Page 80 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Western Political Thought

Notes I will even venture to say that (the virtues) damage a prince who possesses them and
always observes them, but if he seems to have them they are useful. I mean that he
should seem compassionate, trustworthy, humane, honest and religious, and actually
be so; but yet he should have his mind so trained that, when it is necessary not to
practice these virtues, he can change to the opposite and do it skilfully. It is to be
understood that a prince, especially a new prince, cannot observe all the things because
of which men are considered good, because he is often obliged, if he wishes to maintain
his government, to act contrary to faith, contrary to charity, contrary to humanity,
contrary to religion. It is therefore necessary that he have a mind capable of turning in
whatever direction the winds of Fortune and the variations of affairs require, and ...
that he should not depart from what is morally right, if he can observe it, but should know
how to adopt what is bad, when he is obliged to.
Unlike traditional political theory, which contended that ethical conduct was desirable for it would
bring about moral elevation, Machiavelli was too realistic to overlook the irony of the political
situation. In politics, it was not possible to assess the effect of a virtuous or a wicked act, for it would
result in the opposite effect. His rejection of traditional ethics and the quest to find an alternative
political ethic that was suitable and appropriate, was derived from a firmly-held conviction that
history moved with abrupt jerks in a frenzied way. In a fragmented world, politics had to be linked
with necessita, meaning those factors that compelled individuals to find ingenious solutions. This
was possible only if purely political factors were taken into account, excluding others. Machiavelli’s
attempt to establish the autonomy of politics was tanta-mount to a denial of ethical absolutes:
Machiavelli broke with classical theory which had approached the problems of political
action with questions of how men could develop their moral potentialities through a
life devoted to political office. But for Machiavelli the problem became more acute, for
the issue no longer involved the statesman’s quest for a moral perfection which, by its
very moral quality, would benefit the community; it involved instead the political
actor which was driven to break the moral law in order to preserve his society.
Machiavelli was aware that civilization and a good society meant high moral standards. But he
was realistic enough to accept that a society’s moral fabric was made or destroyed by its people.
He was not a nihilist or a cynic. His amorality implied that in specific situations, a ruler would
have to resort to tactics that were not considered strictly moral. Therefore, Machiavelli talked not
only of the science, but also of the art of politics. Politics was no longer a means to higher goals like
justice or truth, but an end in itself. The criterion of a successful state was efficiency and not
legitimacy, so his art of politics applied to both legal and illegal states. He took it for granted that
states, like individuals, would differ widely in nature. He also highlighted that in times of relatively
stable social order, “all moral questions can be raised from within the context of the norms which
the community shares; in periods of instability it is these norms themselves which are questioned
and tested against the criteria of human desires and needs”. According to Femina (2004) Machiavelli
founded liberal pluralism, essential to modern governance, that the primary purpose of politics
was to resolve the competing claims of diverse interest and values.
Machiavelli separated religion from politics and set the tone for one of the main themes of modern
times, namely secularization of thought and life, but the impact was not felt immediately for the
next 200 years. Though conscious of the importance of religion as a cementing force in society, he
was hostile towards Christianity and looked upon the Roman Catholic Church as the main
adversary. He espoused hostility towards religion, considering he was writing in Italy prior to the
Reformation. Hence, his
... philosophy was both narrowly local and narrowly dated. Had he written in any
country except Italy, or had he written in Italy after the beginning of the Reformation,
and still more after the beginning of the counter-Reformation in the Roman Church, it
is impossible to suppose that he would have treated religion as he did.

74 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY