A handbook for murderous dictators.
On Niccolo Machiavelli’s: The Prince
Before Machiavelli, the idea of ethics was seen as wanted in politics.
An ideal leader was supposed to be good and moral. Politics was even seen as a sub-division of Ethics in the times of Aristotle.
The idea of a righteous leader was also affirmed in Christianity. That was the general idea of a good politician, in practice, it was often not so.
In The Prince, that notion was tossed out entirely. Machiavelli believed that a good ruler is supposed to act immorally on certain occasions.
Goodness was no longer an indicator of a ruler’s greatness, now the measure of his success was whether he managed to make his nation great or not, using whatever means he saw fit.
He didn’t reject morality completely. If you could be moral and also achieve your goals, all the power to you. But if you must commit acts of treason, murder, and deceit in order to preserve or further your political power, it is justified to do so.
Betray your closest companions
Machiavelli uses Cesare Borgia as an example of a “good” ruler. Borgia was the son of the pope who recently conquered the Italian region of Romagna.
In order to gain power and fully subject the population of the aforementioned region, Borgia put a cruel minister called Ramiro de Lorca in charge of Romagna and he gave him full authority. De Lorca could be as cruel and as ruthless as he wanted to be.
So, in order to prevent revolts, de Lorca committed acts of terror. He killed men in front of their families, held public executions, and other atrocities.
Peace was established. The only problem is that the citizens of Romagna hated de Lorca.
So, as any good ruler would have done, Borgia had de Lorca killed. Precisely, he sliced his body in half and put him up on display in the main square along with his severed head.
Afterward, Borgia addressed the citizens of the town telling them that he never gave authority to de Lorca to commit such heinous crimes. He looked like a hero.
The atrocity of such a spectacle left those people, at one and the same time, satisfied and stupefied.
This type of action is exactly what Machiavelli expects from a good politician. Get someone to do the dirty work for you, and after they’ve done the work have them gone in order to seem like a hero of the people.
Should a leader be loved or feared?
This question is asked in chapter 17 of the book.
Of course, it is best to be both loved and feared, but reality often does not allow both. And, a person like Machiavelli advises leaders that it is better to be feared than loved.
Men are ungrateful, fickle, and greedy, says Machiavelli. And so, if they are bound to their leader by love alone, that bond will be broken as soon as there arises an interest in breaking it.
Fear, on the other hand, can not be transversed as easily. The apprehension of punishment never leaves men. Fear keeps men in line.
Another benefit of fear is that it is easier to control what people fear than what people love about you.
But in creating a fearful environment a ruler must be careful since he should avoid being hated at all cost. Hatred sparks revolts, conspiracies, assassinations, and so on.
So, a leader should be feared but never hated.
The effects of The Prince
Machiavelli wrote The Prince to serve as a handbook for rulers, specifically, he wrote it for Lorenzo de’ Medici, the ruler of Florence.
He did not write it out of the kindness of his heart, of course, he wrote it in order to get a job.
That plan ultimately failed, The Prince was sort of a self-defeating book. Lorenzo de Medici didn’t even read the book, and if he did he would ask himself the question: Why would I hire such a character?
And there truly is no reason to hire a man like Machiavelli. Who with a sane mind would hire a man who advocates such a horrible and treacherous way of leadership? You would not want him anywhere near you.
The Prince did not gain success in the general populace either. It was generally criticized and even banned by the Catholic church.
Machiavelli ended up as a failed politician. His political theories did not result in any grand social or political movements, he has not sponsored any revolutions, nor inspired any new constitutions.
Out of its sheer brutality (or reality), The Prince gained success later. Not as a handbook for rulers but more like a classic book. It slowly crept into popular culture.
Today we describe characters in books and movies, politicians, and others as “Machiavellian”. We use it to describe, someone who is sneaky, cunning, and lacking a moral code.
And so, not completing its original destiny, The Prince today stands as a stark reminder of the possible brutality of politics and it is an example of what not to be like.
Thank you for reading, if you liked the content be sure to clap, comment and follow me for more psychology, philosophy, and book-related topics.
I hope you enjoyed it.