Not only a crafty political theorist but a fervent observer of human character, Niccolo Machiavelli is perhaps one of the most famous figures during the Renaissance. This places him into an exclusive position to debate what part the populace should be entrusted with in republican politics. Within his two most famous and leading writings, The Prince and The Discourses, Machiavelli portrays his mentality towards the populace and nobility. More applicable to this query is his latter publishing, as it relates mainly to republics. On the other hand, The Prince is interested with the establishment and change of a state through the course of a single man. It will be seen that the populace execute an essential function and significantly assist Machiavelli’s …show more content…
ideal republic. This essay will outline Machiavelli’s design of republican governance, analyze both the strengths and weaknesses of the people based on his works and deduce as to the level to which they can support his ideal. It will be shown that through the populace a republic can gain and maintain liberty. Through the analysis of Machiavelli’s two writings, one can achieve an exact comprehension of the Florentine’s ideal constitutional groundwork and the institutional plans which coincide with it. By doing this, his approach towards the plebes and what positions they should fill could also be deduced. Shown in The Prince, is a quite pessimistic and negative view of humanity and the insistence on control and security, provides a manual to hopeful princes and trumpets the advantages of monarchies. The Discourses shows Machiavelli’s honest political beliefs when he says a properly governed republic is desirable over a principality or any other version of government. By stating this, Machiavelli alludes to traditional constitutions selected by Aristotle, Polybius and Cicero which consist of principalities, aristocracies, democracies, and their other equivalents. Just like Cicero, Machiavelli decides a combined constitution is the optimal form since a republic would be stronger and more durable if, “there was principality, aristocracy and democracy, each would keep watch over the other,” sort of like a checks and balances system which is present in America today. To Machiavelli, “The blending of these estates made a perfect commonwealth.” Each form of governments strength’s complimented the others weakness. The prince, nobles and the populace all have a role to play in the theater of republican government. The Prince has a specific role to play and that is in times of emergency either to construct a republic from inadequacy or to rehabilitate it from corruption. When laws are not enough, it becomes a necessity to possess some sort of monarch who has absolute power. He must exercise it when needed and restrain it as to not become corrupt. To Machiavelli, only on person can completely transform a form of government and when necessary he must have full authority to do so. Machiavelli bases his model of the prince off Lycurgus when he assigned specific functions to both the nobility and the people and, “thus introduced a form of government which lasted for more than eight hundred years.” Seen here is the exact type of government Machiavelli wishes to install. However, there remains a problem in every society between the nobles and the plebes, specifically the interactions between the groups. Within every republic there exists two distinct tendencies. Machiavelli writes, “that of the populace and that of the upper class.” Their aims are drastically different since the populace does, “not want to be dominated or oppressed by the nobles, and the nobles want to dominate and oppress the people.” Machiavelli contrasts all other previous notions and suggests that this is in fact a good thing. He writes that this shaky synergy and the resulting tensions are in fact not only beneficial to the republic but impact it in a positive aspect. Despite the fact that this clash will lead to hostility between the two classes, “all legislation favorable to liberty is brought about by the clash between them.” In fact according to Machiavelli this same occurrence in ancient Rome led to, “laws and institutions whereby the liberties of the public benefited.” This radical idea asserts that these tensions led to beneficial laws in society, leading to a favorable education and finally resulting in a pristine example of civilization. Therefore it can be seen that this inner conflict between nobility and the populace is the dynamic cause for the advancement of society and security of liberty. There are different ways the nobles and plebs contribute to this theory however. Machiavelli’s dislike towards the nobles in his writings is not hidden whatsoever. He sees them as a plague on humanity since they are not only greedy and selfish but prefer to dominate and put their own welfare over the common people. The views he has towards the common people become vivid and in addition to this, Machiavelli writes a more practical reason as to why the plebes should be entrusted with more power. In his view, the question which arises is whether to preserve the current situation or try to spread its influence. The former is destined to fail because humanity is, “ever in a state of flux and cannot stand still.” Seen from this is that the only way a republic can persevere is to broaden its horizons. Only the Roman constitution allows such an act, therefore the tensions between the nobility and the populace must be tolerated. Expansionism requires a strong and trained army. Machiavelli sees auxiliaries and mercenaries as futile and at times even threatening, “for they are disunited, ambitious, undisciplined, and treacherous…they have no fear of God, and do not maintain commitments with men.” The only other choice left is to turn to the people. A republic should want to, “have a large population and to provide it with arms so as to establish a great empire.” Now that the consideration of people within the constitutional plan has been dealt with, we must turn to the strengths and weaknesses of the people as a political body. the characteristics presented will uncover the amount that people can actually engage within the republic. Found within The Prince is a quote by Machiavelli that explains the nature of men. He writes, “ungrateful, fickle, feigners and dissemblers, avoiders of danger, eager for gain.” To Machiavelli, people not only require authority, but they can also be led astray. Just like a chicken, a crowd is useless without a head according to Machiavelli. A leader who is capable of proper direction and can lead his people toward a greater cause is considered to be the epitome of leaders to Machiavelli. To him there is nothing weaker than an unorganized mass. People derive their power from being unified and led. Another point can be seen here and that is the fact which the populace are simple-minded and easily fooled. The populace makes decisions and bases them on the popular opinion. Machiavelli thinks people can not see the hidden dangers within ambitious schemes and simply praise their courage. Therefore, common people should not be given positions of authority within the republic as they can easily be persuaded into making destructive policies. The populace cannot be architects of the government nor can they take any action, however they are able to preserve at what has already been founded. Although the common people are forbidden from selected positions in the republic, its does not prevent them from total cooperation. Even after these weaknesses are shown, Machiavelli still show hope in the common people.
He writes, “the populace is more prudent, more stable, and of sounder judgement than the prince.” He believes the weaknesses listed are only applicable to those masses which are not governed by laws. This leads to the conclusion that, “any body of men one cares to select may be blamed, and especially princes.” No inferiorities lie within the people than do with the prince and the only reason the populace is subject to such brutal critique is because, “ speak ili without fear and openly, even when the populace is ruling. But of princes people speak with the utmost trepidation and the utmost reserve.” Machiavelli believes the populace is actually sincere and their requirements, “are very seldom harmful to liberty.” Although a populace may be naive, they are competent enough to comprehend the truth and do not make mistakes on purpose. The populace in general are more appreciative and therefore are the better choice for an elected office. Machiavelli has two examples of this when the people could have elected one of their own yet chose a noble due to his talent instead. The people in general are better at ensuring liberty, expanding domains and permitting a republic to
thrive. All points and topics covered lead to only one conclusion. Machiavelli states this when he writes a, “government by the populace is better than government by princes.” With the proper amount of leadership that can grow from the support of its people, a populace is preferred over a principality that relies on fear. This type of state would endure longer and easily adjust to the changing political climate. Machiavelli believes this fact deserves to be placed within his perfect constitution. Disposition plays a key role when assigning positions to the people within a republic as they do not have the virtu, features or capability to create a government. However, “if princes are superior to populaces in drawing up laws, codes of civic life, statutes and new institutions, the populace is so superior in sustaining what has been instituted, that it indubitably adds to the glory of those who have instituted them.” The state must be create by an omnipotent prince who will then give control to the people which will preserve the institution. Therefore it is required that conditions are favorable for people to actively participate in the government. Seen from this evidence and facts, is that people are the driving force in a republic. People in fact are more important than the prince in some ways since they require little but can contribute a whole lot more. They are the guardians of liberty and promote a strong and healthy society. Although Machiavelli believes a government cannot solely rely on the populace, the common people in his opinion play a pivotal role. Without them, a government is destined to become a tyranny or crumble beneath itself.
Machiavelli’s, “The Prince” is the ideal book for individuals intending to both govern and maintain a strong nation. Filled with practical advice, he includes numerous religious references to support his claims. He devotes a chapter within the book to speak about the ancient founders of states. In the chapter called, “On new principalities that are acquired by one’s own arms and by virtue”, Machiavelli discussed the importance of a prince to have their own talent in governing a nation, rather than having relied on fortune to rule. The latter is a risk no leader should take and he cited past leaders as a guide for both the current and future princes.
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity, when a state is in need of its citizens, there are few to be found.” In his writings in The Prince, he constantly questioned the citizens’ loyalty and warned for the leaders to be wary in trusting citizens. His radical and distrusting thoughts on human nature were derived out of concern for Italy’s then unstable government. Machiavelli also had a s...
Niccolò Machiavelli was a man who lived during the fourteen and fifteen hundreds in Florence, Italy, and spent part of his life imprisoned after the Medici princes returned to power. He believed that he should express his feelings on how a prince should be through writing and became the author of “The Qualities of a Prince.” In his essay, he discusses many points on how a prince should act based on military matters, reputation, giving back to the people, punishment, and keeping promises. When writing his essay, he follows his points with examples to back up his beliefs. In summary, Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of a Prince,” provides us with what actions and behaviors that a prince should have in order to maintain power and respect.
Machiavelli's realization of the penultimate import of the people is probably most significant reason his book holds so much influence on realpolitik. He writes, "it is essential for a prince to possess the good will and affections his people, otherwise he will be utterly without support in time of adversity." (Chapter 9). Clearly, Machiavelli understands the source of power within a princely republic lay with the people, whom the prince must constantly court. No other political philosopher before him had ever given much significance to those being governed. The reason that Machiavelli felt that the subjects were vital to the prince maintaining his rule was because the implications of earning the hatred and ill will of the people are dire for the political future of both the state and the prince. Of the two sources of attack the prince must fear, one is a conspiracy from within inspired by the hatred of the people (Chapter 19). Additionally, the prince must be aware that actions of his intermediaries can reflect upon himself. That is, if his army is cruel and brutish towards the people, the people will turn their hatred upon the prince, who is seen to tacitly condone the actions of the army. ...
In recent history, the last fifty years or so, modern businessmen and politicians have given Machiavelli a Renaissance of his own. Professional politicians have written novels they claim to be on the same philosophical level of Machiavelli’s The Prince. Gary Hart, in his book The Patriot: An Exhortation to Liberate America From the Barbarians attempts to update Niccolo to the modern age with his own political philosophies, and attempts to credit Machiavelli by quoting him frequently. “Hart makes an effort to mimic the form, if not the spirit, of the most famous work by his Florentine ‘mentor.’…There is a dedicatory le...
For all of Machiavelli’s ruthlessness and espousal of deceit, he knew the value of authenticity and relying on his administration. A true leader cannot achieve greatness alone. Machiavelli says that the prince is the state, and the state is the prince. This means that whatever vision and principles the leader holds in the highest regard, they must be known to the state so that they can be realized. He believed that no matter how a prince was elected, his success would depend largely on his ministers. Collaboration between a prince and ministers would create an atmosphere of harmony and camaraderie, highly reducing the chances of rebellion. Without the support and cooperation of the people, military action is not possible, expansion is not possible and most importantly, governance is not possible. If a leader does not satisfy the needs of the people, they have the power to overthrow him through strength in numbers. Thus, a leader depends just as much on the people as they do on him. A leader must be able to convince the people to buy into his visio...
Machiavelli discusses assertive and bold ideas in “The Prince,” revealing his radical and courageous nature. His treatise is deceptively self-soliciting, because he disguises his extreme notions behind a veil of feigned expertise. His frank approach makes him appear confident and deserving of the utmost respect; however, he cautiously humbles himself by pouring immense flattery for the ruling prince into his work and, in doing so, assures protection for himself and his notorious ideas.
