Niccolò Machiavelli's doctrine of state and politics

2024 Author: Henry Conors | [email protected]. Last modified: 2024-02-12 02:54

Niccolò Machiavelli was an Italian Renaissance philosopher and politician of the Republic of Florence, whose famous work The Prince earned him a reputation as an atheist and immoral cynic. In his work, he often resorts to "necessity" to justify actions that might otherwise be condemned. However, Machiavelli advises to act prudently in certain circumstances, and although he offers rules for rulers, he does not seek to establish universal political laws, as is typical of modern political science.

Basic concepts

The concept of "state" Machiavelli borrowed from the "Divine Comedy" by Dante Alighieri. There it is used in the sense of "state", "situation", "complex of phenomena", but not in the abstract sense that, from a semantic point of view, sums up various forms of government. With the Florentine thinker, the Danteian meaning is still present, but he was the first to make a semantic shift that made it possible to express political and ethnic forces, natural conditions and existing territory with subjective forces involved in the exercise of power, a complex of social powers andways to manifest them.

According to Machiavelli, the state includes people and means, that is, human and material resources on which any regime is based and, in particular, the system of government and a group of people who are in the service of the sovereign. With the help of such a realistic approach, the author defined the phenomenology underlying the genesis of the "new state".

Relations with subjects

Machiavelli's "New State" is directly related to his view of the "new sovereign". The Florentine thinker has in mind a category of politicians who differ in the way they interact with other people or social groups. Therefore, the relationship between the ruler and his subjects is of fundamental importance for understanding the ideas of the Florentine thinker. To understand how the sovereign acts to legitimize himself, you need to consider how he understands "justice", using the approach described in the dialogue of Socrates with the sophist Thrasymachus from Plato's "Republic".

Justice

Dialogue is dominated by two definitions of this concept. On the one hand, justice is that everyone gets what suits him. It also consists in doing good to friends and evil to enemies. Thrasymachus understands justice as “the interest of the stronger”, i.e. having power. In his opinion, it is the rulers who are the source of justice, their laws are fair, but they are adopted only in their interests to maintain their power.

Thrasimachus' approach is purely philosophical. On the other hand, Machiavellianalyzes the relationship between the sovereign and his subjects from a practical point of view. He does not try to define the concept of "justice", but is guided by a pragmatic view of "good". For the Florentine thinker, effective laws are adequate, just laws. And, as a logical consequence of this, the one who publishes them, the sovereign, is subject to the same system of evaluation. The difference between theory and practice is that the ruler establishes "justice" through the state. This is the difference between the sovereign Niccolò Machiavelli and the "tyrant" Thrasymachus.

The role of the ruler of the Florentine thinker is determined by the relationship between people and social groups. The position of the "tyrant" Thrasymachus differs in that in his case there are no such relations. There is only complete subordination of subjects to him.

The Florentine thinker did not write a treatise on tyranny. In the sovereign, he sees a model of someone who is able to save public life. He is a servant of politics.

Relations with the people

Machiavelli develops the theme of interaction between the ruler and the people. Since people want a lot but cannot achieve everything, in politics one should expect the worst, not the ideal.

Machiavelli views the state as a relationship between subjects and government, based on love and fear. From this idea comes an interesting concept called "consensus theory". The sovereign is part of society. But not any, but the ruling one. In order to govern, he must be legitimate and strong. The latter appears inhow he imposes his rule and asserts himself internationally. These are the necessary conditions if actions deriving from the legitimacy of a sovereign are to be implemented and applied.

But it is not an abstract element, it is part of politics, and this, according to Machiavelli, is the result of the relationship of authorities. The definition of "power" is important because it dictates the rules of the game.

Concentration of power

According to Machiavelli's theory of the state, the powers in it should be as concentrated as possible in order to avoid their loss as a result of individual and independent actions of people. Moreover, the concentration of power leads to less violence and arbitrariness, which is a basic principle of the rule of law.

In the historical context of central Italy at the beginning of the 16th century. this approach is a clear criticism of the feudal regime and the rule of the urban nobility or aristocratic oligarchy. The fact that noble parties recognized and accepted civil "rights" meant that people participated in political life, but not in the modern sense of the term, which only arose in 1789 after the revolution in France.

Legitimacy

When Machiavelli analyzes the "civil state", the principle of legitimacy is traced in the relations established between various forces in the political arena. However, it is significant that the author of the treatise considers the legitimacy that comes from the people to be much more important than the legitimacy of the aristocracy, since the latter wants to oppress, and the former only wants not to be.oppressed… The worst thing a ruler can expect from a hostile populace is to be abandoned by them.

Military force is the backbone of the state

The love of the people for the sovereign appears when he rules without oppression and maintains a balance with the aristocracy. To maintain power and impose this method of government, the ruler is forced to use force. Mainly military.

Machiavelli writes that if Moses, Cyrus, Theseus and Romulus were unarmed, they could not impose their laws for a long time, as happened with Savonarola, who was deprived of his powers immediately after the crowd stopped believing in him.

The example used by the Florentine thinker to explain the need for control over the armed forces of one who is in power is obvious, because the author did not intend to give only general and abstract advice. Machiavelli believes that each power is able to strike a balance between moderate and harsh exercise of power in accordance with the type of state and the government's relationship with the figures operating in the political arena. But in this equation, in which the feeling of love and hate is easily overcome by people, the basic rule of the ruler is not to use force uselessly and disproportionately. The severity of the measures should be the same for all members of the state, regardless of their social differences. This is a fundamental condition for maintaining legitimacy. Thus power and violence coexist and become the backbone of government.

Influence andthe successes that a prince enjoys are not something he can choose or ignore, because they are part and parcel of politics. Citing a classic example from Thucydides' history of the Peloponnesian War, the author argues that a ruler should have no other purpose or thought and should not do anything other than study war, its rules and order, because this is his only art.

What kinds of states does Machiavelli identify?

The Florentine thinker divides them into monarchies and republics. In this case, the former can be both inherited and new. New monarchies are entire states or parts thereof, annexed as a result of conquests. Machiavelli divides the new states into those acquired by the will of fate, their own and other people's weapons, as well as valor, and their subjects can be either traditionally free or accustomed to obey.

Seizure of power

Machiavelli's doctrine of the state is based on an assessment of the forces that a statesman can and should use. They represent, on the one hand, the sum of all collective psychological elements, common beliefs, customs and aspirations of people or social categories, and on the other hand, knowledge of state issues. To manage, you need to have an idea of the real state of things.

According to Machiavelli, the state is acquired either by the favor of the people or the nobility. Since these two sides are everywhere, it follows from this that the people do not want to be ruled and oppressed by the nobility, and the aristocracywants to rule and oppress. From these two opposite desires, either the state, or self-government, or anarchy arises.

For Machiavelli, the way a ruler comes to power is not important. The help of the "powerful" would limit his ability to act, because it would be impossible for him to control and manipulate them or satisfy their desires. The “strong” will ask the sovereign to oppress the people, and the latter, assuming that he came to power thanks to his support, would ask not to do this. The risk of tension in public life stems from bad governance.

From this point of view, Machiavelli contradicts the concept of Francesco Guicciardini. Both thinkers lived at the same time, both in Florence, but each of them saw legitimacy in the political field in his own way. If Machiavelli wanted the protection of Florentine republican rights and freedoms to be handed over to the people, Guicciardini relied on the nobility.

Power and consensus

In the works of Machiavelli, in principle, there is no opposition between force and consensus. Why? Because people always act according to their own customs and habits. He is incapable of abstract thinking and therefore cannot understand problems based on complex cause and effect relationships. That is why his point of view is limited to oratory elements. The impact of this cognitive limitation is reflected in political participation. Its impulse is to relate and express itself only in contemporary and concrete situations. As a result, the peopleunderstands its representatives, judges the laws, but does not have the cognitive ability to, for example, evaluate the Constitution.

This restriction does not prevent him from exercising his fundamental political rights through public debate. The people have a direct interest in maintaining "legality."

In contrast to Aristotle, Machiavelli does not see in the people raw, indifferent and unconscious material that can accept any form of government and endure the coercion of the sovereign. In his opinion, he is endowed with a bright, intelligent and responsive form of spirituality, able to reject any abuses coming from those in power.

When this phenomenon is thwarted by elites, demagogy ensues. In this respect, the threat to free political life does not come from the people. Machiavelli sees in demagogy the fundamental element preceding tyranny. Thus, the threat comes from the nobility, because they are interested in creating a power that operates outside the law.

The Sovereign's Virtues

The concept of politics underlies the entire system of the Florentine thinker. Therefore, the state of Machiavelli is far from creating an individual force that acts without doubt.

Individualism is viewed by the Florentine thinker as ambition, a pastime, pride, desire, cowardice, etc. This assessment comes not from an arbitrary aesthetic point of view, but from a legitimate moral perspective.

At the same time, Niccolo Machiavelli considers the individualism of the sovereign as the absencehumanity, infidelity, corruption, wickedness, etc.

Machiavelli frees him from moral values. But he does this because of the public and political role of the sovereign, knowing how important his position is. If the same person used the same methods as a private individual, then these exceptions would disappear. For Machiavelli, the relationship between ethics and politics is still influenced by Christian morality. The good that has been supported by the Church for centuries remains in force, but when politics enters the scene, it disappears. The ethics that the sovereign uses are based on other values in which success is the main goal. The sovereign must persecute her even in violation of religious ethics and at the risk of losing her “soul” in order to save the state.

In Machiavelli's book, the ruler does not need good qualities - he only needs to appear so. Moreover, according to the Florentine thinker, it is harmful to possess them and always observe them. It is better to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, righteous and be so, but with the proviso that, if necessary, the sovereign can turn into his opposite. It must be understood that a ruler, especially a new one, cannot possess qualities for which people are respected, since he is often forced to act contrary to loy alty, friendship, humanity and religion in order to support the state. Therefore, he needs to have a mind ready to turn where the winds and variations of fortune force him, not deviating from the righteous path, if possible, but also not disdaining it.