The phrase "Machiavellian way" is referred to as the crucial dirty political
act or movement in the present biblical world. However, it was derived
from the name of Niccolo Machiavelli, the author of "The Prince", which
probably was the first organized and influential political document in
history.
Niccolo Machiavelli was born on May 3, 1469, in Florence, Italy (1). He
eventually became a man who lived for politics and patriotism, although
now he is associated with corrupt, totalitarian government. His main political
observation in his youth was King Savanarola from a distance. After Savanarola's
fall, he entered the Florentine government as a secretary. He received
promotion promptly for his efficiency and talent and soon was engaged in
diplomatic missions. "After the republic fell in 1512, he was jailed for
a month and tortured as a suspect in an assassination plot"(4). He was
deeply inspired by the prince of Papal States, Cesare Borgia. Although
he did not like the cruelty of Borgia, he concluded in prince, that in
order to unite Italy entirely under one strong ruler, the political strategy
of Borgia was very effective. In fact, the characteristics described in
the book "The Prince" was reflections of Borgia's ruling, according to
his keen observation. He described that basic human instinct is selfish
and savage. So, a leader of such a crowd must be the most devious and ruthless,
thus people will be obligated to gather under his reign by fear and because
of their weaknesses. Machiavelli suggested that once unity was formed,
and people came to realize the advantages of the current system, then they
would obey because of their own need and wellness. In "Discourses on Levy"
he illustrated his moral view point so far as the politics and government
are involved. He believed in justice, but emphasized on establishing justice
before enforcing it, so that other power or disobedience would not try
to effect or corrupt the law and order.
The motion whether Machiavelli was Machiavellian
or not could be examined into two different ways. Firstly, did he mean
precisely what he said in "The Prince"? I mean what was purpose of the
book and under what circumstances he wrote the book. As far as morality
issues are involved, Machiavelli’s "Discourse of Levy" reflects the purity
and divinity of his moral stands. Then the second argument would be even
if he meant what he said, does it conclude that he supported corrupt, ambitious,
totalitarian rule, where the end justified the means? "He was very patriotic
and wanted Italy to reach its full potential. While he did not support
the often immoral totalitarian rule of the Medici, he felt that by having
a position in government he could make it better"(2). Some wordings of
the writing could be harsh, yet he did it to make it convincible enough
to lead tyrant rulers of Medici family to proceed for a noble cause. As
in present times to convince people to join the Army, America uses different
types of approach depending on the individual. When one wants to continue
one's higher education, the motivation is college loan and opportunity.
Then when it's an emotional situation, the stimulus could be team work
or patriotism. If someone is just looking for a job, then how much it pays
or the medical benefits are the main focus. So, for Machiavelli, when the
Medici family was suspecting him for supporting the republic, he had to
make a disguised representation of his thoughts.
I consider those people, who relate Machiavelli with political corruption,
as uneducated (of course I don't mean college degree here...), immature,
and short sighted. Machiavelli never deceived anybody; he just tried to
expose the material truth of life. Any politician has to follow some of
the tactics Machiavelli described in his books up to certain degree. If
we analyze any ruler on earth ever, we will come to the conclusion that
he/she at least once acted in a Machiavellian way. If we can't find some
proof of such actions about some one, that really doesn't make one innocent
of the charge. Logic is if I were a ruler, and I had gone through some
of those strategies, would I be honest and dim-witted enough to share it
with my subjects?
The word "Slave" may be offending to some people as it reminds us of inhumane
slave traders and their tyrant masters. Times have changed as well as the
society. So, we see slavery in a different form, with brand new appeal.
Do we call our employees slaves? No! Is there a basic difference so far
the idea of slave and master goes? Still, modern people wouldn't appreciate
such precision. They would rather blind themselves from the light and feel
good about themselves. The general idea is, since we don't like the idea
of slavery, and there's no way we could eliminate the term, we invent a
new way to deal with it. The people with good logic and strong mind would
not startle in these types of issues, because they know that there are
natural symbiotic relationships, like prey and predator, slave and master,
creator and creation. There's no way we could over throw this natural system.
What Machiavelli tried was to write about the natural laws of politics.
It was mistaken by the frail minded people. They didn't want to consider
themselves as pawns of Royalty, although they were.
Also, the Royal Family didn't appreciate him calling them the worst form
of beings (Machiavelli suggested that a Ruler could not rule evil minded
people, who are the majority, without exceeding their deceitfulness and
brutality), which in term could question their dedication to the citizens.
