In Machiavelli’s The Prince, the author discusses the path to effective leadership through a combination of cunning, controlled violence, balance of the respect and fear of subjects, and other routes to maintaining power. One of the most striking features of the text is the amount of discussion revolving around necessary cruelty and the ability of a leader to act in a completely self-serving manner. Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli makes a number of claims about effective leadership that strike the reader as unnecessarily harsh or cruel. Many of his statements about always being aware of the impact every decision has on one’s own feeling of protection can easily be considered to be blindly self-serving and remarkably callous, thus the term “Machiavellian” has come to be associated with pure evil, absolute selfishness, and malice.
The problem with this assessment is that Machiavelli is not espousing a political theory that is as overwhelming cruel as it may at first appear. He is not championing the cause of acting cruelly unless it is something that is necessary for political survival and he consistently makes claims about how to be a ruler who posses honor and “glory” as well as leadership success. Although it is true that nearly all of his advice to a leader is completely self-serving in that no act is committed without foresight regarding the implications for one’s rule, there is not the sense that he is advising one to be cruel at all times just for the sake of creating fear. It is only through a careful reading of The Prince that one begins to see the logic behind Machiavelli’s theories; it is the logic of self-preservation, not of cruelty or disregard for subjects.
Many of Machiavelli’s statements throughout the text could easily lull one into believing that he is supporting a regime of violence and aggression as crucial to maintaining power. At several points throughout the text he discusses how violence can be essential to maintaining power, but these statements are nearly always backed up by softening elements. For example, while Machiavelli might suggest that it may be necessary to be violent toward a territory of unruly people in order to establish a sense of fear, “The prince should make himself feared in such a way that, if he is not loved, at least he escapes being hated.”[1] Although it is clearly for self-serving purposes, Machiavelli is not suggesting that one should be cruel toward a nation just because the position of power might allow for it. While he sees aggression and war as vital to the success of any leadership, this is not exactly something that exists for its own sake. Several scholars have mixed opinions about the argument that Machiavelli is not attempting to put forth a theory of violence and fear. Violent force is, at least, the short-term action of choice in Machiavellian politics. Acts of war and killing change any situation, if only for the moment, and in another context, what holds supporters in place, of course, is ultimately always coercion.”[2] The problem with this argument is that it fails to address the importance Machiavelli associates with a sense of glory. While a leader may have a great deal of power and be strong, aggressive, and feared by both his enemies and people, he cannot be called a great ruler because he lacks this necessary trait.
The concept of glory keeps Machiavelli’s most shocking statements about necessary violence and cruelty in context. For instance, even though he discusses at length the times when violence is a necessary evil to maintain power, he does not condone wholesale cruelty at all times. He prefers that any cruel acts be committed all at once instead as a series of constant predictable events. Furthermore, Machiavelli states that despite the occasional call for violence, “it cannot be called prowess to kill fellow citizens, to betray friends, to be treacherous, pitiless, or irreligious. These ways can win a prince power but not glory.”[3] Again, the idea of glory has more importance that critics such as Tarlton suggest since Machiavelli seems to think this is just as important as being feared. This is not just something that the Machiavelli considers in context of relationships rulers have with subjects, but also abroad. For instance, as one scholar notes, “Machiavelli believed that diplomacy, unlike military service, was of no significant virtue, and that in foreign policy it was no substitute for arms and money. Nevertheless, it enhanced the virtu of even the strongest prince.”[4] What is being suggested is that although having the capacity for war and violence, this alone is not something that can make successful rulers with absolute power overall. It is the ability to at least appear (if not always act) in a diplomatic, kind, and fair way during certain advantageous times that makes a ruler great. The ability to garner honor and glory are thus of almost parallel importance to being an excellent warrior with a reputation of being feared, this bringing power to the rulers.
In essence, what Machiavelli is trying to convey to potential rulers is not a program of simple controlled violence, but one of image management. Even though all of his advice is geared toward a prince that is (and must be) completely self-serving, it is not enough to say that he is promoting violence and fear for their own sake or for the sake of simple power. Instead, Machiavelli is showing princes how to balance their image so that they are feared, revered, respected, admired, and above all, inspire obedience. To achieve these ends, he puts forth some advice that may at first sound cruel or mean-spirited but is all meant to serve an end while maintaining the prince’s glory. For instance, Machiavelli notes that rulers who have had a great deal of poewr “have set little store by keeping their word, being skillful rather in cunningly deceiving men; they have got the better of those who have relied on being trustworthy.”[5] While this may seem like an outright call to be dishonest, it seems rather as though it is clearly meant to make rulers aware of what promises can mean to people and how easily they can be broken. This may not seem to be something that would warrant later glory, but it seems, given the textual evidence, that this would make the ruler appear wise instead of mean-spirited. This is also part of the concept of diplomacy as discussed above. To Machiavelli, a ruler has to “know how to act like a beast, he should imitate both the fox and the lion, for the lion is liable to be trapped, whereas the fox cannot ward off the wolves. A ruler needs then, to be a fox to recognize traps and a lion to frighten away wolves.”[6] When he suggests this, he is directly addressing the vital balance of image. He recognizes that it is an issue of image when he says the ruler must know how to “act” instead of be and this makes his argument less cruel-seeming or harsh. For Machiavelli, successful leadership involves a delicate relationship between balanced and carefully meted cruelty (only when circumstances demand it), careful diplomacy, and attention to the idea of his or her glory.
In reviewing this text, it is impossible, even after a few successive readings of important sections, to gain a perfect understanding of what kind of leader would exist if he were forged from the advice in this book. One could imagine that he would be aggressive, untrustworthy, self-serving, and manipulative of course, but it might not be that simple. Machiavelli makes it a point to discuss how a leader with such bad characteristics could still be viewed as respectable and possessing the quality of virtu or glory as well. By looking at history and identifying certain rulers who did or did not fit this mold he created, Machiavelli shows that the best leaders in history were not those who were criminals or overly and unnecessarily cruel. Instead, the best leaders were those who practiced cruel or evil acts as a matter of necessity rather than because their positions allowed it. The idea of glory that he discusses becomes the yardstick by which a great ruler is measured, not how feared he was by his subjects or enemies.
Other essays and articles in the Main Archives related to this topic include : Feared Versus Loved: An Analysis of The Prince by Machiavelli
References
[1] Machiavelli, N, The Prince (New York: Penguin Books, 1961), 97.
[2] Tarlton, Charles D. 2003. ‘Azioni in modo l’una dall’ altra’: action for action’s sake in Machiavelli’s The Prince. History of European Ideas 29, no. 2:123.
[3] Machiavelli, Prince,67.
[4] Berridge, G.R. 2001. Machiavelli: human nature, good faith, and diplomacy. Review of International Studies 27, no. 4:539.
[5] Machivelli, Prince, 62.
[6] Ibid 61
