It is sometimes thought that Machiavelli disliked idealist positions such as those expressed by Plato or Aristotle when studying politics. Indeed, he actually proposed an approach to the study of politics that stood far away from what the classic philosophers formulated. This paper will expose the ideas expressed by the classical philosophers and see how Machiavelli differed from them and even criticized their approach.
Most of western political philosophy is built on ideas that have been under development for thousands of years. Two of the most discussed authors are the Greek classics who gave the first notions of state building and organization, and formulated notions that were used as the seeds for modern republicanism, democracy, division of powers and justice. However, it was during the Renaissance when one of the most influential thinkers changed the way politics were studied by challenging the old classical ideas and giving way to political realism.
Plato´s views were based on what he considered were ideal forms of government. Societies, according to the Greek philosopher, were all chaotic and self-destructive. He saw how democracy was degraded, authorities were disregarded, and men had perverted goals based on twisted conceptions of freedom. So he formulated what he thought were the best ways to rule and to bring order to public life.
He did not study how rulers performed their duties. He did not measure their performances nor did he objectively compare two states in order to establish which one was better. Instead, he proposed five kinds of governments that were the models of all possible regimes, ordering them from best to worse.
In this fashion, Plato expresses his preference for a kingship, in which the best and wisest citizen becomes a king. However, Plato says that it would be impossible since men of these qualities seldom seek to rule. A city would need a philosopher king, but such a person would perceive political life as a burden as it would keep them from pursuing contemplative and virtuous lives. This is why Plato, in his book The Republic, spends long pages describing an aristocracy, the rule of the virtuous few. A handful of people deemed to be the most virtuous members of the society would decide the destinies of the City-State. Those men would have to be philosophers and seekers of truth, educated and trained in such a way that it would help them know what is just and what rules must be given to citizens.
Later, Plato gives an account on how this aristocracy would slowly degenerate into a timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and, finally, a tyranny. They all come into being as the virtues of the aristocracy start to be replaced by lower passions and ambitions.
However, all these are just ideal forms of government. None of them can be said to exist in a pure form and all are product of Socrates’ speculations.
Later on, Aristotle formulated other forms of governments trying to emulate Plato´s ideals. He said that there are three kinds of good regimes. The most desired one would be a kingship, or the rule of a single man who would govern for the common good. The kingship would be too easy to turn into a tyranny, so Aristotle favored the Aristocracy instead. The members of this aristocracy would be elected according to virtue, and would rule taking into account the virtue of their subjects. The last ideal regime would be the polity or the rule of the many. Aristotle would say that in this kind of regime, the middling class should be the one responsible for guiding the people given that they concentrated moderate wealth which would make them readier to obey reason, while poor or rich people would tend more to commit petty crimes or injustice through arrogance. However, all three forms of government would deviate into other ideal but perverted forms as virtues started to erode.
Both thinkers developed a political theory based on how they though a city ought to be ruled. It is important to notice that both recommended that rulers be virtuous, and Aristotle would even say that politics was a craft and an art of lawmaking, educating citizens, and imparting justice. These ideas will be present for at least a thousand years in the western though, and would model modern political science even today.
The Florentine
Machiavelli´s Florence was, according to him, a place where chaos reigned, authorities were inverted and a thousand wrongs were done every day. I believe that he Machiavelli did have much in common with Plato, as he sought to bring peace and stability to his own land, and even longed to see the restoration of his beloved republic. But he did was a much more practical man, and did not think that imagining impractical regimes would be of any use.
It can be seen that Machiavelli sought then to address this issue by describing how a prince ought to rule in order to construct a strong and stable State. He did not care for ideal forms, following a virtuous life, or humanism. This is, I think, a clear way to state that he held a position contrary to that of the Greek philosophers. In fact, he considered that those who care more for what ought to be done could lead their countries to ruin. It is obvious that he cares little for what utopians like Plato or Aristotle had to say about statesmanship. He stated that they formulated ideal governments for people who does not exist and cannot exist.
Plato and Aristotle aimed to create ideal societies and virtuous men. Machiavelli saw humans as they were and had always been, and sought to work with what was practical and not imaginary. This should not be misinterpreted, in my opinion. I believe he knew that what is generally considered a virtue is a good thing to pursue. But he made a difference between what can be done in the private sphere and what must be done in the public sphere. I could note the stress he made to the fact that being good among bad people, who were willing to take the power from the hands of the prince, would indeed mean the loss of the State, and the loss of the benefits it brought to all the people that lived in it. From a realistic point of view, a government or ruler must know how to do wrong. It does not mean that governments should employ violence and ruthlessness in order to maintain peace, because, as Machiavelli said, it would be destructive of social order. What Machiavelli suggests is that a ruler must know when to become a lion if he sees himself surrounded by wolves. For me, it is obvious when one sees governments fall prey to anarchy just because they are too lenient with terrorists or factions that seek to undermine the power of the state. Dealing with them could mean performing bad things, but a statesman must think of all the people who depend on the stability of the state and the freedom they might lose if others seize it.
Ever since the Florentine wrote the prince, and the discourses, the study of politics and has drastically changed. Many would say that a good ruler must live an exemplary life, or that virtuous leaders make good princes, and clearly that was what Aristotle and Plato sought when they prescribed how an ideal governor or elite should behave. But it does not seem to be the case. In fact, there seems to be a division between personal morality and public organization. Pursuing high moral values is something that is desirable, but it only works in the private sphere. I believe a generous prince would have to ruin his subjects in order to distribute wealth, and a loving ruler would soon find himself surrounded by intriguers which would bring chaos and corruption. Being a ruler must be compared to being a professional. A prince must do what ought to be done, suppress private qualms if he wants to avoid being overthrown by more ruthless individuals. Choosing a middle road in the public sphere would certainly tend to compromise the wellbeing of the state and the people that live in it.
However, we must not misjudge Machiavelli. He clearly considered that a Republic with division of powers and economic freedom was desirable. He was a republican and a liberal at that. And he also agreed with most people on what is considered good or moral. The problem, as he saw it, was that the objectives of the state could only be attained by renouncing to moral principles that only affect the private sphere.
Some might say that the realist or Machiavellian approach is devoid of all virtue, but I would disagree. The truth is that one might want to design a perfect ruling system for good men. But creating something hoping that men would suddenly become all good or behave as prescribed so it might work, would be impractical and useless. In fact, there have been many attempts to construct social utopias and all of them have brought utter misery to millions of people. On the other hand, rulers worried about how they should live would eventually face agonizing dilemmas that could endanger their position, and so, endanger the state. The virtue pursued by Machiavelli had a different definition. It was not based on ideal abstractions or otherworldly principles, but on the ability to control and maintain power.
References
Aristotle. Politics. London: Dover Thrift, 2000.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Edited by Quentin Skinner and Russel Price. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Plato. "Republic." In Complete Works, by John Cooper, 971-1223. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997.
