“ He who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil (Machiavelli 71).” Machiavelli talks about survival of the strongest, who must do anything to stay in power and not worry about being just or good. Machiavelli’s. The Prince’ is a treatise that talks about political philosophy, political power, the qualities of a leader and the actions that he must take in order to stay in power. Machiavelli more or less maintains that the means justify the end and speaks for the ruler. On the contrary, Thoreau, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King speak for the people, the injustices done to them by the government and talk about how they can fight the government in different ways to get back their power. If Machiavelli talks about an absolute power vested within the hands of the Prince and how he should go about protecting it, the other three talk about how absolute power in the hands of a statesman or a government is inimical to the rights of a citizen and that it must be fought. Thoreau, King and Malcolm X identify the Prince that Machiavelli talks about and also entreat the people to fight against him in different ways possible. All three describe the state or the ruler as being an entity that uses physical force to get its way. And all three talk about opposition, violent or nonviolent to bring about a political change. Machiavelli would depreciate all three for the political change they want to happen would topple the prince. However he would be least depreciative of Malcolm X as they both talk about bringing about a change by any means necessary. Just like Machiavelli talks about the Prince using physical force to subdue his subjects, Malcolm X too talks about using physical force if necessary to bring about political change. If anything, the government or the ruler can always deal with physical resistance as it gives justification to fight back. A victorious ruler would get more power and legality this way. The other two talk about civil disobedience and nonviolence. While both would trouble the government and those in power and bring about economic damage, a non-violent opposition would bring more sympathy to those who fight against the government.
King always favored a non-violent struggle as opposed to a violent and armed struggle against the government which denied the people their basic rights. He maintained that a government would be forced to take action when people protest nonviolently and repeated acts of violence against a peaceful protesting community would only paint a bad picture of the government and gain sympathy for the protestors. “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and fosters such a tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored (King 3).” The aim of a nonviolent protest is not to harm the state but to force it to take notice and call for a political change. Such a protest would be dangerous to any prince or a state wielding absolute power as its standing in front of others would be questioned. Machiavelli says that the prince should have a tight reign on his principality and should not come across as weak in trying to be a just ruler. Giving in to the demands to some sections of the population would mean that the power is only weakening. However King states that freedom would never be given voluntarily to the people by any state. The people who are oppressed says he, should demand for it and the only way he sees that working in bring the state to negotiate through nonviolent means. Negotiations would weaken the power of the state as inadvertently the state would have to acquiesce to some of the demands of the opponent's. King, Just like Thoreau has a deep understanding of the Machiavellian state and approaches it in a way where it would be forced to come to the negotiating table. Violent protests could be culled but putting down nonviolent protestors cannot go on forever. Even the population that is not protesting would someday question the unjust means of the government in subjugating a populations. The success of the civil rights movement owes a lot to the nonviolent methods used by the activists. This not only garnered them support from their people but also from people who were not with them initially.
Machiavelli in offering advice to the Prince on how he should treat his subjects when capturing a new principality says that he should not only rely on armed forces but also the goodwill of the natives. He says that the people under his rule, “change their rulers willingly, hoping to better themselves, and this hope induces them to take up arms against him who rules: wherein they are deceived, because they afterwards find by experience they have gone from bad to worse (Machiavelli 4).” Machiavelli recognizes that a powerful ruler will face opposition from the very people who had elected him in the first place and asks the ruler to take measures to please as many factions within his principality as possible. It is this opposition to power and the state that Thoreau, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King ask the people to take up if they have to ensure that their rights are not trampled upon by the ruler. In the case of Thoreau, he talks about Civil Disobedience and says that “"That government is best which governs not at all (Thoreau 1).” Thoreau envisions a state where the government would have a very minimal role to play and where the people can accept it. He also says that, “the State never intentionally confronts a man's sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses. It is not armed with superior wit or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest (Thoreau 11).Thoreau’s threat to the state is not physical but moral. He wants to think for himself and that is what he asks the rest to do. And when people begin to think for themselves and start to question the policies of the government , a change is likely to happen. The state cannot go ahead with its actions when every man thinks for himself rather than blindly follow the dictates of the state. This is inimical to Machiavelli’s advice to the ruler, who he says should be the moral as well as the strong leader of the population he rules. Machiavelli says that,“A wise prince ought to observe some such rules, and never in peaceful times stand idle, but increase his resources with industry in such a way that they may be available to him in adversity, so that if fortune changes it may find him prepared to resist her blows (Machiavelli 70).” He is aware of the opposition that might come to his government at any given time and advises the ruler to stay ready at all times. Thoreau too advocates similar resistance from the people. They ought to constantly think what is good for them and resist in their own ways when they think the government has a bigger hand than them. he says, “I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn (Thoreau 7). He asks the people to break the law and not be part of anything that would not do justice to the people. A state following Thoreau’s principles would be a great threat to the Machiavellian style of politics.
Although Malcolm X wanted a political change and a better life for his people as much as King wanted, he did not entirely follow the nonviolent methods of King and his supporters, For Malcolm X any means could be used to get what they wanted. He said that the Christian State was not conducive to the equality of Blacks in the country and that he wondered why the Black population never took up an armed struggle against the government (Malcolm X 245). What he did ask the people was to start a, “self-help program, a do-it-yourself philosophy, a do-it-right-now philosophy, a it’s-already-too-late philosophy. This is what you and I need to get with, and the only way we are going to solve our problem is with a self help program. Before we can get a self-help program started we have to have a self-help philosophy (Malcolm X 3). This would mean that people would not only start thinking for themselves but will also start acting on their thoughts and this is a threat to the MAchiavellian state. However it is also not as damaging as civil disobedience is nor nonviolence is as the government always has a just cause to put down a struggle when violence is involved. Although the atrocities committed against the population could be unjust following a violent means of protest would be playing into the hands of the machiavellian ruler. In this way Malcolm X does not under the state as Thoreau or King do. Passion and emotions would only bring in short lived changes but for a lasting political change, the change has to come within the government and within those who are being governed. Malcolm X also said that it is either through the ballot or the bullet that a change can be brought about and that the word freedom should not be uttered if a person isn’t willing to pay the price to attain it. Although it does sound like a good plan, violence is never an answer and it is violence that brings about more violence and a dictatorship.
In effect, it is Thoreau and King who have skillfully understood the machinations of a Machiavellian state. Their means of struggle and opposition asks the protesters to fight in a nonviolent way and forces the government to take notice and come to the negotiating table. King’s would be the least liked by Machiavelli as he brings out the greatest challenge to the absolute power wielded by the state. Machiavelli would be less depreciative of Malcolm X and his methods as his means of fighting is not much different from that of the state and the state will always use known methods to fight against the opposition. Although Thoreau, King and Malcolm X equally fought for political change, it is King’s nonviolent, civil disobedience movement that had the lasting impact. This however does not mean that the rest were any less successful.
Works Cited
(Pdf files)
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Trans. W.K Marriott. 1515.
Malcolm X. The Autobiography of Malcolm X. New York: Ballantine Books. 1965.
Malcolm X. “The Ballot or the Bullet.” Speech. 1964.
King, Martin Luther. “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. In. Why We can't Wait. 1964.
Thoreau,H. David. Civil Disobedience. 1849.
