Introduction
Renaissance is described as a period that was marked with great cultural, social and political changes that occurred between modern and medieval ages. Historians agree that this age began in Italy before it spread to other European countries. During this period, there was an explosion of knowledge and free thinking. The cities in Italy that were hitherto independent became successful with strong institutions such as banking and universities. This paper is a critical analysis of Machiavelli’s work, The Prince, his views on the events of renaissance, religious beliefs and role of Christian Faith in political life and political power.
As most historians agree, Western Europe was the perfect location for renaissance to occur as there were cities that took part and acted as trade as well as commercial centers hence had the wealth to endure political as well as social variations that were taking place at the time. Profits from loans and investments led to financial expansions and people began to demand the best quality of goods that would be available. Therefore, new techniques of manufacturing had to be invented. Machiavelli observed that rulers ascend to power through their own initiatives, talents and strengths rather than inheritance. His observations can be seen as an explanation to the emergence of successful people in knowledge and talents for trading and manufacturing. Generally, people began to succeed as a result of their own initiatives and, consequently, created successful institutions.
The Western European cities were filled with associations of men who were seeking independence from the local nobles. They fought against dependence from the ruling classes and won that independence. During the renaissance period, the merchants who had amassed vast wealth began to question the idea of hereditary kingship that was prevalent in these societies. They then realized the great disadvantages that they lived with from such states and they took arms and began to fight with the ruling class. Just as Machiavelli had predicted, the merchants had become more disenfranchised with heavy taxation and exclusion from power and were now demanding a place in communal governments. They began to use violence to take over governments in the independent city states.
The popole – new governors- could not practice political inclusivity and never won support of the other groups. Civil order was not possible to gain and there was demand for a Roman type of government which had the characteristics of shrewdness in applying power. This is what prevailed in the period in order to keep the republican governments in power. Machiavelli describes republican governments as the best to address shortcomings of human character. He, however, points that these people, being human and the subjects under republican governments, will take a long time to change and such a state is difficult to maintain in the real world as, in due course, the state will fall into violence. This is what causes anarchy in most republics that resulted in renaissance period in Western Europe.
As for the citizens during the renaissance period, he views them as having the capacity to contribute in promoting communal liberty. He observes them as having the competence in judging and acting for the good of the public. He contradicts the position of the prince that he has a better judgment than the people. He observes that people are likely to be concerned and willing to defend liberty more than the kings. During the renaissance period, there were many people who arose in the city states ready to defend the rights of their fellow human beings like no other time in history. Some even ready to offer their own life for the sake of justice and social liberty whenever oppression was prevalent in the society.
It is during the renaissance period in Western Europe where marriage vows were used to seal business contracts. It formed new social classes that made more people nobles. New citizenship based on property qualification and social connections. During the renaissance period, nobles realized that the merchants, through trade, had become powerful and influential and they began to use them to rule. They realized that by simply holding on to goodness wasn’t the only best way to exercise authority and power. To control the masses, the merchants had the tools – wealth through which they controlled a significant number of people under them.
Religion
Machiavelli was not affiliated to the Christian faith. He observed that Christianity drains the vigor from human beings so that they are unable to actively engage in active civil life. He strongly criticized the condition of the church and the pope indicating he preferred pagan civil religions associated with ancient Rome. He was neither devoted to the tenants of Christian Faith, and neither was his soul or mind. In summation, he can be described as being hostile to the Christian faith.
He counseled leaders to avoid values of mercy, temperance and love in favor of use of violence, fear and cruelty. He taught that The Prince ought to do good whenever he can but be prepared to do evil when he must. Machiavelli saw Christian faith teachings of humility as a discouragement to self-absorption. He viewed this as providing for a strong support to individuals to exercise social influence. In his thoughts, he saw the Christian faith as an inhabitant factor that taught people not to think beyond the pleasures of this world. It was the ruling class used to teach people against having interests in comfortable lives through open thinking.
Machiavelli viewed religion as a form of fear that the rulers used to govern the states. They used religion that trained people to be obedient lest they will be punished now and in the future. With such a thought of possible punishment, the subjects obeyed their rulers. The rulers in turn acquired more power and retained through unfair means.
Political Power
Machiavelli was critical of the long held views that the use of political powers was right and exercised rightly when the ruler had a moral character that was reinforced by virtue. This common view assumed that rulers had an ultimate desire to have long peaceful reigns and desired to hand over their political offices from one generation to another. The rulers were advised that if they did well to their subjects, they would be obeyed and respected provided they remained virtuous and had a good personal character. This moralistic view of authority is what Machiavelli criticizes in The Prince.
According to Machiavelli, there is no relationship between morality and authority. In his observation, goodness does not give a person more authority. Authority and power are equals and whoever has been granted power has the right to exercise it by commanding. Machiavelli’s views that the real concern of the political ruler is gaining and marinating more power. Power defines all the political activities and is necessary for successful rulers when they can use it well. The responsibility of leaders is to learn how to use power well so that individuals can learn to obey. When power is applied properly, the ruler is able then to maintain safety and security of the state they are leading.
Macheviavelli’s political views are that authority and legitimacy issues must be excluded was there to be a meaningful discussion on political judgments and decision making. He acknowledges the need for good laws and arms as the foundation of an orderly political system. However, with this, he says that coercion often leads to legality even if the force that was used was not right. By this, he implies that any legitimacy of laws cannot rest entirely on coercive force. Machiavelli says that it is impossible to exercise power right as a right to the ruler without forcing it on the subject. In his conclusion, Machiavelli views fear as the most preferred for the subjects to show affection to their rulers just as violence is in controlling the subjects
In conclusion his general view of people in the face of political rule is that they are disloyal, insincere and ungrateful. He observed that love is a bond which can be broken by men whenever there is no obligation binding them. Fear, he reasons, is a better bond that holds men fast together because they dread punishment even if it does happen. People only obey because of the fear for consequence of disobedience. The consequences of not obeying are loss of privileges or life. People obey purely because of the difference of power between them and their rulers. The actual use of law in a state is meant to enforce compliance in case of two conflicting views of what should be done.
