Familiar With the Adjective \"Machiavellian,\" Very Few

¶ … familiar with the adjective "machiavellian," very few are actually knowledgeable about the political philosophy of Niccolo Machiavelli. However, Machiavelli does in fact have a great deal to teach us and we should be careful not to dismiss Machiavelli's thoughtfulness and acuity as an observer of human society by relegating his contributions to a single, uncomplimentary adjective. Especially in his Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius (much more so than in the more famous The Prince), we see in this writer of the Italian Renaissance a man who was truly engaged in the intellectual work required to create a system of government that was based on ideals and yet that also acknowledged the realities of human society as he understood them from his particular historical perspective. This paper examines the particular suggestions that Machiavelli outlined in Discourses for a well governed republic.

We may begin our analysis of Machiavelli's understanding of the ways in which a republic could - and should - function by a very brief foray into The Prince, for Machiavelli's examination of republican government is in many ways only half of an argument, for he was at least implicitly contrasting it to traditional, monarchial forms of rule. Although from our vantage point from the other side of the Enlightenment we are inclined to focus on what we now consider to be Machiavelli's encouragement of the rule of force, in actuality his arguments in The Prince - and to all princes - was a relatively benign one. Machiavelli's major point in writing The Prince was to offer to monarchs advice that would help them keep their thrones, and his advice to this end is in many ways allied with republican ideals about the balance of power and authority between the governed and those in power - ideals that the republicans of ancient Rome would have certainly agreed with even as progressive writers from the Enlightenment onward would also have found completely acceptable.

Among Machiavelli's pieces of advice to royal rulers was a judicious use of force (while this may sound barbaric to us, in fact many royal rulers of Machiavelli's time used force unrestrained by any sense of mercy) along with a respect for the private property of individuals and local traditions and customs. Machiavelli did also argue that the same standards of morality cannot be applied to rulers as to those that are ruled because the conditions of their lives and the extent of their responsibilities are so different from each other that a single set of standards for behavior cannot obtain. Machiavelli's insistence on this position - which is also present in Discourses - no doubt reflected the political realities of his own times, in which the city-states of Italy as well as a number of other sovereign interests across Europe all eagerly engaged in promoting political turmoil and violence for personal gain. Machiavelli urged royal leaders to look beyond possible personal gains of the moment to work for the common good of their royal lines and their people.

These same ideas run throughout Discourses in an even clearer form. The overall intent of the author in this work is to discuss and evaluate republican forms of government. Machiavelli defined a republican state as one in which a politically active citizenry has control over the mechanisms of governance. Just as in The Prince he offers advice to monarchs on how to ensure the survival of their dynasties, in Discourses he offers advices to republican governments on how to extend their rule. His advice (which remains sound for today) is that republican forms of government survive and even flourish to the extent that they are capable of instilling a spirit of honest patriotism and civic dedication amongst the population. In addition to this very still-very-current sentiment. Machiavelli argued that a republic is strengthened by open and honest debate and criticism by the population and that republican governments should thus encourage rather than try to suppress the open marketplace of ideas.

The third book of Discourses, which includes discussions of all of these ideas, differs from the first two books in its focus, which is less on the past and particularities of the Roman republic and more inclined to consider republics in general. Another way of looking at the relationship between the first two books and the third is to say that in the first two Machiavelli is concerned primarily with what has happened in the past while in the third he is more interested in discussing how the lessons of the past may be applied to the present, for Machiavelli was deeply concerned with the political anarchy that existed in Italy in his own time and very much hoped that his treatises would not be treated as simple abstractions but rather would help his contemporaries to build a stronger and more united Italy.

The vision of human society that Machiavelli puts forth in the third book of Discourses (as elsewhere in his writings) is certainly in many ways a dark one. But on the same hand it must be noted that it is hardly one without optimism: Machiavelli makes it quite clear that he believes that people do have the capacity to make better societies than the ones that he sees around him. (He does not believe that human history is a straightforward trajectory toward ever higher states, but nor does he believe that we must simply accept the conditions of whatever historical moment we are born into). People are in many ways free to improve or worsen their own lots, he argues.

To want to assume authority in a Republic, and install there a bad form of a Government, therefore, there is need to find the people corrupted by the times and that, little by little, from generation to generation, it is led to this corruption; these are led by necessity to this, unless they are ((as has been discussed above)) reinvigorated frequently by good examples or brought back by good laws to their principles. Manlius, therefore, would have been a rare and memorable man if he had been born in a corrupt City. And therefore the Citizens in a Republic who attempt an enterprise either in favor of Liberty or in favor of Tyranny, ought to consider the condition of things, and judge the difficulty of the enterprise; for it is as difficult and dangerous to want to make a people free who want to live in servitude, as to want to make a people slave who want to live free. And as it has been said above that men in their actions ought to consider the kind of times and proceed according to them, we will discuss this at length in the following chapter.

One of the most important themes that runs through the third book of Discourses (although, again, it should be pointed out that the major arguments that he makes in this book are all found in other places in his works as well, for Machiavelli is a very consistent writer) is the insistence that while bad leaders (whether republican or otherwise) use human weaknesses and institutional weaknesses in social structures to gain power for themselves without regard for the social chaos - including violence - that may ensue.

In this section of Discourses, Machiavelli is asking us to question what had for centuries been considered as carved in stone. The accepted relationship between rulers and ruled seemed to be unalterable to many at the beginning of the Renaissance, even if the ways in which such relationships were constituted tended to lead to oppression, violence and cultural decline. Machiavelli argues that while it is essential and inevitable for societies to change over time, it is not necessary for them to decline. But the only way that they may prevent such a decline is to make conscientious and repeated efforts to adhere to the original principles that the leaders believed in at the founding of each republic. We should note that Machiavelli does not underestimate the difficulty of doing so - he is not in any way ignorant of the fact that there are vast differences between the most elegantly described systems of all political philosophers, including himself, and the practical realities of governance. But he is also adamant in his warnings that to allow republics to slip away from the principles on which they were founded is to invite disastrous consequences, as he writes in the first chapter of the third book:

It is a most true thing that all the things of the world have to have an ending to their existence. But these only run the entire course that is generally ordained by Heaven, which does not disorganize their body, but keeps it so organized that it is not changed, or if it is changed, it is for its welfare and not its injury. And as I speak here of mixed bodies, as are Republics and (Religious) Sects, I say that those changes are for the better which bring them back to their (original) principles. And, therefore, those are better organized and have a longer existence, which through their own means are able frequently to renew themselves, or which through some accident outside the said organization come to that renewal. And it is something clearer than light, that these bodies which do not renew themselves, do not endure. The means of renewing them (as has been said), is to bring them back to their (original) principles.

It should be noted that Machiavelli is not arguing that republics should adhere to their initial principles because of any ethical reason; rather, he is arguing that there are purely practical reasons for the rulers (and the ruled) to try to remain as close as possible to the spirit of the founding rulers. Those republics that remain true to their founders are those that last the longest.

It is precisely this pragmatic cast to much of what Machiavelli has written that has gained him the far-from-favorable reputation that he now has. But we should take a moment to consider how fair this reputation is. There is a great deal to be said for using whatever psychological means one has at hand to get people to act in ways that are not only in their own best interests but that are also good for all levels of a society. From his own observations of the realities of political life (of which he saw a great deal firsthand in his work as a diplomat), Machiavelli would most certainly have been aware of the fact that appealing to people's better natures is not always effective. Appealing to people's sense of self-preservation is often much more so.

The ethical trick in all of this (and Machiavelli shows himself to be much more aware of the ethical complexities involved in this calculation in Discourses than he does in The Prince) is that people who are concerned solely or even primarily with self-preservation often act in ways that are harmful or at least detrimental to others. What Machiavelli is attempting to do in this treatise is to develop a political philosophy that both encourages people to act to preserve a status quo that is generally beneficial to themselves while at the same time believing that the most beneficial of all possible stati quo is that which incorporates honest republican values.

Machiavelli is thus attempting to fashion an argument in which both the rulers and the ruled (of republican states) are capable of having their cake and eating it too. This is in fact a highly idealistic model for human societies, and if it is leavened in places by threads of realism and cynicism, this should hardly be cause for criticism of the author.

Indeed, one might well argue that not only is Discourses - especially in the third book - a republican treatise (one might in fact even argue that The Prince also reflects fundamentally republican values) but that it is in fact a humanistic work. Because he wrote during the beginning of the Renaissance, we tend not to associate Machiavelli with the upwelling of progressive and humanistic ideals that characterize this period of European history, but his writings in Discourses, and especially in the latter chapters of this work that we are primarily concerned with here, should make us reconsider the overall tone and intention of his work.

