Page 87 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Unit 5: Niccolo Machiavelli

Machiavelli was equally hostile to hereditary monarchy and feudal nobility (besides mercenaries), Notes
and the established Church and its clergy, perceiving these to be enemies of a good and stable
social and political order. He was critical of the gangsterism of the aristocracy, for they looted and
impoverished ordinary people. They could be restrained with the help of an all powerful non-
hereditary monarchy which would restrain individual ambitions and prevent the corruption of
powerful private citizens—usually the cause of decay within the body politic. In order to achieve
this, Machiavelli even suggested the need to use massive violence and political interventionism.
Despite the dynastic ambitions of Italian princes, and the continuing strength of the hereditary
principle in Renaissance statecraft, Machiavelli’s Discourses are filled with contempt for hereditary
princes and are pro-foundly anti-aristocracy.
Machiavelli’s ideal was a republic. The nobles were tyrannical and anti-liberty. A well-ordered
state had to ensure that the rich did not buy their offices with money. It would have to give
opportunities to the best and the deserving. Such a state would attain glory, stability and success.
He identified the state with government or with its personal head. In the Prince:
... all his attention was riveted on the human figure of the man who held the reins of
government and so epitomized in his person the whole of public life. Such a conception,
determined directly by the historical experience which Machiavelli possessed in such
outstanding measure and presupposing a sustained effort on the part of the central
government, was essential to the success and pre-eminence of the doctrine. This was
a turning point in the history of the Christian world. The minds of political theorists
were no longer trammelled by Catholic dogma. The structure of the State was not yet
threatened in other directions by any revolt of the individual conscience ... . It was an
era in which Unitarian States were being created amid the ruins of the social and
political order of the Middle Ages, an era in which it was necessary to place all the
weapons of resistance in the hands of those who had still to combat the forces of
feudalism and particularism.
It was, in short, an era in which it was essential that the freedom and grandeur of
political action and the strength and authority of central government should be clearly
affirmed.
Machiavelli, in his analysis of the characteristics and dynamics of the modern nation state,
understood the strength that was derived from possessing a common language and customs. In
fact, he pointed out that newly acquired territories could be effectively retained provided they
shared one language, similar traditions and were not used to liberty for a long period, for otherwise
subjugation would be difficult.
Machiavelli was against the use of violence for private reasons other than the raison d’etat of the
state. He condemned the petty, small-minded and badly executed acts of violence so widely
prevalent in Florence. He forbade the violence of a tyrant who captured power for personal
reasons and wiped out persons of virtu in order to rule alone and notoriously. He praised the
great, glorious violence that a republic used in its conquests and expansion.
It was somewhat paradoxical that the realism and cynicism of Machiavelli did not last till the end of
the Prince. He abruptly departed, and passionately appealed to Medici to raise the standard of Italy
against the foreigner. There were no hints of such an appeal till one reached the last chapter, though
it might have been there all along, and perhaps that was the reason for writing the book. He had to
contend with an Italy which did not respect religion, law and moral obligation. He desired to show
to his fellow beings the causes of public misery, of the extreme instability of Italian governments, the
destructiveness of factionalism and the general inability to cope with foreign invasion from which
Italy suffered. His general purpose was to revive public spirit rather than advocate any particular
form of government. He wanted a ruler assisted by an able army to free Italy from the barbarians.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 81