Politics as Violence in Hobbes and Machiavelli - Coursework Example

Politics as Violence in Hobbes and Machiavelli Yvonne L. Academia Research This paper examines the political philosophies of Hobbes and Machiavelli as theorists in terms of a politics and violence. Suggestively, both renowned theorists believed that politics is intrinsically associated with violence and that the very definition of politics is dependent on violent-based solutions to the political problems that they have examined. Other theories of renowned authors on the study are therefore relevant to challenge the veracity of both authors’ opinions. Introduction Freedom has afforded man the chance to exhibit ambiguity in individual tendencies that adequately serves the totalitarian system. With freedom man considers politics as his highest responsibility for his society stressing the significance of moral values and standards. With a variety of activities afforded by a new found freedom under shifting historical conditions, man starts behaving in morally questionable and dazzling explosion of human vice. Stressfully, political philosophy has provided answers to these behaviors as an approach to correct erring human behavior. However such means does not effect a certain change in a short period of time. Recognizing the increasing scope, intensity and sophistication of vices and crimes brought about by globalization, politics has approached violence as an aggressive means to attain a certain stature and the fastest solution to achieve political power and agenda that tends specifically recruit others to form a stronger criminal group. Government systems have learned to adapt to the controversial theories of Hobbes and Machiavelli who propagate violence to justify the swift solutions to the critical problems faced by a society. Such theories have a purposeful goal to control errant behavior; however veiled attempts to use such for one’s own political gain and selfish reassurance for maintenance of power would leave the society and the common populace struggling under a stringent dictatorial rule. Machiavelli and Hobbes on Violence Both Hobbes and Machiavelli have equated politics seemingly dependent on violence-based solutions to any socio-political situation encountered. Man and society’s struggle for survival, maneuvering for position and fighting over spoils (Lerner, 1950:11) has produced certain livid situations that call for the action of the one in power. In Machiavelli’s The Prince, proposes that stability was paramount and the government or ruler could achieve such balance should be tyrannical. Intensely singing praises to a character of power is depicted to his well-emphasized Prince. Machiavelli astoundingly adhered that “a Prince is much better to be feared than loved” (Machiavelli, 2002: 96). It is asserted that the fear of punishment and the punisher will provoke a sense of adherence to the laws commended by a certain ruler in a government or in an organization. Following the dictates of nature impartially Machiavelli suggestively believes that the ruler’s objectives come first. Although morally a leader to him stands and acts in a preferably acceptable manner and virtue, under no circumstances should anything stand against the achievement of his objective. Such ideas are an “infringement by the plea of an unavoidable necessity” (Meinecke, 1957:85). In a cast iron necessity (Meinecke: 85) the maintenance of supremacy in a government where fortune and circumstance dictate and with Machiavelli’s huge contempt for secular democracy (Stauss, 1958:40) the ruler is therefore believed to “know how to do evil when necessity commands” (Machiavelli, 2000: p.101). Further, in a society where ruthless behaviour and vices abounds, the methods that preach war as a counter-defense of the state against the barbaric behavior of the population shall be treated as potential threats to power. Hobbes, concerned with the structure of the society under the control of a strong central government believes that civil war as a form of change can be averted by the people’s “adherence to a sovereign power” (Hobbes 1996: xiv, p.4). Placing low condition and worth for human beings as individuals, Hobbes believe that man are prone to crime that “even the strongest must sleep; even the weakest might persuade others to help him kill another” (Leviathan, xiii.1-2). Picturing man as vulnerable and easily led astray by undue influence, man may act as selfishly of impulsively in ignorance that much of our freedom “depends on the silence of the laws” (Hobbes, 1996: xxi.p.18). Unsurprisingly, Strauss believed that the inherently aggressive nature of human beings could only be restrained by a powerful nationalistic state. Unity can only be achieved by strong governance that needs to be established (Strauss, 1958 p. 42) as man’s fate and peaceful life depend under his perceived savior of an authoritarian sovereign; otherwise if all else fails, man resorts to the “advantages of war and the state of violence” (Hobbes, 1996: xiv p.4) before any constant threat will be minimized. Gaining ideas from Strauss who is both Machiavellian and Hobbes fanatic, world order will envision a neo-conservative relationship with the rest of the world where liberalism and democracy is of no value. Violence and punishment perpetrated by power, controls and determines the behavior of a ruthless society with an iron hand. Strauss has equated both theorists’ relation into biblical traditions where unarmed prophets necessarily fail. Machiavelli and Hobbes on State legitimacy With patriotic sovereignty Hobbes and Machiavelli were both juxtaposed in their ideas of saving the fatherland, putting aside every other consideration to follow out to the end to preserve the life of the state and its freedom through their own separate ideas (Meinecke, 1957: p.86). As men’s inclination to a state of war against each other and with all other men, war never ceases unless, “they are forced to do so by a greater power than themselves” (Hobbes 1996: 199). With a powerful stance Hobbes, in Leviathan described the role and nature of a government as the sovereign who has the right to tell people what needs to be done. Applicably, the stature of modern era has the same proportions to the time applied in Hobbes and Machiavelli although the scale is probably is much grander. Strong men have come forward using the rhetoric of mass interest and national glory to entrench their class (Lerner, 1950; 11). The power being given to the sovereign ensures that men are ruled in such a way that they are forced to respect and follow a certain contract that contemporary society could relate to laws to maintain peace and order within a society whose natural instinct is to degenerate into war. Incidentally, Machiavelli suggests the same idea using the concept of fortune and power as the state’s relationship with violence and extending power and imperialism to prevent break-up of nations (Lerner, 1960: p.11). He has noted that adversity is an opportunity under a situation of disguise and that the ambitious man who strives to attain and secure this to his benefit. Hobbes’ idea on human nature is akin to Machiavelli’s blatant claims of man as “completely and inherently self-interested and self-serving” (Bass, 1990:p.134) and that at length the leader-follower relationship is the best solution. Consequently, a sovereign power in exercise of his right according to Hobbes’ should allow a state of war for the implementation of self-preservation and thereby is maintained as the best course of action (Skinner, 1958: p 222). Strauss (1958) also believed that the inherently aggressive nature of human beings could only be restrained by a powerful nationalistic state and such governance can only be united against other people. Machiavelli and Hobbes on Ethical Issues Hobbes believed that self-preservation is a right and thereby a law in itself. Warrender argued that if self-preservation is a right, it could not be related as a natural law to seek peace if one is free to protect oneself (Warrender, 1957). Hobbes generally believed that man needs to obey God’s instruction threatens man’s survival, man is entitled to plead his natural right to self-preservation. Machiavelli’s dualistic spiritualism maintains structural ideas about the difference between good and evil but idealized the naturalistic ethic and the dictates of nature (Meinecke, 1957: 81). Further, Machiavelli’s concept of maintaining favor with followers “as a Prince best secures himself when he escapes being hated or despised, and keeps on good terms with his people” (Machiavelli, 1992: p. 48) is a basic message that leaders must surround themselves with loyal followers such as cronies and be cautious of the ones in opposition as a rule of ethics. Kraft maintained that morality for the Prince and Machiavelli is not inexplicable but rather a calculated ruse (Kraft, 1951: 117). Religion has provoked criticism of both Hobbes and Machiavelli with the latter championing the more atheistic views according to the Christian churches. Machiavelli and Hobbes on Political Issues Hobbes theory is equated with third world countries in Africa, Asia and South America whose government systems stands some corruption which becomes a norm, and produce crippling effects to the economy. Despite society behaving in a civilized manner compared the Hobbes’ and Machiavelli’s time, the daily political exercise is as equally unprincipled and as vicious. No matter how the state tries to combat corruption, but when corruption has started at the highest echelons of the society, the efforts for a better system and monopolies can never extend beyond its domain. Keeping power as a form of politics for Machiavelli was the end itself. Potential threats to power are best exterminated and powerful outsiders who try to unseat the power must face equal wrath. In his terms, through the ambition of fear, (Machiavelli, 1513: p. 5) a powerful figure “should act as protector of his weaker neighbors and seek to weaken those who are stronger”. The first lesson for leaders is that despite the methods by which a person becomes a leader, there are many skills involved in maintaining that leadership. Bass (1990) calls Machiavelli “an early situationalist...giving different advice to the prince about how to deal with acquired political states, depending on whether the states were culturally or politically similar or different from his own” (p. 135). In addition, Machiavelli discusses the leader-follower relationship at length. Of chief concern is maintaining favor with followers as Machiavelli states, “a Prince best secures him when he escapes being hated or despised, and keeps on good terms with his people” (Machiavelli, 1513, p. 48). His basic message is that leaders must surround themselves with loyal followers and be cautious of those who are in opposition. According to Bass (1990), Machiavelli’s advice is that “strong, ruthless, and cynical leadership is required of the prince because people are completely and inherently self-interested and self-serving”(p. 134). The second lesson for leaders, and a much less popular viewpoint, is that to maintain leadership there comes a time when those who are in opposition must be eliminated. In Machiavelli’s time, that meant physical destruction. Taking a less harmful view of this idea, it suggests that when a person’s negativity or incompetence inhibits the leader’s ability to create change, that person must be dealt with. Bass upholds that while most people will not admit it, they closely associate leadership with power and “the use of Machiavellian tactics is probably...widespread” (p. 