Machiavelli and Passion for Politics - Case Study Example

Machiavelli and passion for politics “When evening comes, I return home and go to my study. On the threshold, I strip naked, taking off my muddy, sweaty work day clothes, and put on the robes of court and palace, and, in this graver dress, I enter the courts of the ancients, and am welcomed by them, and there I taste the food that alone is mine, and for which I was born. And there I make bold to speak to them and ask the motives of their actions, and they, in their humanity, reply to me. And for the space of four hours I forget the world, remember no vexation, fear poverty no more, tremble no more at death; I pass indeed into their world.” (University of Berkeley) This is how Niccolo Machiavelli described, in the letter to Francesco Vettori, his daily life after he was exiled from Florence following accusations brought against him by the Medici in 1513. This passage shows how passionate Machiavelli was about politics and how much it meant to him to be denied the opportunity to utilize it. The works While out of mercy with the Medici family Machiavelli wrote his two major works- The Prince in 1513 and Discourses on Livy in 1517. In the first Machiavelli concentrates on the possibility of a "new prince". To stay in power, the hereditary prince must maintain the socio-political institutions to which the people are accustomed. On the other hand, a new prince has the more difficult task, since he must first stabilize his new power in order to build an enduring political structure. (The Prince) That requires the prince being concerned with reputation but also being willing to act immorally. As a political scientist, Machiavelli emphasizes the occasional need for brute force and deceit. In the second, he presents how a republic should be started and structured. Discourses more openly explain the advantages of republics and assert the superiority of a republic over a principality. And while the two seem to be quite opposite, in essence they are similar in many aspects. In both books Machiavelli discusses political corruption, tries to explain it and tries to establish ways to remedy it. Corruption As Carl Friedrich writes in his article “Corruption Concepts in Historical Perspective” in Arnold Heidenheimer‘s book “Political Corruption: Concepts and Context“, for Machiavelli corruption was the process by which the virtue of the citizen was undermined and eventually destroyed. Machiavelli contents that since most men are weak and lacking virtue of the good citizen, the process of corruption is always in motion and always threatens the society. If and when virtue has been corrupted there has to be a new leader, a heroic one, who will rebuild the political order while infusing his own virtue into all the citizens. “Thus, writes Friedrich, “ the miserable creatures that human beings ordinarily are or become when not properly guided are thereby transformed into patriotic citizens, capable of sacrifice, self-exertion and other patriotic values.” (Heidenheimer 2002) Machiavelli, however, in Discourses warns that such a heroic man must and cannot be Caesar as he criticized him as one of the worst figures in Roman history “for he destroyed the venerable Roman constitution instead of regenerating it.”( Discourses) Corruption and religion When looking for reasons on corruption in society, Machiavelli contends that corruption proceeds from a decline in religious observance and marches toward liberty itself. In that light, he calls upon princes and their republics to, above everything, maintain incorrupt the ceremonies of religion. They should hold them always in veneration, for there cannot be a better indication of the decline of a country than to see divine worship neglected. Neglect of divine worship and the lack of fear of God causes the republic to become a ruin, causes its citizens to be unable to perform deeds of courage and makes them incapable of obeying the laws and civility. The remedy for all of the above, according to Machiavelli, is a prince who would be able to instill fear in the hearts of his subjects, at the same time infusing virtues into others. (Prince 17) The Paradox This remedy, however, is a paradox, an oxymoron in itself. When Machiavelli talks about a prince to instill fear, a leader to use brute force and deceit, he reveals a complicated issue of contrasting virtues a good leader should have. He presents us with a dilemma, one that juxtaposes acts of violence by a prince to attain power and acts of good when rebuilding a political life in a state. Machiavelli himself is aware that very rarely there would be a good man ready to use bad methods with a good end in mind. Because of this belief expressed in The Prince, Machiavelli is often portrayed as a villain especially when he claims that reprehensible actions may be justified by their effects. He, openly writes, that “when the effect is good it always justifies the action”. (Prince) The problem arising here is a complex one. Machiavelli says that no matter what idealistic notions a leader adopted as principles of private morality, there is no guarantee that other people will follow them. That puts the honorable or virtuous individual at a disadvantage in the real world. “In order to achieve success in public life, the ruler must know precisely when and how to do what no good person would ever do.”(Prince) Machiavelli supposed, the ruler needs to “acquire a good reputation while actually doing whatever wrong seems necessary in the circumstances.” (Prince 18) How corruption tears the fabric of a state Maurizio Viroli in his aptly titled book “Machiavelli” analyzes in depth Machiavelli’s description of influence corruption has on a society. “Corruption, writes Viroli, is a disease that penetrates the fabric of collective life and perverts the citizens’ good judgment on honor and glory.” (Viroli 2000) To support this claim he cites another Machiavelli’s work, Florentine Histories written at the very end of his life. The passage describes the state of the city of Florence given from a standpoint of an anonymous citizen. “The young are lazy, the old lascivious; both sexes at every age are full of foul customs, for which good laws, because they are spoiled by wicked us, are no remedy. From this grows the avarice that is seen in our citizens and the appetite, not for true glory, but for the contemptible honors in which hatreds, enmities, differences and sects depend; and from these arise deaths, exiles, persecution of the good, exaltation of the wicked. “ (Florentine Histories) Viroli, also, sums up Machiavelli’s views by saying that the corruption that destroys civil life is the corruption of the customs, of the habits of citizens and one that creates the state of absence of virtue in the state. (Viroli 2000) Laws as remedy Machiavelli always clearly distinguished and contrasted a civil and free way of living with tyranny. For him, in a political, civil life the law rules over men, and all men for that matter. In the corrupt republic, thus being a tyranny, the good laws are neglected and disobeyed. There, we will find neither laws nor institutions checking widespread corruption. Such a place has no true civic friendships, no mutual trust and a few good, unspoiled men are blamed as fools. The corrupt way is seen as a common path. Machiavelli strongly believed that a free and civil community must be well ordered. His personal experience influenced this view, as he witnessed the city of Florence being in a state of judicial chaos at times. The city frequently passed ad hoc statutes to protect ruling gropus and families, openly disregarding existing laws. Although Machiavelli advocated protection of legal rights of all citizens, including the elite, he finds this very disturbing and unacceptable. In Discourses, he talks, at length, about examples from Roman history where he concludes that Roman republic, especially in the early period, did not hesitate to strictly punish those outside the norms and regulations. Machiavelli asserts that strict consequences, including executions, kept people living in fear of punishment. When laws softened, and remedies became less severe, men began to break the laws and became corrupt. (Discourses) Viroli, illustrates this by giving the example of Brutus whom Machiavelli considered to be the father of Roman liberty. Brutus exerted great virtues for common good when his own sons were accused of conspiracy against the state. He sat on a tribunal that judged them, he, himself condemned them, and stoically watched their execution. (Viroli 2000) These kinds of men, that are completely devoted to the common good and in no way affected by their private ambition, are for Machiavelli ideal to be magistrates and defend the law. Military discipline Machiavelli saw military discipline as a good way to protect the state from corruption. He goes as far as to say that “the main foundations of all states are good laws and good armies.” (The art of War 1520) It is impossible to have good laws if good armies are lacking, thus if there are good armies there must also be good laws. Machiavelli advocated military discipline often, opposing the common point that military and civic life do not go together. For him, a republic that trains citizens in military discipline, but don’t allow them to actually practice it in a war, is successful in keeping corruption to a minimum. His advice to a well ordered republic is to use warfare training in times of peace for exercise and in times of war for glory. Summary A passionate man for politics, Machiavelli devoted most of his life, first to public service, and then, to writing about a perfect leader and a perfect state. His work was a result of the Renaissance ideas of humanism and return to classical values of antiquity. When talking about corruption as a source of evil in the society he delved into complex material and, often times, found himself having to explain the paradox of a good leader and what it takes to be one. He is primarily interested in practical approach, as he did not try to explain how a hereditary prince should rule. He strived to describing a possibility of a new prince, one that will have contrasting characteristics of good and bad. As mentioned before this attempt caused him trouble in many ways - the church placed The Prince on the list of prohibited books, many humanists, including Erasmus, questioned his ethics, and his “new prince” description entered dictionaries as a pejorative term under Machiavellianism. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, Machiavellianism is "the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct". (Oxford English Dictionary) Machiavelli did manage to offer some possible remedies for corruption of the society. He called for fear of God, military discipline and hoped for a leader that would instill fear into citizens and infuse his virtues and morality at the same time. References Niccolo Machiavelli. The Art of War. 1520. Da Capo Press 2001. Niccolo Machiavelli. The Prince. 1513. London 1961. Penguin Niccolo Machiavelli. Discourses on Livy. 1517. London 2003. Penguin Niccolo Machiavelli. Florentine Histories. 1988. Princeton University Press. Arnold J. Heidenhemier. Political Corruption: Concepts and Context. 2002. Transaction Publishers. New Jersey. Maurizio Viroli. Machiavelli. 2000. Oxford University Press. New York. Philosophy Pages. www.philosophypages.com Retrieved March 9, 2011 from http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/3v.htm Berkeley University. www.berkeley.edu Retrieved March 9, 2011 from http://econ161.berkeley.edu/politics/vettori.html Oxford English Dictionary. www.oed.com Read More