‘THE PRINCE’
Machiavelli, (1469-1527): ‘God is not willing to do everything, and thus take away our free will and that share of glory which belongs to us.’
MACHIAVELLI was an Italian philosopher, politician and historian, who is regarded as the father of political science and of philosophical idealism. Prior to Machiavelli, the prominent form of philosophy had been idealism, but Machiavelli, born during the Italian Renaissance period, adopted a more objective, realist view of mankind, examining how the world was as opposed to ideals of how it should be.
Machiavelli described his political philosophy in The Prince (1513). The term ‘Machiavellian’ is often used to describe political leaders who seize power through cunning opportunism and unscrupulous means and has often been applied to despotic dictators presiding over cruel and callous regimes. However, many critics and scholars have argued that The Prince has been largely misinterpreted as a supposed guidebook of totalitarian tactics. The text’s analysis of how to gain and maintain political power has been overemphasised to the detriment of some of the more politically moderate viewpoints. The Prince is in fact an intricately layered, complex analysis of the human condition, encompassing a critique of religious doctrines and ethics, as much as it is a treatise on the acquisition of power.
Machiavelli was writing during a period of extreme political volatility in his native state of Florence and it is possible that The Prince is a direct result of Machiavelli’s frustration with the constant warmongering and insurrections. The principle theme of The Prince concerns a treatise on what makes an effective ruler (the prince of the title). In contrast to earlier philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, who both believed political power was a divine right, Machiavelli argued that power was there for any person who had the ability to seize it. Machiavelli’s philosophy focused on the end result, not the means used to attain power, which he believed were irrelevant to the outcome. Machiavelli suggested that there are two forms of morality or virtue: those adopted by the ruler (the prince) and those adhered to by his subjects. The prince’s morality should be governed not by universal virtues or religious doctrines but be judged by his effectiveness as a ruler. In making political decisions the only factor that the prince should consider is which outcome will be most beneficial for the stability of his state and the maintenance of his power.
Although Machiavelli seemed to be advocating a separation of church and state, he nonetheless recognised the important role religion must play in maintaining order. For Machiavelli it was wise for the prince to present himself to his people as religious and virtuous even if, in practice, he was not. Having served and witnessed at first hand the brutal regime of Cesare Borgia, son of Pope Alexander VI, Machiavelli recognised the Catholic Church as a powerful, albeit corrupt tool for controlling the people. Indeed, Machiavelli used Cesare Borgia as an example of a ruler who was cunning and clever in his quest to attain power. Although the Borgias relied upon Papal patronage to maintain their power, Machiavelli refuted the belief that the actions of a ruler simply upheld the will of God on earth, claiming that man can (and does) exercise free will for his own ends, with or without the implicit consent of God or religion.
Although there are some dubious elements presented in The Prince, not least the advocation of cruelty and murder as a legitimate means to gain power, Machiavelli’s work represents a radical shift from idealism to realism and stands as a historically important reflective commentary on the political culture of the time in which it was written.
Arts, reviews & current affairs 