Machiavellian Politics

Enduringly Relevant or Awfully Unsuccessful?

E. Y. Nam

NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI was a man of his time. In the annals of political thought, few figures loom as large as the titular man himself, known for his controversial philosophy and often named the “founder of modern political science”. Born in Florence during the Renaissance, Machiavelli witnessed first-hand the tumultuous power struggles that characterised Italian city-states of the era. It was within this cauldron of political turmoil that Machiavelli crafted his enduring masterpieces, “The Prince” and “Discourses on Levy”. Inspired by observations of the ruthless machinations of rulers such as Cesare Borgia, Machiavelli sought to distil the essence of effective leadership in a world fraught with uncertainty and treachery. So, what exactly did his philosophy entail?

Niccolo Machiavelli

At its core, Machiavellianism rejects the classical political philosophy of democrats such as Plato and Aristotle, challenging conventional notions of morality and ethics. Rather, he advocates for the unyielding pursuit of power and stability at any cost, embracing instead a cold realism that prioritises results over principles. Through this interpretation, Machiavelli can be seen as a devout consequentialist, which is the belief that the only measure of success is through results. However, consequentialism also states that as long as the favourable outcome is achieved, your actions become irrelevant. It’s like saying wiping out half of humanity for the greater good (sound familiar?). Therefore, you can see why this approach poses perennial ethical dilemmas.

This consequentialism meant that he also believed in realpolitik and strategic thinking, urging readers to deeply consider the effect of their actions before making emotionally spurred decisions. Where modern day leaders come into argument with this, it is because the strategic thinking often involved manipulation and sabotage of others for personal advancements.

It is this ruthless pragmatism that has made Machiavelli’s teachings reviled and yet somewhat revered throughout the centuries, as leaders grapple with the enduring question: Is it better to be loved or feared?

Transcripts of the original book, “The Prince”. Left: original cover; Right: English translation

Again, Machiavelli certainly argued the latter, believing that if a ruler is too generous, kind, or merciful to his subjects, they will become too demanding. Therefore, he precautioned the necessity to keep subjects in line. Further, previous leaders who have idolised his philosophy to grapple with this question have set a precedent of cynicism and misanthropy, striving for money, power, and status. Joseph Stalin, for instance, arguably demonstrated Machiavellian traits through his indifferent manipulation of both ally and enemy, maintaining power through a culture of fear and deception.

Thus, the success or failure of Machiavellian philosophy often hinges on how it is interpreted and implemented by leaders. While some may view it as a blueprint for effective leadership and statecraft, many others criticise its amorality and ruthless tactics. The application of these principles can vary widely depending on the goals and ethics of the individuals or entities employing them. In the current day, his philosophy is not well-established, accounting for only 2-3 percent of the population. So for now, I think it’s best you don’t take it upon yourself to start a world war in order to save humanity…

Image: Famous quote from Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince”