Cunning Politics and Governance in Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince
When I first picked up this book, I was prepared to open a manual of unscrupulous political methods, dispositions and strategies in governing a state. For many years, The Prince has been seen as a ‘bible’ for scheming, power-hungry leaders. This is because the book — written by a 15th-century Italian philosopher, Niccolò Machiavelli — details and analyses various methods of claiming power and maintaining power in a monarchy or principality (the term used in the version of the book I read). However, the book is far from promoting deception and dishonesty in politics and governance; all it does is make arguments based on historical examples and Machiavelli’s observations. I did not think it an exhortation for all leaders to utilize the same cruel and cunning methods he detailed. So, what is this book really about?
The Prince focuses on monarchies where there is a ruler with absolute power. In a short twenty-four-chapter book, Machiavelli covers many aspects of monarchical rule, from acquiring principalities, ruling by love and fear, and organizing militaries to interpersonal relationships with subordinates and advisors. Machiavelli describes the people being ruled as people with simple wants and a preference for liberty. To satisfy the people’s needs, he cautions leaders from trampling over their liberties or ‘injuring’ them without reason. In this aspect, he urges rulers to be sensible in their rule without abusing power to benefit themselves at the expense of the common man, as this will only lead to the ruler’s downfall.
Is it better to be feared or loved?
“It is much safer to be feared than loved [...]” ~ Machiavelli, The Prince
Many people quote this controversial statement from the book, concluding that Machiavelli stood for ruthless, tyrannical rule over the masses. However, it would be wrong to assume that he was promoting an authoritarian, dystopian 1984-esque style of governance. Firstly, we must clarify that this was not even his original argument. His main argument was that fear and love, combined were the ideal outcome.
“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.” ~ Machiavelli, The Prince
In the full statement, Machiavelli suggests a combination of being feared and loved for a ruler to govern effectively. In today’s modern democracies (and even non-democratic systems), we see leaders and parties striving toward this delicate balance. Leaders garner public support by attending community events, celebrating festivals and connecting with people on social media. There, they build their fanbase by being relatable and showing that they care about who they are leading. Simultaneously, good governance entails some element of fear and respect that leaders command. When laws are set in place that upset the masses, politicians must not be afraid of putting their foot down and making the right decision for the state. In more authoritarian countries, this is easier to do because the people have higher levels of fear of the government. But even in the most democratic countries, it is widely understood that not every policy or piece of legislation will be populist. When the time comes for a politician to make the tough decision, having respect and being feared means that the policy can be implemented successfully, with the hope of achieving net benefit in the long run.
Unfortunately, this delicate balance is not easy to achieve, and Machiavelli suggests the next best option: being feared. Many people misunderstand what it means to be feared. Machiavelli did not intend for fear to be brought about by exploitation, abuse and unfair treatment of the public. In fact, he clearly dedicated one entire chapter to cautioning readers against such practices. Chapter 19 explains why the ruler should avoid being despised and hated by the people. A ruler ought not to “be a violator of the property and women of his subjects” so as to ensure that his subjects live contented lives. Machiavelli, in answering the question of being feared and loved, also makes an important caveat: “[a prince] must endeavour only to avoid hatred”. For it is hatred that drives revolution and rebellion, not fear. Fear can be interpreted as command or respect, something that all good leaders must have to lead effectively. An article analyzing this same quote interpreted fear as an instruction to “carry yourself with pride”. In a sense, fear equates to having the gumption and resolve that is bolstered by respect and command.
Interpersonal relationships of the ruler
Machiavelli also highlights how the monarch should treat his subjects well, ensuring that they are loyal to him whilst suppressing any potential contenders to the throne. This is where Machiavelli cautions rulers from being overly dependent on any of his subjects or giving them too much power because they could overthrow him when he is vulnerable. Similarly, having allies is important, but the ruler must ensure that neighbouring states do not obtain too much power to the point at which they start to encroach on their state’s sovereignty. This is reminiscent of all the movies and dramas depicting power struggles in medieval monarchies in Europe and Britain to palace-shows of the Chinese dynastic eras. For those who play the game of politics, these maxims are ‘obvious truths’ that require little to no elaboration. If taken to the extreme, people who only treat others as means to an end will obtain power, but are these the kinds of people we want as our leaders? Cold-blooded and ruthless in this neoliberal society, someone who is feared may get to the top, but it will not keep him there.
What about the rest who are not princes?
The Prince is a political manual for aspiring leaders who want to know what it takes to rule, what methods, skills and dispositions are required and potential challenges with examples. In a way, it is but an old textbook, long outdated, with less-than-relevant or relatable examples for our society. In today’s world, the most obvious difference would be that many societies no longer have monarchs that ruled in the same fashion as described by Machiavelli. But perhaps The Prince is not just a rulebook for authoritarian rulers. It is also a guide for the people, acting as a checklist that we can use to better scrutinize our leaders. By observing our modern-day political leaders, traits belonging to a prince will easily be distilled and identified. Crucially, readers who appreciate Machiavelli’s writings will be able to understand the incentives of their political leaders more easily, and this raises the citizens’ political understanding. This helps us discern between the genuine goodwill of a leader and elaborate facades aiming to garner support. It ensures that we keep our leaders accountable for their claims because we know that if they cannot answer to their promises, we as citizens have the power to expel them from their position.
Conclusion
Machiavelli’s incentives and reasons for writing The Prince have been widely scrutinized and debated. Whether he was a good person or a dishonest, crafty person is also up for debate. Based on my reading, it is more of a neutral account of what authoritarian leaders can do to obtain and maintain power. What this book provides for us in today’s context is that it gives us a more intellectual foundation to analyze politics for those who are interested. While many of the examples in the book are difficult to relate to or understand without the proper historical knowledge, the concepts in the book are nonetheless worth discussing.
Sources:
https://medium.com/mind-cafe/why-id-rather-be-feared-than-loved-a-machiavellian-mystery-9e00979e200d
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/03/have-we-got-machiavelli-all-wrong