Machiavelli’s Concepts of Governing

Niccolo Machiavelli was a great political thinker during his time even though he did not consider himself a philosopher. [1] He saw Italy as a corrupt nation and wanted to find a way that an independent state could run effectively within that nation.[2] Machiavelli was trying to advise and inspire future leaders of the state by writing The Prince. Many political figures have used Machiavelli’s advice to gain power in their own countries however some have not followed the advice to create the leader that Machiavelli was trying to create.

                Some of Machiavelli’s advice in The Prince could work in our current political system, while some advice could not. Although Machiavelli was a great political thinker, he did not foresee the issues that the United States would encounter. A few of these issues are; problems with ethics, special interest groups, and the idea of politicians changing their views or “flip flopping.”  I intend to argue that virtu, fortune, and the idea of the lion and the fox all have a place in our political system and society today. However, I will argue that Machiavelli’s ideas of republican liberty, prudence, and the chameleon are all bad theories that don’t work or are not ethical in our current political system.

                Throughout time it has been understood that leaders would gain the respect of their townships by being morally upstanding and virtuous therefore earning the respect of their followers.[3] The Prince outlines the way that a leader should act to gain the respect and power of a municipality which is by any means necessary. Maureen Ramsey states, “Machiavelli was concerned to establish from historical example and factual evidence the kinds of qualities rulers must have and the actions they must take in order to achieve political success.”[4] Machiavelli’s ideology is that in order to rule a leader will need to do some things that may not be thought of as ethical. Cary Nederman explains that “there is no moral basis on which to judge the difference between legitimate and illegitimate uses of power. Rather, authority and power are essentially coequal.”[5] The idea is that Machiavelli did not think actions were ethical or not rather that the basis was all in gaining power and being able to assert control and then rule over people in a way that brought glory to the leader. Machiavelli did not believe that a good and just leader could maintain political stability by being just and virtuous so he wrote The Prince in order to explain how to acquire political office and then keep it.[6]

In The Prince he teaches that fear is way to keep people in line when he says “fear holds them fast by a dread of punishment that never passes.”[7] Machiavelli believed that the people needed to have a very basic knowledge of politics and only the leaders of “forty or fifty” would know what was going on behind the scenes because it was done behind closed doors.[8] He did tell the leader to be virtuous when he could, however he would need to be flexible when the time came to use means that may not be virtuous.[9] He also told the leader that he would need to exhibit traits that were not so good and explains “as to the actions of all men and especially those of princes…everyone looks to their results.”[10] Although a leader needs to learn how to be not so good the results would justify his actions regardless if they were perceived as ethical or not. From this concept is where political thinkers come up with the idea of the ends justify the means.

There were a few ideas that Machiavelli held that would work within the political realm in our current system. These ideals offer the prince a way to gain power and respect without losing the authority that he has over his people and his leadership. The idea of virtu helps the prince become a good leader and is something that is seen in politics today. Every politician needs some good fortune in winning political office however some have been ousted out of their seats because of bad fortune. We have seen the lion and the fox work for some politicians and hinder others. These concepts make Machiavelli relevant today.

The concept of virtu is one that best describes the requirements for the prince.[11] Ramsay explains how a Machiavellian politician should act when she states, “He must be bold, resolute, flexible, prepared to break promises and act against charity, truth, religion and humanity.”[12] The prince needs to be able to do what is necessary to win at all cost. Machiavelli states this when he writes “For anyone who wants to act the part of a good man in all circumstances will bring about his own ruin, for those he as to deal with will not all be good. So it is necessary for a ruler, if he wants to hold onto power, to learn how not to be good, and to know when it is and when it is not necessary to use this knowledge.”[13] Machiavelli knew that it would be hard for a leader to be honest in all things when he would be dealing with others that were not honest.

Machiavelli’s idea of virtu can be seen in today’s political system. Candidates are willing to do whatever it takes to get ahead or keep their office. An example would be political attack ads seen during elections. Machiavelli did not see the media as being a major force in our political system because there was no media at the time. However, the media has made virtu easier for candidates and a must in the political realm. Attack ads are able to bring opponents worst attributes to the surface. In this way it is imperative that politicians have virtu to traverse through the political landscape of today.

The idea of Fortune is a key concept that Machiavelli uses to describe things that happen to a political leader that he cannot explain. In The Prince, Machiavelli states, “Those who, having started as private individuals, become rulers merely out of good luck [fortune], acquire power with little trouble but have a hard time holding on to it.”[14] Ramsay says, “When he [Machiavelli] could not explain events, he attributed them to the quasi-superstitious workings of fortune.”[15] The concept of fortune can be defined as luck, either good or bad. Ramsay explains that virtu is used to balance fortune in politics.[16] Machiavelli believed that a leader could have good or bad fortune and that virtu would be used as a means to balance that leader’s bad fortune or his opponent’s good fortune.

