Niccolo Machiavelli and James Madison\'s

¶ … Niccolo Machiavelli and James Madison's views of virtue

Republicanism is a theory of government which is based upon governing a nation as a republic. This ideology is centered on liberty, civic virtue, the rule of law, and popular sovereignty. In political theory and philosophy, the term 'republicanism' refers to a tradition in the history of western political thought, including especially: Machiavelli and his fifteenth-century Italian predecessors; the English republicans Milton, Harrington, and others; Montesquieu and Blackstone; the eighteenth-century English commonwealth men; and many Americans of the founding era such as Jefferson and Madison. The writers in this tradition share several ideas and concerns, such as the importance of civic virtue and political participation, the dangers of corruption. They support mixed constitutions which they consider beneficial to the state, as well as the rule of law (Pettit, Philip, "Republicanism," the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2003 Edition).

Virtue is central to "The Prince." Similarly to Aristotle, Machiavelli defines what constitutes good government based on his definition of 'virtue.' In general, he views 'virtue' as a quality which is appreciated by others in society, such as, for instance, generosity or compassion. However, what Machiavelli is concerned with, is how virtue can help or hinder a ruler, as well as how it relates to the state, and the act of governing. From this point-of-view, Machiavelli argues that virtue is not required when inheriting a principality; however, virtue is a sine-qua-non condition for acquiring a new principality. This refers to acquiring new territories which need to be assimilated; in this sense, the prince must be able to perform several tasks at the same time. Firstly, he must possess intelligence and wisdom in order for the new territories to become assimilated irrespective of local language and culture. Secondly, the prince must have the tact and diplomacy needed to protect his weaker neighbors from being attacked, and at the same time, his strong ones from gaining more power.

Machiavelli also discusses virtue in relation to the accession to power. From this perspective, he notes, there are two ways of becoming prince depending on virtue: fortune or ability. Machiavelli argues that inhering power also requires the ability to maintain it. In this sense, ability is the most precious virtue of a prince because it allows him both to gain, and maintain power. A prince must appear virtuous in his subjects' eyes, but should not let himself be driven by virtue simply for virtue's sake (Mansfield 296). To him, virtue is directly connected to statecraft, and has very little to do with morality. In fact, Machiavelli does not focus on what is good, or what is bad, but on what is efficient. However, he does discuss "evil means" in relation to virtue. From this point-of-view, Machiavelli argues that a prince may gain power by evil means, but not glory. Evil means refer to the use of cruelty. Although Machiavelli is a clear supporter of the use of cruelty in the act of government, he makes a distinction between proper and improper uses of cruelty. It is very interesting to note here that the proper use of force becomes a virtue in the sense that when utilized as a means to an end, cruelty is legitimate. However, when used simply to instill terror into the citizens, cruelty becomes improper, and cannot lead to glory for the prince.

Similarly to vices, virtues are not to be pursued for their own sake; they are not an end in themselves, but must be regarded as means to an end. Similarly to virtues, they are to be abandoned if they do not help the state. In this sense, the behavior of the prince must be observed taking into consideration that it is his responsibility to defend his principality, and not moral values. In fact, Machiavelli emphasizes that virtue is not subjected to the realm of morality. His main argument in attempting to demonstrate his standpoint calls on the institution of the Church which should be based on morality. Although Machiavelli does not pass any judgments as far as the actions of the pope, and the latter's use of political power, he does not make a distinction between the pope and a territorial prince, and argues in favor of the strengthening of the relationship between the former and the latter.

It is hard to imagine that Machiavelli was both the author of "The Prince," and a supporter of Republicanism. In fourteenth century Europe, republican theorists equated political and civil life with republican government, or with a mixed form of government which combined the virtues of monarchy, aristocracy, and popular government (Viroli 117). Similarly to the liberty of the city, individual liberty was also understood as independence from the will of other men. This could only be achieved, republicans argued, as long as law, and not men, were the rulers of the polis. The existence of a true civil and political life in an independent city is therefore the first condition for the individual citizens to be free (Ibid.) This system of belief was very strong during Machiavelli's lifetime. Machiavelli's republicanism is centered on the idea that any form of government, republican or popular, must fulfill the requirements of civil and political life. If it fails to do so, he argues, it is either a tyranny or a corrupt republic.

As far as the rule of law, Machiavelli refers to the observance of the principle of legality. According to this principle, men's actions within society are to be judged based on a set of rules which apply to all individuals. Similarly to jurists, Machiavelli is a supporter of the impartiality of law as the basis of civil life (Viroli 125). In order to protect this principle, it is necessary for punishment to be inflicted only by legitimate forces operating within the state, and never by individuals who place themselves outside of the law.

The best form of government is that which is able to secure the rule of law and the common good. Form this point-of-view Machiavelli evaluates several forms of government. Machiavelli thus argues that political life can be ensured either through a republican government, or through a monarchy; the only condition is that the sovereign is always bound by laws. Laws must be framed starting from the premise that all men are wicked, and that they will always act with malignity if given the opportunity. This is why laws are necessary, and why they must be obeyed by all citizens without discrimination. Machiavelli clearly supports a republican government because, he argues, when deliberating on matters of general interest, republicanism is more likely to allow the common good to prevail over particular interest. "His republicanism is a commitment to a well-ordered popular government," (Viroli 130) meaning that every component of the republic should have its proper place, and functioning.

His definition of liberty is perhaps the most interesting component of his view on republicanism. For Machiavelli, free men are those who do not depend on others. He contrasts their status with that of a serf who do not have any kind of liberties whereas free men are able to live their lives according to their own rules. In his "Discourses" Machiavelli points at a solution for Florence which he considers a corrupt state, governed according to the interest of factions. He argues that in order for Florence to enjoy "a true, free and civil life" (McCormick 616), the interest of factions must be replaced with laws which aim at protecting common good.

At this point it is crucial to attempt to place Machiavelli's political thought on the spectrum of republicanism. Political scientists have argued that Machiavelli is a compromise between minimalist or elitist theorists of democracy and more idealist, participatory theorists (e.g. Barber 1990; Sandel 1996 as cited in McCormick 617). There are two types of republicanism which can be determined on the basis of their elitist dimensions. In traditional republicanism, aristocrats are assigned specific political tasks which usually supersede those assigned to poorer social segments. In this sense, traditional republicanism is a mixture of aristocracy and democracy with the specification that the latter is subordinate to the former. Modern minimalist democracy can be defined as "competitive oligarchy" (Schumpeter as cited in McCormick 618), and consists of the selection of the small elite which will rule over the general populace. James Madison can be placed at the transition between traditional republicanism, to modern oligarchy. He defines republicanism in relation to representative government, and "the total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity" (Madison, Hamilton, and Jay [1788] 1998, no. 63 as cited in McCormick 618).

For Madison, a republic was a government which derived "all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people" and which rested "on the capacity of mankind for self-government." (Madison as cited in Reimer 46) in republican theory, if not always in republican practice, it was "politics as well as just that the interests and rights of every class should be duly represented and understood in the public Councils." (the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, edited by Gaillard Hunt and J.B. Scott New York, 1920, p. 329 as cited in Riemer 46) According to some historians, Madison's contribution to the consolidation of republicanism has been underrated: "Republican ideology - not economic interest, not social class, not sectional outlook - is the key to his political thought and actions. Theoretically and practically, he was always hostile to anti- and pseudo-republicanism. He was the most original, most understanding, and most effective champion of republicanism against its enemies. For this alone, Jeffersonian Democracy owes Madison a debt which has not been sufficiently acknowledged." (Ibid. 63)

James Madison was a firm believer in republicanism. However, he was always aware of the dangers besetting the American republican experiment. In the Virginia ratifying Convention he had declared: "From the first moment that my mind was capable of contemplating political subjects, I never, till this moment, ceased wishing success to a well regulated republican government." (James Madison as cited in Reimer 55). He wanted to refute one of the strongest arguments of the eighteenth century, i.e. that republican governments could only survive in geographically small, socially homogenous societies. Contesters of republicanism argued that in order for a republic to persist, it needed a rough equality of condition and similarity of interests which could enable citizens to maintain the virtue which represented the very basis of any republic (Rakove 1). In this context, virtue was defined as a willingness to subordinate private interest to public good, i.e. exactly what Machiavelli believed Florence had to do in order to become a republic. For Madison, virtue was always the foundation of government, endowed with a higher sanction than the mere will of the majority. Since it was easier to practice self-restraint in a relatively small and homogenous society, contemporaries supported the idea that the republican form of government had to be restricted to simple societies where the absence of competing interests helped citizens preserve the virtue that the republic needed.

On the topic of the nature of republicanism, Madison said: "When the people have formed a constitution, they retain those rights which they have not expressly delegated. It is a question whether what is thus retained can be legislated upon. Opinion are not the objects of legislation.... If we advert to the nature of republican government, we shall find that the censorial power is in the people over the government, and not in the government over the people." (James Madison, Speech in Congress, November 27, 1794 as cited in Samples 4). Madison's great contribution to republicanism, and American history, was his refusal of this particular argument. He argued that the larger and more diverse a society was, the harder it would be for citizens to form factions, and protect their private interest. "In pure democracies, he claimed, such as ancient Athens, individuals quickly discovered common interests, formed factions, and oppressed their fellow citizens" (Samples 2).