Machiavelli would in fact probably have considered himself to be a humanist, although he would have done so within the meaning of the term in the 15th and 16th centuries during which he lived. For while to the residents of the 21st century, the term "humanist" has about it connotations of compassionateness, for Machiavelli and others who were beginning to write the history of the modern world, the term humanist had the primary meaning of someone who was intent on understanding - and if at all possible contributing to - the development of human virtue. Machiavelli was most certainly interested in this enterprise, and the entire length of Book Three of Discourses can be seen as an exercise in humanism (under this definition): Machiavelli is searching for a philosophy that will both create more stable political systems as well help all of the individuals in those systems (whether governed or governors) to be more virtuous.

Machiavelli was concerned not only with the study of human nature and human virtue but clearly wished to take an active role in shaping his world. He wrote Discourses from the perspective of a man who understood the essential value of insight while also understanding the limitations of understanding. He valued republican ideals, but thought them of little merit without real republican governments in which such ideals could be enacted.

Given his own humanistic commitment to a full participation in the political world that he was also engaged in analyzing, it is at least a little ironic that Machiavelli should choose to write these discources on one of the works of Livy rather than another historian of the classical world because Livy was one of the few - indeed, arguably the only one - of the historians of classical Rome who was not also himself a participant. (Machiavelli's career as a diplomat and politician as well as a writer has numerous precedents amongst the ancients). However, Livy - perhaps because he did not wish his writings to be tarnished by any accusations of partisanship - kept himself apart from the politics of his own day.

While there are certainly advantages - in terms of objectivity - in standing outside of the political arena that one is writing about, there are also advantages of knowing about a world firsthand. Machiavelli, unlike Livy, knew the differences between the ways in which governments are supposed to work and the ways that they actually do work, and much of the argument that he makes in Discourses relies on his nuanced understanding of these differences. Moreover, while Livy had to rely on second-hand and after-the-fact accounts of the ways in which governments actually work, Machiavelli had access to the primary material of the historian, the actual government documents themselves.

This sense of immediacy permeates Machiavelli's commentary, and if he were blamed by later generations for being too cynical about the ways in which governments actually work, we might more damningly blame Livy for being both too ignorant and too idealistic about republican governance.

And yet, despite the obvious differences in their approaches to writing history, it is clear why Machiavelli should have chosen Livy as his model for this treatise about the nature and form of republican government. Livy, like Machiavelli, believed that both the study of government and the practice of governance must be concerned about all with human morality. While other classical authors are more concerned with the mechanics and strategies involved in governing, Livy is concerned with the ways in which people are shaped in ethical and moral ways by the institutions of government. These concerns are clearly shared by Machiavelli.

Machiavelli was all too aware of the fact that the kind of republics that he envisioned - and that he believed had once existed under Roman rule - might well have to be established as well as defended by force. The importance of military strategy and the interactions between military and civil officials is another one of the important elements running through this third book of the Discourses. While there is discussion in the earlier sections of the work of the importance of military force, it is only in this last section that the degree of his concern about the possible undue influence of military authorities over civilian rule becomes clear.

An important part of the way in which a proper balance may be struck and kept between military force and the kind of virtuous governance that is needed to guide civilizations in times of peace (and to ensure the kind of long-term continuity that can exist for republics, whose unity of rule is not bound to the fortunes of a single dynastic family but is instead linked to a set of ideals that may continue for all time, not being dependent on the vision or power of any particular ruler) is that military leaders should be chosen because they represent the same virtues as civilian leaders.

Machiavelli does not advocate that military leaders be chosen because they are the strongest or most brutal. Rather, they should be men of virtue, both because such men are better able to rally and encourage others and because such military leaders are likely to instill into their armies the kinds of virtues that will help the soldiers to become good citizens of a republic once the battles are done. It does not hurt if a military leader can use religion and the sense of divine blessing to inspire his troops, for Machiavelli rightly recognizes that little is so important to success in battle as the belief by those fighting that they have both the right and the capability of winning the fight.

It is necessary also that the Captain be esteemed in a way that they have confidence in his prudence, and will always consider him so when they see him orderly, watchful, and courageous, and maintains the majesty of his rank by a good reputation: and he will always maintain it when he punishes their errors, does not fatigue then in vain, observes his promises to them, and shows them that the path to victory is easy, and conceals and makes light of those dangers which he is able to discern from afar. Which things well observed are good reasons why the army becomes confident, and being confident, wins. The Romans used to make their armies assume this confidence by way of Religion, whence it happened that they created Consuls, levied troops, sent out the armies, and came to the engagement, by the use of auguries and auspices: and without doing these things a good and wise Captain would never hazard any action, thinking he could easily lose it if his soldiers should not first have learned that the Gods were on their side.

Machiavelli understood that sometimes a nation must defend itself by force, but he was also keenly aware of the fact that such use of force eats away at those republican ideals. The use of force must always be considered to be a temporary solution to the problems faced by any republic. But even as force must be used judiciously, republican leaders must not be afraid to use it, Machiavelli argues, using one of the most poignant examples of such a use of violence from Roman history.

The severity of Brutus was no less necessary than useful in maintaining that liberty in Rome which she had acquired; which is an example rare in all the record of history to see a father to sit in judgment, and not only condemn his sons to death, but to be present at their deaths. And this will always be known by those who read ancient history, that after a change of State, either from a Republic to a Tyranny, or from a Tyranny to a Republic, a memorable execution against the enemies of the existing conditions is necessary. And whoever restores liberty to a State and does not kill Brutus, and whoever restores liberty to a State and does not kill the sons of Brutus, maintains himself only a short time.

Machiavelli also understands that - within the political realities of Europe in the early Renaissance - force was necessarily used against those driven from power.

Nor could he believe that the sons of Ancus could have so much resentment that they would not be content with him (as ruler), of whom all Rome was content. And Servius Tullus deceived himself believing he could win over to himself the sons of Tarquin by new benefits. So that, as to the first, every Prince can be advised that he will never live securely in his Principality so long as those live who have been despoiled (of their possessions). As to the second, it should remind every potentate that old injuries were never cancelled by new benefits, and so much less if the new benefit is less that the injury inflicted.

We can see in these passages (as throughout this last book of the Discourses) that for Machiavelli, the core question of any work engaged in exploring political (and thus public) ethics was how to balance personal sensibilities with the nerve needed to acquire and maintain power. This does not mean that Machiavelli was interested in advocating ruthlessness. We must remember in our analysis of this work - as Machiavelli himself most certainly did - that power can be used for either good or ill, but that one can effect no good at all from a position of weakness. We should not assume that people gain power only to exploit others. This is certainly true much of the time, and certainly Machiavelli himself had seen this occur all too often. However, he was aware of the fact that some people at least take power because they want to improve not only their own lot but that of others.

Moreover, as noted above, Machiavelli believed that the institutions of republican government themselves were instrumental in forming better people. While a republic would no doubt do well if it were founded by the most exemplary sort of leaders, having men (and women, although it is doubtful if Machiavelli were considering the potential contributions of women when he was thinking of leadership) who begin by being good rather than excellent may well be sufficient. It would be possible that over time such initially good leaders might well become excellent - if they were careful to adhere to the original principles upon which their republic was founded. Their own ability as leaders could also be improved if they were consistently open to criticism by their people.

Machiavelli understood that many rulers in Renaissance Europe used public discontent to their own ends, using civil violence to undermine the power of their enemies as well as to justify their own use of force. However, Machiavelli warned against this use of public discord as any sort of substitute for honest public debate. The two forms of political discourse may in some ways resemble each other, he acknowledged, but the consequence of one is a continuing spiral into disorder while the consequence of the other is an ever stronger (and more virtuous) republic, as he suggests in this description of the city of Pistoia.

Fifteen years before, that City was divided ((as it is now)) into the Panciatichi and Cancellieri, but at that time they were under arms, and today they have laid them down. And after many disputes among themselves they came to bloodshed, to the razing of houses, at plundering possessions, and to every other kind of enmity. And the Florentines who had to restore order to them, always employed this third method, and always there arose serious tumults and troubles: so that, becoming weary they came to employ the second method of removing the Leaders of the parties, of whom some they imprisoned and others they exiled to various places, in order that accord could exist, and has existed to this day. But without doubt, the most secure would have been the first method. But as this has need of power and courage, a weak Republic does not know how to accomplish it, and they go so far afield, that the effort required induces them to the second method.