Machiavelli, Part 2: Not so Black After All?

Machiavelli (“M”) wrote another book, The Discourses. In it, he describes three forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy (as in “meritocracy”) and democracy. He wrote all three can degenerate into bad forms of governance. Monarchy can easily become a tyranny. Aristocracies turn into cliquish oligarchies. And democracies can descend into chaotic mob rule.

So M’s preferred solution? A Republic. Not the way we see it now. Rather, he wanted it in the way ancient Rome was: a mix of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. M was asking for a system with checks and balances in place! Wait, it gets better: M felt the job of a government is to provide stability, security and provide a setup where people can just get on with their lives. See how close this sounds to many modern governments?

See how contradictory this book is to the more (in)famous The Prince? Sebastian Major’s second podcast explores The Prince again with all of the above in mind. And then you see The Prince is about monarchies. M draws a difference between a newly formed monarchy and an “established” monarchy. In an established monarchy, a prince should follow the customs and practices in existence. Rule with a light touch, says M. All his controversial advice is for newly crowned rulers only, i.e., people in rare situations. After all, don’t we all know that a man who seeks to only be virtuous all the time is soon destroyed by all the evil around? But be too oppressive and wanton in cruelty, and you’ll have a revolt.

M repeatedly says that The Prince is not a book on how things should be, it is about how things are. M was a rude shock for the era (and those to come). They were used to political philosophers describing utopias and how ideal rulers should be e.g. the philosopher king of Plato. See the contrast?

Even the odd cruelty that M talks about is reserved for those who threaten the kingdom or the prince. This acts as a deterrent and limits the violence to a few individuals. The alternative, with a ruler who is too merciful, leads to rebellion and countless loss of innocent lives, argues M. The Prince says that the best princes are both feared and loved. Being one sided in either direction leads to chaos and instability. People should know what the boundaries are and fear crossing them. But they shouldn't fear that you'll go after them for no reason at all. (Did they base Tywin Lannister of Game of Thrones on this book?)

The podcast switches gears yet again to next explores the views of historians on M. How could a man who argues so eloquently in favor of a Republic in The Discourses be advocating advice on how to sustain a monarchy? Was M lieing in The Prince? Or was he just following his own advice of accepting the reality that the Medici were in power and auditioning for a job as a political advisor?

Another view is that The Prince was not written for Medici: after all, he'd have known all the dirty tricks to rule anyway! Instead, the book was written for the average Florentine to make them aware of how the Medici would operate.

A third, albeit far-fetched view is that The Prince was a trap. While appearing to help a monarch, it contained enough poison pills (deliberately bad advice) within it that, if followed, would lead to the downfall of the Medici… and restoration of M’s beloved Republic.

Or was M just a pragmatist who wanted stability above all else? A Republic ideally, but if it had to be a monarchy, then at least he wanted to mold it to be stable and not unnecessarily cruel.

There’s no clear answer, so feel free to pick your interpretation.