Machiavelli’s concept of fortune has a place in our political society as we see good and bad fortune befall political leaders all the time. One example is of politicians who get caught doing things that they thought they would never be caught doing. Sexting, affairs, and frequenting houses of prostitution are a few of the examples of bad fortune that gets some politicians headed out of office. These examples can also be examples of good fortune for opponents. The Watergate scandal of President Nixon was an example of bad fortune for him, however, it was good fortune for Jimmy Carter who ran as the honest candidate who was going to be bring integrity back to Washington. The idea of fortune cannot be attributed to Machiavelli alone. However, he is the thinker that contributed to the idea of fortune and virtu working hand in hand to create the politician.

The final concept that is useful for politicians to posses in our current political system is of the lion and the fox. Machiavelli discusses in chapter eighteen of The Prince the concept of being both a lion and a fox. He states, “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.”[17] His idea is that a politician will need to be cunning and strong in his endeavor to gain power. The politicians that are strong can gain power but cannot always keep it and those that are cunning don’t always have the strength to retain their office.

The idea of the lion and the fox works well in our political system. One of the ways that Machiavelli explains this working is through the political inner circle. He explains, “The easiest way of assessing a ruler’s ability is to look at those who are members of his inner circle. If they are competent and reliable, then you can be sure he is wise, for he has known both how to recognize their ability and to keep them faithful.”[18] He continues to state that if the inner circle is not reliable and faithful then it is a poor choice on the part of the ruler.[19] A ruler may use his inner circle to gain the strength or the cunning to rule his people. Larry Arnhart argues that it is not a good idea to act so beastly in a leaders governing.[20] However, I believe that in order to rule a country the prince will need to be both strong and cunning whether he himself or through his political inner circle.

There are three concepts of Machiavelli that don’t fit in our political system or wouldn’t go over well with the populace. Those three ideas are of prudence, the chameleon, and republican liberty. These ideas could have worked for a prince in Italy but in the United States’ political system it would be hard to get everyone to accept these concepts.

To most people today republican liberty means individual liberty and freedoms. In the sense that Machiavelli uses the term it is meant as people free from captivity. People today would think that personal liberty meant small government with limited power. Arnhart explains that Machiavelli’s idea of republican liberty was that the prince had all the power and does not even mention individual or personal rights.[21] Machiavelli writes, “[They] are easily satisfied by institutions and laws that confirm at the same time the general security of the people and the power of the prince. When a prince does this, and the people see that by no chance he infringes the laws, they will in a very little while be content, and live in tranquility.”[22]

His idea is to take control and as the people see that the prince is abiding by the law then they will be content. However, this would not work in our society today. Many people feel that they are knowledgeable about politics. These same people claim that President Obama is a socialist and is taking away their personal freedoms. People on the left felt the same way when President Bush enacted the Patriot Act, they argued that his administration was infringing on their personal rights. Machiavelli’s concept of republican liberty would not be an idea that Americans could stand behind today. As Arnhart explains, “James Madison, in his famous Federalist essay Number 51, warned that in establishing a government we have to take into account the selfish nature of human beings.”[23]

Machiavelli explains that “Prudence consists in knowing how to assess risks and in accepting the lesser evil as a good.”[24] The concept of prudence is one that everyone could accept and admire in a leader. Leo Paul de Alvarez states that Machiavelli uses Cesar as an example of prudent leadership and as someone that other leaders can look to as an example.[25] Being a prudent leader means making the hard decisions and being able to make that decision for the greater good.

Prudent leadership would be hard to attain in the United States political system today. Many leaders want the glory but are not willing to make the hard decisions due to a variety of factors. Some politicians are not willing to make the hard decisions for fear that they will offend their constituency. Others have special interest groups telling them what to do rather than weighing the options and making tough decisions. And some are afraid of the backlash they may take if they decide to run for a higher office, taking the safe route rather than making a decision that may be unfavorable. In today’s political arena, prudence is not looked at as an admirable trait but a weakness.

The final concept is that of the chameleon. Machiavelli says, “People are by nature inconstant. It is easy to persuade them of something, but it is difficult to stop them from changing their minds. So you have to be prepared for the moment they no longer believe.”[26] In order for a politician to please his constituency he will need to be attuned to the will of the people. In this regard he will have to swing on the pendulum of the people and what they find important at the time. This means shifting in ideology to coincide with what the people are thinking. This concept is one that validates Machiavelli’s idea of by any means necessary.

Although this concept is one that is important it does not work in our political landscape. In the 2004 election John Kerry was deemed a “flip flopper” because he voted for and against similar bills. During the 2012 republican debates Mitt Romney has also been seen as a flip flopper and someone who does not know what party line to follow. The American people want a candidate who is willing to be himself all of the time, even though his ideologies might have changed. I see Mitt Romney as being a Machiavellian in the idea of doing whatever it takes to become president even though that might mean being too moderate for republicans. The concept of the chameleon doesn’t work in our system today because of the media cycle and how Americans can see what a politician has said every time he has spoken. Although Machiavelli is right in his idea, it is not something that is easily attained in the American system of government.

The Prince offers great insight into how a prince should run his government. All of Machiavelli’s advice seems sound in the context of Italy at the time. However, in our political society some of the advice works and others do not. The concepts of virtu, fortune, and the lion and the fox are still relevant in our system. These ideas continue to work for politicians in a variety of ways. The concepts that don’t work are the ones that seem to get in the way of special interest, the twenty-four hour news cycle, or our idea of personal freedom such as prudence, republican liberty, and chameleon. The Prince offers great advice and although Machiavelli does not come out and say the ends justifies the means his writing can be perceived as such. Politics can be very entertaining due to Machiavellian attitudes and ideals.

Bibliography

Arnhart, Larry. Political Questions: Political Philosophy from Plato to Rawls. Long Grove: Waveland Press Inc., 2003.

Beiner, Ronald. Civil Religion: A Dialogue in the History of Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

de Alvarez, Leo Paul. The Machiavellian Enterprise. Dekalb: Norhern Illinios Press, 2008.

Duff, Alexander S. "Republicanism and the Problem of Ambition: The Critique of Cicero in Machiavelli's Discourses." The Journal of Politics, vol. 73, no. 4, 2011: 980-992.

Edwards, Alistair and Townshend, Jules (ed). Interpreting Modern Political Philosophy: From Machiavelli to Marx. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

Hulliung, Mark. Citizen Machiavelli. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983.

Najemy, John M. Between Friends: Discourses of Power and Desire in the Machiavelli-Vettori Letters of 1513-1515. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.

Nederman, Cary. "Niccolo Machiavelli." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall Edition 2009. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/ (accessed March 22, 2012).

---

[1] Cary Nederman, “Niccolo Machiavelli,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall edition 2009, accessed March 22, 2012, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/.

[2] Maureen Ramsey, “Machiavelli 1469-1527” in Alistair Edwards and Jules Townshend, Interpreting Modern Political Philosophy: From Machiavelli to Marx (New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 2002), 21.

[3] Nederman, “Niccolo Machiavelli” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/.

[4] Quoted in Maureen Ramsey, “Machiavelli (1469-1527)” in Alistair Edwards and Jules Townshend, Interpreting Modern Political Philosophy: From Machiavelli to Marx (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 22.

[5] Nederman, “Niccolo Machiavelli” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/.

[6] Nederman, “Niccolo Machiavelli” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/.

[7] Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince quoted in Cary Nederman, “Niccolo Machiavelli,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall edition 2009, accessed March 22, 2012, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/.

[8] Mark Hulliung, Citizen Machiavelli (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), 23.

[9] Quoted in Ramsay, “Machiavelli (1469-1527)” in Edwards and Townshend, Interpreting Modern Political Philosophy, 22.

[10] Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, quoted in Maureen Ramsey, “Machiavelli (1469-1527)” in Alistair Edwards and Jules Townshend, Interpreting Modern Political Philosophy: From Machiavelli to Marx (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), 22.

[11] Nederman, “Niccolo Machiavelli” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/.

[12] Quoted in Ramsay, “Machiavelli (1469-1527)” in Edwards and Townshend, Interpreting Modern Political Philosophy, 22.

[13] Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, chapter 15, http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince15.htm.

[14] Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, chapter 7, http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince15.htm.

[15] Ramsay, “Machiavelli (1469-1527)” in Edwards and Townshend, Interpreting Modern Political Philosophy, 29.

[16] Ramsay, “Machiavelli (1469-1527)” in Edwards and Townshend, Interpreting Modern Political Philosophy, 22.

[17] Machiavelli, The Prince, chapter 18, http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince15.htm.

[18] Machiavelli, The Prince, chapter 22, http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince15.htm.

[19] Machiavelli, The Prince, chapter 22, http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince15.htm.

[20] Larry Arnhart, Political Questions: Political Philosophy from Plato to Rawls (Long Grove: Waveland Press Inc., 2003), 122.

[21] Arnhart, Political Questions, 125.

[22] Machiavelli, The Prince, chapter 16, http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince16.htm.

[23] Arnhart, Political Questions, 127.

[24] Machiavelli, The Prince, chapter 21, http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince21.htm.

[25] Leo Paul de Alvarez, The Machiavellian Enterprise: A Commentary on The Prince (Dekalb: Northern Illinois Press, 2008), 34.

[26] Machiavelli, The Prince, chapter 6, http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince06.htm.