as those described above, with people butchered and the town devastated. For Machiavelli that was human nature. That was society without a strong ruler, that had to be avoided. He would have argued that the fear of acting decisively was a cause of the conflict.
Thus: given human nature and the need for strong authority to create security, order and stability, a Prince needs to understand the world as it is, and act effectively. To act effectively, the Prince must be willing to lie, use force, intimidate and be unafraid of the raw use of power. He says that while it is good to be both loved and feared, it is more important to be feared, since (showing his view on human nature) love creates only an obligation people are willing to break if they decide it is in their interest to do so. Fear keeps people in line. A Prince must be strong and decisive. But it is also important for a Prince to have the illusion of nobility and morality. He should “play the role” of the philosopher king, while acting the part of the amoral leader bent on maintaining power, order and security by any means necessary. Thus, as long as the end is just (order, security, stability to allow citizens to prosper without either butchering each other or allowing a foreign power to dominate) then one can use whatever means are necessary to achieve that end.
Such a prince, Machiavelli argues, must learn NOT to be limited by morality when necessary. A leader has to be able to use lies, force, and deception if needed in the world that is. The reason for this is clear when Machiavelli addresses the question of whether it be better to be feared or loved.
From Chapter 17: Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you.”
People are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, and covetous. You can’t trust them. They will turn on you. Human nature means that doing what you ought to do according to some moral code simply puts you at a disadvantage because humans, by their nature, are usually willing to throw out such moral concerns if it is to their advantage.
Consider what he thinks of love:
“ men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.”
And “above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.”
Not only is man fickle, cowardly, ungrateful, covetous and disloyal, but they’re they’ll forgive you for killing their father before they’ll forgive taking their inheritance!
Yet you cannot be so brutal and obscene as to turn the people against you. You should be feared, but not hated. Keep your word when you can – it is good to be considered trustworthy, but understand when you should lie or deceive. Don’t execute innocent people if you don’t have to, but know that at times it might be necessary. Create the illusion that you are virtuous and noble, but in reality break from that when you must.
Note that this is pragmatic perspective; you have to do what is necessary to succeed. Consider this quote from Chapter 18:
A prince, therefore, being compelled knowingly to adopt the beast, ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves. Therefore, it is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves.
What Machiavelli is saying in his book is that a leader has to deal with the realities of deception and power politics. He sees is what happened in Pistoia, and what is happening in Italy in general, and considers it folly to think it virtuous to try to be moral in the affairs of state. The moral man will lose out to a ruthless one.
Let’s take a second here, though, and think about what this is not. It is not Hitlerian or in favor of someone like Stalin, even though Stalin’s rise to power in the Soviet Union has been called “Machiavellian” as he ruthlessly and without morality pursued his own personal power. Machiavelli, in fact, would look at Stalin’s rise as an example of why men of virtue must adopt his methods; if not, then only men of evil will succeed. For Machiavelli the ends justify the means, but the ends themselves are not simply power for power’s sake. Rather, anarchy must be averted, and a Prince must protect his subjects and create conditions for stability, peace, and prosperity. The ends are noble, but due to human nature – greed, avarice, and weakness – you need to do whatever it takes to achieve those ends.
In Machiavelli’s career and in his other works, most notably The Discourses, he puts forth a view in favor of a Republic without corruption and with rights for the citizens. He is, in essence, arguing that such a condition cannot be achieved without recognizing the reality of politics, the need for cunning, deception, and sometimes injustice and violence. A Stalin or Hitler could overwhelm the “good guys” because the good guys simply didn’t know how to be ruthless enough to stop people like Stalin and Hitler. The only way, says Machiavelli, is to learn not to be moral; to be ruthless when you must.
Modern International Relations: This is obvious among realist thought, and even political rhetoric. The US goes to war in Iraq because of interest: oil, fear of WMD, a desire to bring order to the region. The rhetoric tries to use moral terms (get rid of a dictator, spread democracy). But in other dictatorships lacking democracy no action is taken, if not in the interest of national power. In fact, all through the 20th century realist thinking was dominate in international relations. If you doubt Machiavelli’s negative view on human nature, just look at the holocaust. Just observe the willingness of Stalin’s henchmen or Mao’s red guards to kill and brutalize. Just consider Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia. Just consider Rwanda and Bosnia.
So, does that mean Machiavelli is right?
You decide. Other theorists we could compare him to include:
Jean Jacques Rousseau: Rousseau was a “romantic” idealist who believed that humans are essentially good, but corrupted by society and the alienation it creates. Although he focuses on modern society, his argument would apply to Machiavelli’s time as well. Humans have an instinct for compassion, and it is only because of alienation and inequality that people develop a fear of others, and an inability to recognize and follow their true nature. The goal for Rousseau is through education and liberation achieving the ability to act in accord with our true nature. Society, through a social contract, and can work to be in accord with what is best for humanity, called by Rousseau the general will.
Karl Marx: Human nature is malleable, and reflects the economic system of the time (in capitalism humans are competitive and want to control and exploit others). Economics rather than politics drives human civilization, and any economic system that creates value for some based on the oppression of others will ultimately fail. The best system would be one where humans are liberated from oppression, and able to reflect this liberation and lack of alienation in their work and individual lives. Like Machiavelli, Marx does seem a realist sense of power: a need to use power to overcome and replace the current system.
Gandhi: Denies Machiavelli’s distinction between the ends and the means (Kant did this as well, as did anarchists like Emma Goldman, and thinkers/activists such as Martin Luther King and Henry David Thoreau) and instead focus the unity of ends and means. This argument claims that the means creates the kind of end that ultimately is achieved; violence and unjust action as means will simply reinforce those kinds of behavior in whatever end is achieved. For Gandhi the oneness of humanity (and the self) was the truth, and violence and denial of this caused separation from that truth, and human suffering. Gandhi would not be surprised that the century of realism was also the century of mass killing and violence: our attitudes on human nature and power are reflected in our political outcomes.
My personal view: While I understand how Machiavelli could have his view on nature seeing what Italy was like in his era, in all my travels and interactions, I’ve found people to be generous and good almost all the time. We notice evils like Rwanda and Bosnia because they violate what most of us hold true. Thus I do not share the negative view of human nature, and find my views closer to those of Rousseau or Gandhi.