Most people are never going to have the experience of serving as heads of state, and will therefore never have to give much thought to armies, police forces, spies, fortifications and other matters like that to which Machiavelli devotes so much attention. He has gone down in history as a cynical and amoral man who admired cruel tyrants like Cesare Borgia, and argued that most human beings were motived only by fear and self-interest rather than love, goodness or morality. Machiavelli would simply have countered that he was being a realist about the world of warfare, politics and diplomacy, and those rulers who did not follow his advice would be ruined. As proof of this he cited numerous historical and contemporary examples that would have been very familiar to people of his time, but far less so to those in the present. At the time, his native country of Italy was fragmented and divided by France, Spain, the Pope and the Holy Roman Empire, so he had experienced firsthand a world of treachery, ruthlessness and constant warfare. Since his real goal was to unify the country and expel the foreigners, he thought that only a dictator as tough and ruthless as Borgia could achieve this, using whatever methods were necessary. Machiavelli certainly thought it was better for a ruler to be feared than loved, and that he be able to make examples out of his enemies while rewarding his supporters generously. He thought it was important that the Prince also keep the soldiers on his side and ensure their loyalty, and for practical purposes it is always sound advice to always keep control over the people who have the guns, lest the get ideas about taking over the country. To be sure, in democratic countries today, with legislatures, court systems and constitutional rights, the heads of state do not have nearly the same powers as Machiavelli’s sovereigns, but democratic government was mostly unknown in his world. These rulers like the Borgia’s could have their enemies tortured, executed, assassinated thrown into dungeons and so forth, which is still common enough in many parts of the world today, if less so in Western-style democracies. Machiavelli also advised rulers to be wise and discerning in selecting their officials and advisers, to avoid being taken advantage of, to reward those who tell the truth rather than flatterers, and to be just and consistent in my policies and actions.
In the ruthless world of constant warfare and intrigue that Machiavelli knew, a sovereign could not afford to be too moral or merciful lest his enemies take advantage of him. If he allowed himself to be too influenced by “humanity or integrity”, it would lead to his downfall and the ruin of the state (Machiavelli 9). These were just the plain facts of life in the 16th Century and in much of the world today, and there has never been any shortage of realists dispensing the same type of advice to politicians and leaders. For Machiavelli, a realist simply saw the world and humanity for what they really were, but there were many who failed to do this and instead saw them “as they wish them to be—and are ruined” (Machiavelli 14). Hereditary monarchy was the most common form of government in his time, and just by being a member of the royal family conferred a certain degree of legitimacy on most rulers. Coups, plots and family conflicts were always the norm in any monarchy, but popular rebellions against monarchs were still relatively rare at the time. For this reason, Machiavelli found that there were “fewer difficulties in holding hereditary states, and those long accustomed to the family of their princes, than new ones” (Machiavelli 19). Even today, in monarchical states like Jordan and Saudi Arabia, for example, where the royal families are very familiar to their subjects, there seems to be less likelihood of successful revolution than in countries headed by civilian or military dictators who do not have royal backgrounds. Yet from his experience in Italy, Machiavelli could cite many examples of revolts and rebellions against foreign princes who occupied new territories, such as with the French King Louis XII when he first took over Milan.
This is why Machiavelli advised new and unfamiliar leaders to keep all the old laws, customs and taxes in place as much as possible, even while exterminating the family of the old rulers. Here is where he comes by his reputation for cruelty and ruthlessness, but he was not advising kings to be demented and bloodthirsty tyrants who were hated by their people. He was merely advising the new leader or head of state to dispose of any enemies who would never accept his rule, and to do so very quickly at the outset of his reign. Rather than having to do this continually over many years, he argued that it was preferable to take care of any unpleasant necessities all at the same time. He should also be careful to ally with the weaker of his neighboring princes and try to become a leader of a coalition of states, while also making sure to “weaken the most powerful among them, taking care that no foreigner as powerful as himself shall, by any accident, gain a footing there” (Machiavelli 28). In domestic policy, though, Machiavelli always displayed a highly conservative and traditionalist bent, and was distrustful of too many changes or reforms. One of his main goals for the prince was to maintain peace and good order at home, and he cautioned that “the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new” (Machiavelli 34). In other words, Machiavelli would have had a strong dislike for charismatic or transformative leaders who tried to revolutionize their states (or organizations) from above, since opening the door to too much or too rapid changes would have a deeply unsettling effect on all the people, including his own allies.
According to Machiavelli, a prince should be firm, constant, just and predictable in dealing with his subjects, and generous with his supporters. They should know exactly what to expect from him one day to the next, and that if they were loyal and did their jobs, they would not be bothered. It was not necessary for him to be beloved or even liked, bit only to offer a steady hand at the helm and ensuring that those who followed the rules would be mostly left alone. Machiavelli also cautioned that a ruler regarded as too stingy or lacking in generosity with his friends and supporters was likely to have difficulties, and he could cite numerous examples from history as far back as ancient Greece and Rome to prove this point. A successful ruler, on the other hand, “would not neglect any opportunity for liberality”, including allowing his troops to loot and plunder the territory of the enemy as a reward for loyal service (Machiavelli 67). Essentially then, his ideal leader would be seen as reliable, orderly and just to his subjects, generous to his supporters and harsh toward his enemies. Machiavelli did not believe in relying on the love of the people or attempting to win popularity contests, which politicians who are elected in democratic systems often must do. His Renaissance princes and absolute monarchs faced no such constrains, and for them Machiavelli cautioned that “love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of most, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage” (Machiavelli 70). A wise ruler never depended on such mercurial and unpredictable feelings as love and friendship, and it was much better that he was feared by any potential enemies who might get ideas to move against him or side with his foreign opponents. In all such cases, they should never forget that the prince was quite capable of making a terrible example out of them when necessary, but Machiavelli did not mean that they should engage in excessive, gratuitous or sadistic violence. A leader like that would soon come to be hated by his subjects and risk being overthrown or assassinated, like Nero or Caligula.
Machiavelli was a realist and therefore believed that individuals, countries and organizations were all motivated by self-interest, or the desire for power, wealth and fame. I think that is also true for much of society today, and that very few people who get ahead in life are saints. Some people are completely ruthless and amoral in their behavior, but I do not think they should be in positions of leadership. Unfortunately, they often are, but I agree with Machiavelli that the wise leader should “desire to be considered clement”, but at the same time “he ought to take care not to misuse this clemency” (Machiavelli 69). A leader who is considered too harsh or brutal runs the risk that his enemies will unite to overthrow him, but at the same time, they will also overthrow him if he is seen as too ‘soft’ and easygoing. In my opinion, Machiavelli is correct that a leader should be consistent in his behavior, ideas and policies rather than being erratic and changing from one day to the next. Followers will not feel secure under a leader who is not consistent, nor will they respect him. As Machiavelli put it, an inconsistent leader is “contemptible” and regarded as “fickle, frivolous, effeminate, mean-spirited, irresolute”, and even though I do not agree with the exact language he uses here, I understand his point (Machiavelli 75).
I also agree with Machiavelli that many leaders are surrounded by selfish and self-interested flatters who are only interested in advancing themselves. Leaders can make use of people like those, but they should never trust them, for they will turn against them in a second in a difficult situation. I think that a leader must be clever enough to listen to advice and opinions that he does not like or agree with, rather than those who always tell him only what he wants to here. That is a very common problem with leadership in government or any organization, particularly with leaders at the upper levels: they become insulated in a bubble and have flatterers around them all the time who are afraid to tell the truth. Machiavelli says that the Prince should chose wise advisors and give them “the liberty of speaking the truth to him, and then only of those things of which he inquires” (Machiavelli 93). I would go further than that and say that they should be able to tell him the truth whether he asks for it or not, no matter how unpleasant the reality might be.
I do not think that Machiavelli’s prince was ever intended to be some type of demented or sadistic dictator who used excessive or sadistic violence against his own people. In other words, he was not recommending that a ruler act like Stalin, Hitler or other modern tyrants. Rather he would be the type of leader who kept order, organized his armies for the defense of the state, rewarded his supporters and punished his enemies. If he was also a ruthless and immoral character in diplomacy and warfare, it was because he had to be, and if he was not, his foreign enemies would take advantage of him. Even worse, if he was perceived as too weak or ‘soft’ at home, domestic enemies and even his own friends and supporters might start to think he would be easy to overthrow. For those subjects who followed the law, paid their taxes and did their jobs, Machiavelli’s prince would have been a rather benign king who mostly left them alone. Indeed, he would be a rather limited and conservative monarch who did not make too many demands on his subjects or insist on constant changes and innovations, but simply left them in peace as long as they were loyal to the state. In a world where rival princes were at war all the time, Machiavelli’s advice did not seem particularly crazed or immoral, since this was how most of them behaved in politics, diplomacy and warfare in any case: they supported their friends and allies and took harsh and ruthless measures against their enemies, and most people at the time simply took it as a given that monarchs acted this way. Obviously, in a world where there are elections, human rights, elections and more democratic governments, leaders are less likely to behave like absolute monarchs. This does not necessarily make them any more moral or humane than the Hapsburgs, Bourbons and the Borgia family, but only that the political and economic system has changed greatly since Machiavelli’s time.
WORKS CITED
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Arc Manor, 2007.