139). Hobbes’ natural rights proposed man’s natural right to act in any way and proclaims that “what is done out of necessity, in the interest of peace and one’s own preservation is done rightly”(Hobbes in Skinner,1996:p.226). While Machiavelli’s ultimate purpose was the entrenchment of the government that would last without any vision which it has sought to accomplish; this inevitably restricts the degree of correlation between Hobbes and Machiavelli’s Theory. Essentially, both rulings under a fifteenth century principality in Europe in many respects are somewhat different to a twentieth century western democracy despite random practice of such. Limitations and Differences in the two theories Unlike Hobbes, Machiavelli seems more interested in the political power that has attained fame and greatness (Curtis, 1981). Keeping power at every means for Machiavelli was the end itself. Leadership capabilities are considered the successful in their political conquests with the use of force that rarely endangers them (Chapter VI, par 6). Machiavelli also believes that war is a better system of managing one’s problems than religion. Having pointed out the similarities, one must conclude by stating that there are more differences than similarities between the two thinkers. They may be delineated as follows: 1. Machiavelli’s very foundation of thought is different from that of Hobbes. While Hobbes meant the natural state and the laws of nature to be hypothetical constructs that allowed him to work out his epistemology and his system of law, Machiavelli really did seem to believe that there was an essential sense of justice in the fact that individuals could propagate violence to become political leaders. 2. Hobbes’ system is based on a religious epistemology, whereas Machiavelli’s is founded on a political, amoral one: Machiavelli rarely involves an emulation of God or heaven as a strategy to develop his system of law, whereas these are essential to Hobbes’ formulation of a philosophy of law. 3. Overall, Hobbes’ system advocates monarchy instead of democracy, whereas Machiavelli’s system may be seen as authoritarian system that is governed as well as constructed by a single ruling individual, rather than through a system of common consent among the people of a state. While both philosophers oppose anarchy, they do so in fundamentally different ways. Hobbes’ system is essentially moralistic, decreeing that there is a need to obey God’s laws without question; Machiavelli’s system however, is more liberal that has actually painted him as an atheist, suggesting that any individual who has the courage and the determination to appropriate power for him has the authority to use violence to justify his means. At the end of Leviathan, Hobbes has given us an idea that governments have invariably been foisted upon society for force or fraud (Durant, 1953:207). He has defended any government who has sincerely brought peace where everyone acts out in a contract with the exception of the sovereign authority. Conclusion In conclusion, Machiavelli has given us important messages that study the patterns of leadership today. Machiavelli’s ambition was power in itself as the end while Hobbes’ uses the aid of several factors including power to attain peace and unity. Despite fear on Machiavelli’s intensity, work continues to be studied to today as an early model of successful leadership and while the violent tactics employed in the 1500s are not relevant in American society, many are still being practiced some countries. Critics would even correlate the current incidents and the Middle East war as a global Machiavellian technique. With the advent of information communications technology it is possible for leaders to operate in sophisticated networks that is held vital to faster dissemination of recruits that commit loyalty to the leader. Equally, such mode may be used to dispel any dictatorial rule. Hobbes’ has given us a dream state where peaceful coexistence is one of the greatest goods of human life. In him we see the moral force behind the laws and requirements of the state, simply because human beings do indeed need authority and systems of enforcement if they are to cooperate peacefully. It is however not enough because human judgment is weak and faulty. Our main concern will however dwell on how effectively governments will divide power between government and people and command peacefully adjudication in this modern era of technology. Bibliography Akers, Ronald L. (1991). Self-Control as a General Theory of Crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 7.(2):201–11. Hobbes, T. 1996, Leviathan. Ed. J. C. A. Gaskin. Oxford: University Press. Bass, B. M. 1990, Handbook of leadership 3rd ed. New York: The Free Press. Machiavelli, N. 1992, The Prince. Toronto: Dover Publications, Inc. Durant, Will. 1953, The Story of Philosophy. New York: Washington Square Press. Curtis, Michael. 1981, The Great Political Theories, vol. 2. USA: Avon Books. Skinner, Q. 1978, The Foundations of modern political thought. Volume 2: The Age of Reformation. London: Cambridge Univ. Skinner, Quentin. 1996, Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes. London: Cambridge Univ. Strauss, Leo. 1958, Thoughts on Machiavelli. Illinois: The Free Press. Meinecke, Friedrich. 1957, Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d Etat and its Place in Modern History, Translated by Douglas Scott. New Haven: Yale University. Lerner, Max. 1950, The Prince and the Discourses of Machiavelli. USA: Random House. Croce, Benedetto. 1960, Elements of Politics, edited by De Lamar Jensen. Boston: D. C. Heath. p 13-16. Warrender, Howard. 1957, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes.UK: Oxford University. Kraft, Joseph. 1951, Truth and Poetry in Machiavelli. Journal of Modern History, XXII. Read More