The Politics Book

by DK Publishing

  Leadership qualities

  Confusingly, Machiavelli uses the word virtù to describe these leadership qualities, but this is very different from our modern idea of moral virtue, as well as the concept of virtue as understood by the Church. Machiavelli was a Christian, and as such he advocates Christian virtues in day-to-day life, but when dealing with the actions of a ruler, he believes that morality must take second place to utility and the security of the state. In this respect, his ideas hark back to the Roman quality of “virtue” embodied by the military leader who is motivated by ambition and the pursuit of glory, properties that are almost the exact opposite of the Christian virtue of modesty. Machiavelli notes, however, that these motivations are also a manifestation of human nature’s inherent self-interest, and similarly can be harnessed for the common good.

  "In judging policies we should consider the results that have been achieved through them rather than the means by which they have been executed."

  Niccolò Machiavelli

  Machiavelli takes the analogy between military and political leaders further, pointing out other aspects of virtù, such as boldness, discipline, and organization. He also stresses the importance of analysing a situation rationally before taking action, and basing that action not on how people should ideally behave but how they will behave (meaning in their own self-interest). In Machiavelli’s opinion, social conflict is an inevitable result of the selfishness of human nature (this is in contrast to the medieval Christian view that selfishness was not a natural condition). In order to deal with this selfishness, a leader needs to employ the tactics of war.

  Although Machiavelli believes that to a large extent man is master of his own fate, he recognizes that there is also an element of chance at play, which he refers to as fortuna. The ruler must battle against this possibility, as well as against the fickleness of human nature, which also corresponds to fortuna. He sees that political life, in particular, can be seen as a continuous contest between the elements of virtù and fortuna, and in this regard is analogous to a state of war.

  Conspiracy is useful

  By analysing politics using military theory, Machiavelli concludes that the essence of most political life is conspiracy. Just as success in war is dependent on espionage, intelligence, counter-intelligence, and deception, political success requires secrecy, intrigue, and deceit. The idea of conspiracy had long been known to military theorists, and was practised by many political leaders, but Machiavelli was the first in the West to explicitly propose a theory of political conspiracy. Deceit was considered contrary to the idea that a state should safeguard the morality of its citizens, and Machiavelli’s suggestions were a shocking departure from conventional thinking.

  According to Machiavelli, while intrigue and deceit are not morally justifiable in private life, they are prudent for successful leadership, and excusable when used for the common good. More than that, Machiavelli asserts that in order to mould the undesirable aspects of human nature, it is essential that a ruler is deceitful and – out of prudence – does not honour his word, as to do so would jeopardize his rule, threatening the stability of the state. For the leader, then, compelled to deal with the inevitable conflicts that face him, the ends do justify the means.

  The end is what counts

  A prince’s success as a ruler is judged by the consequences of his actions and their benefit to the state, not by his morality or ideology. As Machiavelli puts it in The Prince: “In the actions of all men, especially princes, where there is no recourse to justice, the end is all that counts. A prince should only be concerned with conquering or maintaining a state, for the means will always be judged to be honourable and praiseworthy by each and every person, because the masses always follow appearances and the outcomes of affairs, and the world is nothing other than the masses.” He does, however, stress that this is a matter of expediency, and not a model for social behaviour. It is only excusable when done for the public good. It is also important that the methods of intrigue and deception should be a means to an end and not become an end in themselves, so these methods need to be restricted to political and military leaders, and strictly controlled.

  Another tactic Machiavelli borrows from the military is the use of force and violence, which again is morally indefensible in private life, but excusable when employed for the common good. Such a policy creates fear, which is a means of ensuring the security of the ruler. Machiavelli tackles the question of whether it is better for a leader to be feared or loved with characteristic pragmatism. In an ideal world, he should be both loved and feared, but in reality the two seldom go together. Fear will keep the leader in a much stronger position, and is therefore better for the wellbeing of the state. Rulers who have gained power through exercising their virtù are in the most secure position, having defeated any opposition and earned respect from the people, but to maintain this support and hold on to power, they must continually assert their authority.

  Though Machiavelli did not sanction the use of questionable methods to get things done in private life, he argued that the ruler should use all means necessary to secure the future of the state.

  An ideal republic

  While The Prince is addressed to the would-be successful ruler, Machiavelli was a statesman in the Republic of Florence, and in his less well-known work Discourses on Livy, he strongly advocated republicanism rather than any form of monarchy or oligarchy. Despite remaining a lifelong Catholic, he was also opposed to any interference in political life by the Church. The form of government he favoured was modelled on the Roman Republic, with a mixed constitution and participation by its citizens, protected by a properly constituted citizens’ army as opposed to a militia of hired mercenaries. This, he argued, would protect the liberty of the citizens, and minimize any social conflict between the common people and a ruling elite. However, to found such a republic, or reform an existing state, requires the leadership of an individual who possesses the appropriate virtù and prudence. Though it may require a strong leader and some scurrilous means to begin with, once a political society is established, the ruler can then introduce the necessary laws and social organization to enable it to continue as an ideal republic – this would be a pragmatic means to achieve a desirable end.

  "Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved."

  Niccolò Machiavelli

  Machiavelli’s philosophy, based on personal experience and an objective study of history, challenged the dominance of the Church and conventional ideas of political morality, and led to his works being banned by the Catholic authorities. By treating politics as a practical and not a philosophical or ethical subject of study, he replaced morality with utility as the purpose of the state, and shifted the emphasis from the moral intention of a political action to focus primarily on its consequences.

  Italian dictator Benito Mussolini was a forceful and ruthless leader, more feared than loved. He claimed inspiration from The Prince.

  Enduring legacy

  The Prince was very influential in the centuries following Machiavelli’s death, particularly among leaders such as Henry VIII of England, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, Oliver Cromwell, and Napoleon, and the book was acknowledged as an inspiration by such diverse figures as Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci and Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini.

  Machiavelli’s critics, too, came from all sides of the political spectrum, with Catholics accusing him of supporting the Protestant cause, and vice versa. His importance to mainstream political thinking was immense – he was clearly very much a product of the Renaissance, with its emphasis on humanism rather than religion, and empiricism rather than faith and dogma, and he was the first to take an objective, scientific approach to political history.

  "Everyone sees what you appear to be, but few really know what you are."

  Niccolò Machiavelli

  This objectivity also underlies his perhaps cynical analysis of human nature, which
was a precursor to Thomas Hobbes’s brutal description of life in a state of nature. His concept of utility became a mainstay of 19th-century liberalism. In a more general sense, by divorcing morality and ideology from politics, his work was the basis for a movement that later became known as political realism, with particular relevance in international relations.

  “Machiavellian” behaviour

  The term “Machiavellian” is in common usage today, and is usually applied pejoratively to politicians who are perceived (or discovered) to be acting manipulatively and deceitfully. US president Richard Nixon, who attempted to cover up a break-in and wiretapping of his opponent’s headquarters and was forced to resign over the scandal, is a modern-day example of such underhand behaviour. It is also possible that Machiavelli may have been making a less obvious point in The Prince: perhaps he was saying that those who have been successful rulers may have behaved in just as “Machiavellian” a way, but their actions have not been so closely examined. How they achieved their success has been overlooked because the focus has shifted to what they achieved. It seems that we tend to judge leaders on their results rather than the means used to achieved them.

  Expanding this argument further, we might consider how often the losers of a war are found to be morally questionable, while the victors are seen as above reproach – the notion that history is written by the victors. Criticizing Machiavelli leads us to examine ourselves and the extent to which we are prepared to overlook the dubious machinations of our governments if the outcome works in our favour.

  Richard Nixon resigned as US president in 1974. He authorized a break-in and wiretap at the Democratic National Committee headquarters: actions described as “Machiavellian”.

  NICCOLÒ MACHIAVELLI

  Born in Florence, Niccolò Machiavelli was the son of a lawyer, and is believed to have studied at the University of Florence, but little is known of his life until he became a government official in 1498 in the government of the Republic of Florence. He spent the next 14 years travelling around Italy, France, and Spain on diplomatic business.

  In 1512, Florence was attacked and returned to the rule of the Medici family. Machiavelli was imprisoned and tortured unjustly for conspiring against the Medici, and when released retired to a farm outside Florence. There, he devoted himself to writing, including The Prince and other political and philosophical books. He tried to regain favour with the Medici, with little success. After they were overthrown in 1527, he was denied a post with the new republican government because of his links with the Medici. He died later that year.

  Key works

  c.1513 (pub. 1532) The Prince

  c.1517 (pub. 1531) Discourses on Livy

  1519–21 The Art of War

  See also: Chanakya • Han Fei Tzu • Ibn Khaldun • Thomas Hobbes • Carl von Clausewitz • Antonio Gramsci

  INTRODUCTION

  The roots of most modern Western political thought can be traced back to scholarship in the “Age of Reason”, which followed the Middle Ages in Europe. The invention of the printing press, the rise of nation-states, and the discovery of the Americas were some of the factors that influenced the transition from the Middle Ages to the Age of Reason. The questioning of religious orthodoxy – prompted in 1517 by Martin Luther’s 95 Theses – led to the Protestant Reformation, and later the Catholic counter-reformation.

  Overlapping spheres of authority and governance in Europe led to fierce battles between and within civil and religious groups. In the absence of religious doctrine, people needed a new way to organize and legitimize political order. Two concepts became fundamental: the “divine right of kings” to rule, granted by God; and “natural law”, which analysed human behaviour to arrive at valid moral principles. Both concepts were used to argue for an absolutist state.

  Absolute sovereignty

  In France, Jean Bodin argued in favour of a strong central power with absolute sovereignty, to avoid the factional strife that followed the decline of papal authority in Europe. Thomas Hobbes wrote during a time of bloody civil war in England. He agreed with Bodin on the need for a strong sovereign, but not on the divine right of kings, which Bodin’s work was often used to legitimize. For Hobbes, the power to rule was granted not by God but via a social contract with the ruled. The idea that the power to govern is granted by the people via an implicit or explicit contract – and that rulers can legitimately be removed from power if they break the contract – is still central to modern understandings of political systems.

  Further key insights were offered by Johannes Althusius, who saw politics as the art of uniting people in associations to ensure peace and prosperity, and Montesquieu, who emphasized that government should be based on a principle of the separation of legislative and executive powers. All such thinkers spoke against a strong, centralized state.

  Towards Enlightenment

  Theologians such as Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suárez, both part of the School of Salamanca, began to interpret the Bible using arguments based on rationality. This led de Vitoria to criticize the colonial conquests being made at the time in the name of the Church. Suárez distinguished between man-made laws, natural laws, and divine guidance. He argued against the divine right of kings as a misguided merging of those three sources of laws.

  Later scholars of the period would base their analysis not on theology, but on pure reason. These are closer to so-called “Enlightenment ideals”. Immanuel Kant coined the term Enlightenment in 1784 to describe the capacity and freedom to use one’s own intelligence without the guidance of others.

  While scholars such as Bodin and Hobbes had focused on political stability and used the concept of natural law to argue for absolutism, Enlightenment writers used natural law as a cornerstone in liberal theories and international law, asserting that humans had rights that trumped man-made laws.

  Individual rights

  Hugo Grotius, considered the father of international law, placed liberty and rights firmly in the possession of individuals, as opposed to thinking of them as qualities bestowed by God. This idea was key to the development of liberalism, and to the conceptual separation of rights and duties in legal matters. John Locke further championed individual rights and freedom. He argued that the purpose of government and law was to preserve and enlarge human freedom. Like Hobbes, he believed in the social contract, but his more optimistic view of human nature led him to the conclusion that government should be limited and protective, not absolute.

  The American Enlightenment not only shaped the Declaration of Independence, but was also closely linked to the ideals of the French Revolution of 1789, which is often seen as the culmination of the European Enlightenment. Benjamin Franklin was a central figure in this period, and his views on entrepreneurialism as a civic virtue were highly influential for the development of capitalism.

  Human rights, freedom, checks and balances, international law, representative democracy, and reason are all modern concepts that were first truly explored by the thinkers of this age.

  IN CONTEXT

  IDEOLOGY

  Just war

  FOCUS

  Colonialism

  BEFORE

  1267–72 Thomas Aquinas writes Summa Theologica, the most influential work of Christian theology in the West.

  1492 Genoese explorer Christopher Columbus lands in the New World, leading to a race for conquest in the Old World.

  AFTER

  1625 Drawing on de Vitoria’s teachings, Hugo Grotius publishes On the Law of War and Peace, a seminal work for the formulation of international law.

  1899 The first Hague Conference takes place, resulting in the first formal convention on the laws of war and war crimes.

  Francisco de Vitoria was central among the group of theologians at the University of Salamanca, Spain, who founded the School of Salamanca in the early 16th century. They revolutionized the concept of natural law by emphasizing individual liberty, rights, and equality.

  With the discovery of the New Wo
rld and the decline of papal authority, European states were competing to colonize as much of the newly conquered land as possible. The School of Salamanca was the first and the most potent intellectual force to criticize these actions. De Vitoria believed that the origin of law emanated from nature itself. Given that all humans are born from and share the same nature, he argued that all had equal rights to life and liberty.

  Illegitimate conquests

  De Vitoria’s principle of natural law and the universality of rights ran counter to the dominant view of the Church and the European colonial powers. Flowing from Christian dogma, the dominant morality held that it was legitimate to conquer and rule the indigenous Americans. De Vitoria regarded the conquest as illegitimate, based on the logic that “in the beginning, everything was common to all”. If unbelievers were not necessarily evil, and Christians could conduct evil acts, it was not logical to consider Christians to have rights over unbelievers.

  This view also undermined the divine right of kings to rule. It led to many disagreements between de Vitoria and Charles V, King of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor, but the king nevertheless still went to de Vitoria for counsel.

  Can war be just?