Machiavelli’s advice to princes directly correlated to his view on human nature. He believed that every common man was born evil and selfish. That did not stop him, however, from saying that humans many show instances when they exhibit generosity and wholeheartedness. He does tell princes, however, not to count on the few occurrences that may happen, and he says, “It is necessary to be a prince to know thoroughly the nature of the people, and one of the populace to know the nature of princes”. He is saying is that it is imperative that a prince knows the natural human nature, that each and every human will become more self-interested than interested in the good of the state. If he is ignorant to that fact, his kingdom/area of rule will deteriorate simply because he believes in the citizens that occupy it. He does believe, however, that with the right training, a human being can be molded (with the help of the state, of course) and he says, “Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many.” Although he believes that people cannot change themselves for the good, he does think that the state and military can shape humans for the better, but there will always be
Niccolò Machiavelli thoroughly discusses the importance of religion in the formation and maintenance of political authority in his famous works, The Prince and The Discourses. In his writing on religion, he states that religion is beneficiary in the formation of political authority and political leaders must support and endorse religion in order to maintain power. However, Machiavelli also critiques corrupt religious institutions that become involved in politics and in turn, cause corruption in the citizenry and divisions among the state. In the following essay, I will examine Machiavelli’s analysis of religion and discuss the relationship between religion and politics in Machiavelli’s thought.
In a work written by Machiavelli called The Prince, there are many ideas he believes should be part of a government. The United States today is a Federal Republic. This means that it is a “federation of states that have a republican form of government”. Being a republican government means that the power of the country lies with the people and their elected representatives. This essay will be tackling the topic of whether or not the ideas that Machiavelli stated should or should not be implemented into our own system of government today.
In the sixteenth century, there were three sets of socioeconomic statuses that one could acquire or be a part of, the clergy, the nobility, and the peasantry. The divide between these three generalized classes was far more complicated in reality that it seems, as socioeconomic classes consist of multiple branches. Nonetheless, it all essentially came down to two undeniable factions, the oppressors and the oppressed. Niccolo Machiavelli, being a mixture of the two due to his living situation while writing the book, gained a middle-ground which allowed him to achieve omnipotent intelligence that so many rulers normally lack, first hand experience of what it like to live both lives, one as a peasant and the other as a nobleman. This omnipotent
Written almost 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince” brings forward a new definition of virtue. Machiavelli’s definition argued against the concept brought forward by the Catholic Church. Machiavelli did not impose any thoughts of his own, rather he wrote from his experience and whatever philosophy that lead to actions which essentially produced effective outcomes in the political scene of Italy and in other countries. While Machiavelli is still criticized for his notions, the truth is that, consciously or subconsciously we are all thinking for our own benefit and going at length to achieve it. On matters of power where there is much to gain and a lot more to lose, the concept of Machiavelli’s virtue of “doing what needs to be done” applies rigorously to our modern politics and thus “The Prince” still serves as a suitable political treatise in the 21st century.
Niccolò Machiavelli wrote, in his novel The Prince, that strong central political leadership was more important than anything else, including religion and moral behavior. Machiavelli, writing during a period of dramatic change known as the Italian Renaissance, displayed attitudes towards many issues, mostly political, which supported his belief that strong government was the most important element in society. These attitudes and ideas were very appropriate for the time because they stressed strong, centralized power, the only kind of leadership that seemed to be working throughout Europe, and which was the element Italy was lacking. Machiavelli understood that obtaining such a government could not be done without separating political conduct and personal morality, and suggested that the separation be made. The Prince, written to the Medici family over five hundred years ago contained many truths, so universal and accurate that they still influence politics today.
Machiavelli’s The Prince was written more than 500 years ago and it is “one of the most influential and controversial books published in Western literature.” (Article A) It was about Machiavelli’s political philosophies and the basic principles of what he believes a politician or “prince” should be. The three main ideas of the Prince were “Liberality and Stinginess”, “Cruelty and Mercy: Is It Better to Be Loved Than Feared, or the Reverse?”, and “How a Prince Should Keep Their Promises” and for the most part many of his concepts should or are already instilled in our government.