Page 90 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Western Political Thought

Notes • By emphasizing the importance of the study of history, Machiavelli established a method
that was extremely useful. However, in spite of being a keen observer of history, he presumed
that human nature remained permanent and constant, making it possible to deduce principles
of political behaviour. However, the reason for such a presumption was because of the fact
that he lived in an age of flux, where the political order was transient. The “belief in a
timeless human nature with permanent needs” became the yardstick to measure and explain
the “transience of political and social orders”. In spite of his depiction of the dark side of
human nature, he never lost faith in the importance of good society and its role in shaping
human beings. He was the first to study extensively the role of corruption in political-life.
His writings brought about the central moral dilemmas of political life, for he spoke of
unsavoury and unpalatable truths. He rightly observed that in political life, purity of life and
goodness of heart mattered little. Success was important, and to be successful, a good person
had to learn to be bad without appearing to be so. Glory, liberty and virtu constituted the
essential ingredients of political success in Machiavelli’s lexicon. He lamented the decline of
virtu in contemporary Italy, which prevented its unification and independence. He condemned
an ostentatious and luxurious life, which precluded acts of glory and virtu.
• Machiavelli also accepted conflict as permanent and universal, seeing it as natural, unlike his
predecessors who viewed social conflict as unnatural and curable by certain kinds of social
systems. The basis of social conflict was the permanent struggle between the common man
and the powerful and the moneyed, though he did not explain the struggle in economic
terms. He understood struggle in terms of war between states for power and domination.
Within a state, the cause for domestic instability and strife was the desire among the majority
for security of their lives and possessions, while a small number, the oligarchs, sought to
dominate and control the masses. From Polybius, Machiavelli realized that conflict was not
only widely prevalent, but it could also be transformed into an instrument to promote socially
useful ends. The difference in the nature of conflict between a corrupt and a virtuous
commonwealth was the degree and quality of conflict, and not the presence or absence of it.
In a virtuous commonwealth, conflict was conducted within the confines of the common
good, respect for law and authority and with minimum use of violence. Freedom meant
tolerating social conflict. Conflict, if well managed and handled by political compromise,
became a source of strength and vibrance to the political process.
• To illustrate the difference, Machiavelli used the Roman example, contrasting it with that of
Florence. In Rome, conflict between the plebians and patricians was institutionalized within
the senate and the popular assemblies with their tribunes without sapping the vitality of the
republic or the liberties of the citizens. In contrast, in Florence, with atomization of society
and each person becoming an island, religiousness, civic virtu, honesty and respect of authority
declined. Factionalism and conspiracies were rampant and government became an arena for
powerful coteries. Economic inequalities increased, indolence and luxury undermined the
social fabric, virtue declined, and greed increased. Enforcement of law became weak and
was compromised according to contingencies. So, unless there was a renewal of the civic
order and a return to the first principles, even prudent statesmanship would not be able to
stem the tide towards degeneration and decay. Machiavelli accepted that change was the
way of life and everything, even the best-ordered states like Rome and Sparta, would decline.
• For Machiavelli, a well-ordered state ensured the well-being and security necessary to combat
social conflict and the radical selfishness of human nature. The state had no higher end or
any divine purpose. It did not have a personality different or superior to those who constituted
it. Successful states depended on the presence of a strong military, protection of the life,
property, family and honour of every citizen, economic prosperity without promoting
individual economic aggrandizement, strict regulation of luxury, good laws and respect for

84 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY