By Niccolo Machiavelli
This is less a book review and more a series of notes I took on the book when reading it for the first time when I was young and impressionable.
Machiavelli was an Italian diplomat and writer who lived from 1469 - 1527. He was, by turns, a senior official, poet, diplomat, playwright, philosopher and writer, and towards the end of his life he condensed much of his political knowledge into Il Principe, which he dedicated to the ruler at the time, one of the Medici, although it is unknown if he ever even read it. The book deals almost exclusively with principalities, where power is held by one family, which is either old and established, totally new, or has been grafted onto another by annexation or conquering. The discussion of republics is absent.
The name and the term Machiavellian have long had negative associations because of the subject matter and viewpoint he took in his book. He considered politics through the lens of battle strategy, pure logic and rules, rather than with a lens of morality. He may have been motivated by a lifetime of experience with politicians who played dirty - regardless, the book makes no mention of the ethical role in political battles. As a result, the adjective means political deceit, deviousness, and realpolitik, that is, politics based on circumstances and game theory rather than any overlying ideological or moral principle.
Whatever the morality of the work, it cannot be denied that it is a landmark in political philosophy, and is still applicable half a millennium after it was published because human politics have actually changed very little. With little modification, Il Principe could have been written ten years ago, albeit by an unusually disillusioned cynic.
Later update: with the benefit of a few more years, I no longer think this is true.
Throughout these notes, and when reading the book, it is important to remember that Machiavelli lived in a time when there was a ‘natural order’ of the ruling and the ruled, and thus the entire book is geared towards helping the rulers subdue the ruled and stay in power. While this means it still has relevance in an age of centralised governments still made of those who desire power, in the (my) ideal world, this book would be irrelevant, as we move away from one group ruling another. Nevertheless, the book can be particularly useful in smaller environments where there is main person in charge of many others, such as an office environment. In such cases, while it is important to ignore the unethical aspects of his teachings, Machiavelli’s ideas are helpful in management.
There are a few major themes Machiavelli explores. The first of these is the importance of empiricism and realism vs idealism. Much like the natural philosophers to come, he distilled his accumulated experience and generalised, observing common patterns and ideas, and exploring them, teasing out their causes and effects on a grand scale. He took on the role of an impartial observer, simply commenting on the success and failures of various political actions, without discussing the moral or ideological aspect. In short, he only talked about what worked for a particular person, not whether it was right or wrong. He denies the view that living virtuously leads to happiness, which i do agree with to a small extent (ignoring for the moment the vagueness of the term “living virtuously”, whose happiness are we considering?).
The second was his rejection of the idea of fortune. The Christianity of the time, with its focus on teleology (what is meant to be, will be) caused people to be guided too much by imaginary ideals, and leave things to chance, or fortune. He rejected the Christian ideals of modesty as a virtue and pride as sinful, in favour of the idea that ambition, vigour, and the pursuit of glory help one gain control of one’s own future, which is a very classical view to have (contrast the 1400s dichotomy of Christian total lack of control and M’s pride and glory with the Classical notion of the only Zeus having control, but heroes still seeking out glory and control).
Thirdly, his views on religion. He saw religion as artificial, useful only in it’s contribution to society and as a form of power and control for the rulers. He called the ‘prophets’ (Moses, Romulus of Rome, he didn’t specifically say Jesus because Heresy™ but Jesus fits in very well here) the greatest of the princes (rulers) because of their long-lasting and enduring power over the people, even hundreds or thousands of years after they died. He also commented that many of these sects or religions lasted between 1500 to 3000 years, and so the decline of Christianity would begin soon after he died. It is questionable that this idea and timescale is still applicable given the unpredictable and unprecedented information dissemination and saturation of the modern era, but it is a very powerful idea.
His main concern with Christianity was its promotion of weakness and loss of self-determination, not only encouraging people to leave their lives in the hands of the fictional God, but also delivering power straight into the hands of the cruel and wicked who had the enterprising idea to seize it and promote themselves as key to this religion.
While fear of God can be replaced by fear of a prince or ruler, he considers a religion to be essential to keep the population in control. The ruler should not themselves be religious, but they should encourage it in their populace, and, importantly, present themselves as part of the religion (think the god-kings of Egypt, the descendants of Romulus in the kings of Rome, the divine right of kings, the theocracies of the Mesoamerican civilisations). Indeed the latter can be explained by this observation - if the people’s religion is the single key factor in maintaining control, then it is only logical that the ruler also be the head of the religion, and the ruling hierarchy the same as the religious hierarchy.
This is difficult in the modern world. It is obviously undesirable to have a population controlled by religious dogma, but without that control, maintaining the same structure of rulers trying to maintain power becomes unsustainable, and ruling becomes ineffective. It is clear that the best system of government in terms of effectiveness is a dictatorship, which also happens to be the worst for human rights and freedom. This is interesting - is the interplay of effectiveness and human freedom in systems of government a zero-sum game? What factors lead to the maximisation of both? Is religious dogma more effective than scientific and logical thinking, and is that immediately, or only after the latter has reached a certain saturation?
Finally, Machiavelli’s ideas on the means and the ends. He readily argued that ‘bad’ means are justified by ‘good’ ends. His ideas of private vices and public goods underlay much of the modern theory of capitalism, where people and corporations can be represented as algorithms which are both greedy and holistically optimal - while searching for the best outcome for themselves, they produce the best outcome for the society as a whole. I consider this to be problematic, however - it is clear that capitalism has not produced the best good for the world as a whole - even disregarding the growing inequality produced by powerful corporations seeking profit at the expense of all else, the negative impact on the environment has been immeasurable.
All one has to do to maintain power is not to change the customs of those who have ruled before too drastically, and to deal with new problems competently.
It is therefore easier to maintain the power of an old established family than a new one, because the older one ‘has less cause and less necessity to offend’ the people than the newer one, and thus the subjects will be better disposed towards them, inasmuch as they will be well-disposed at all to those who rule them.
When dominions are acquired, they are either of the same country and language or not. They are easier to keep when they are, especially when they are not used to self-government. In such a case, all one needs to do is destroy the dynasty that used to rule them, and not change the laws and taxes because then the people will not really experience any change. Soon, the new dominion will merge with the old so there is no boundary.
If however the country and language are different, then it is a lot harder, because the people will experience a lot of change and be resistant to it. It helps if the one who has conquered that place goes and lives there, making their position more secure. Then, one can quickly quash disorder, while if you are away, you only hear about them when they are too large to be quashed.