However, poor Niccolo was too straight forward to expose everything needed
to be done to achieve and stay in power. He didn't really suggest any new
crucial way to deal with politics. All he did was analyze the politicians
and came up with a blueprint. He thought that, his research and knowledge
about political principles would help the rulers to save time on resolving
things like, how they should act in certain situations, what effective
could be done in some alarming circumstances etc. The problem was, he didn't
realize that some act could seem quite reasonable in a situation, yet when
we imagine a fact far from reality, the logical approach might perhaps
seem as evil as it gets. As for example, I can never think of eating my
dad, doesn't matter how hungry I am; sounds pretty sane. However, think
of a scenario where my family is trapped in a cave with out any food, and
with no possible rescue, and the only hope we have is to dig our way out
of there. Suddenly my dad dies, and every body is staving for days with
no strength to move anymore. Won't you agree to consider using the only
possible source of food, which after a while would be rotten and produce
inescapable gas, even though it's the last thing somebody would do. For
those weak hearted "Moral" people, would you rather die and watch other
family members dying one by one than proceed with the only hope to survive
without hurting anyone? Depending on the morality and strength of minds
people will vary in their answers. However, any logical approach would
continue to do anything to survive in adverse nature. Machiavelli was just
writing about those types of situations and solutions in political affairs.
It's a natural mentality for people to over look their own flaws. Very
few portion of our population is capable of evaluating his/herself in a
just manner. In other words, we prefer not to talk about eating our dead
father for continued existence. So far as the iniquity drive we have in
us, lots of us wouldn’t mind killing our own relatives and eat in such
struggle. Probably everybody would do everything possible to stay alive,
although because of our conscious, we, civilized people would try to follow
the most convenient yet harmless process.
A little learning could be a very treacherous thing. People most of the
time have a tendency of judging a person or an opinion just by others’
comments. We could use Saloman Rusdi for example. He was and still is one
of the most wanted blasphemers of the Islamic region. His works have been
banned and destroyed in all Islamic theocracies and even in Muslim majority
countries. The irony is, I tried to get some information about what Rusdi
was trying to say, so, I enquired through different media and to some of
the major leaders of the motion of hanging Rusdi; they don't have any sort
of idea about Rusdi's writings, besides it was against Islamic belief....
In this civilization, what could be more degrading than to promote such
a biased eye view with complete ignorance of the matter? How literate was
the society during the 1500's? Therefore, can we call somebody evil because
some ancient misled crowd decided so? If we won't judge such stand point
with our own knowledge, then the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad would
never survive 'till today. Thus it's time that we realize that Machiavelli
was a true republic with deep patriotic passion. We should read "The
Prince" and analyze the embedded lesson in it, and then decide whether
he was a Machiavellian or even the term "Machiavellian" should continue
with such negative sense.
Rousseau in his book "The Social Contract" portrayed Machiavelli as "A
profound political thinker [who] has so far had only superficial or corrupted
readers (1968, p.118)"(5). He was not advocating corrupt, immoral totalitarian
rule, but a powerful ruler to give Italy stability and security. He was
condemned by the contemporary justice like Socrates was in Greece. He couldn't
pollute the mind of people with his book. What he was explaining, was taken
from real life examples and existed long before him and up until today.
If somebody thinks that, Machiavelli's work poisoned the minds of rulers
like Hitler, Mussolini etc. then I'm sorry for knowing their short sightedness.
The irony is, Machiavelli didn't succeed on his will. If he did, he would have been
considered as one of the greatest philosophers ever lived. When a person
makes revolutionary changes, history remembers him/her as a hero or a villain
relative to the success or failure. If we disregard the personal vengeance
of Hitler towards the Jews, I don't see any difference between him and
Napoleon....
*** If you like to receive a text
copy of translated version of "The Prince" by Machiavelli, please email
me at munna27@hotmail.com.
Works Cited:
1. Wood, Tim. The Renaissance. New York: Viking,
1993.
Online: http://www.ctbw.com/lubman.htm
2. Fry, David K., Machiavelli was not Machiavellian.
Online : http://www.bdp.it/~geir0001/aulabit/rosselli/italiano/machiavelli.html
3. O'Donnell, Michael, Was Machiavelli Machiavellian?
Online : http://pwaldron.bess.ted.ie/politics/02spr.htm
4. De Grazia, Sebastian. Machiavelli in Hell.
Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1989.
5. Rousseau, J.J., 1968: The Social Contract, London: Penguin.
