So, I just finished reading The Prince by Machiavelli, and I must admit, I was, well, underwhelmed. I mean, given the reputation of The Prince, and the reaction I get from people when I told them what I was reading, I guess I just expected something more, idk, brutal. I expected him to advocate ravishing villages, and putting people's heads on stakes in public places, and other crazy extremely violent things. What I found instead was something academic, and interesting, especially from a historical point of view.
Some background, I think, would be important. Machiavelli wrote the Prince in 1513. If, like me, you watch The Tudors, you'd have a vague idea of history of Europe then. France, Spain, and England were empires by then, with their countries controlled by a King (or whatever). I did not know that during this time, Italy wasn't was unified country, but rather a bunch of smaller states, with varying rulers and governments. Armies from France and Spain fought against these states to add more land to their empires.
Machiavelli was from Florence, and was rather important when Florence had a republic. And despite his reputation for his work, he actually preferred a republican form of government. But unfortunately, Florence was recaptured by its former ruling family, and Machiavelli was basically put under house arrest. That's where he wrote The Prince (and other works), as something to do to avoid utter boredom, and to hopefully gain favour so as to not be under house arrest anymore. (Although, I wouldn't mind it so much if I had a fancy Italian villa, but then I'm used to my normal sized, American housing).
The Prince really is just Niccolo's use of inductive reasoning, trying to get some advise for ruling princes from the exploit of ancient and contemporary rulers (well, contemporary for 1513). Machiavelli loved him some Livy, and he loved him some Cesar Borgia.
Supposedly, I've heard that some modern leaders have used Machiavelli's advice, I am not sure how useful all of it would be today. A great deal of this work deals with gaining and keeping conquered lands, and discussing different ways rulers of the past have gained and lost such places. But seeing as these days developed worlds don't take over other lands (only "liberating" other countries), it's not really helpful to discuss mercenary armies versus your own armies.
However, I find the discussion of how princes should be toward their people, and what traits they should (appear) to have very interesting, and I could see where some politicians would consider taking the advice (although I'd advise against it). Although, I don't know if now it's better to be either loved or feared. Since leaders now are elected, and can change by the people's action, and without violent death of the ruler, perhaps other traits are more important. Personally, I don't care whether I love or fear a leader, so long as s/he is intelligent to face hard leadership decisions and acts fairly. I guess I am just lucky enough to live in a country based on rule of law, and not rule of Prince.
What I do find very relevant, particularly since I too have been contemplating government too, is his commentary of sort about the citizens. Many scholars have stated that Machiavelli supports "the ends justify the means" mentality where he states that in the actions of men, people will look to the outcome. Well, people are just trying to give him a bad rep, maybe because mostly he's saying bad things about people in general. Basically, his point is that people don't get to see the motivation behind the prince's actions; they aren't going to haul him into court and present evidence of what he meant so that some judge can rule whether the prince had good intentions. Rather, people are selfish and present minded; they only care about what they've gained and lost, now. They aren't going to care if the prince had good intentions if they lose stuff and are worse off now. Good intentions don't bring back land and belongings. And, they aren't going to delve into the prince's actions when in the end the people are benefited. They don't have the time, nor honestly the care to decide whether the prince was good when he helped them. Really, this is less telling a leader to do what they want as long is it turns out fine, and more commenting on the baseness of citizens.
Honestly, I think princes in Machiavelli's day were lucky. These days, it almost seems like the ends even aren't good enough for the people. During The Prince times, the citizens couldn't scrutinize the rulers until after something happened. Now, it's almost the reversal, with people only caring about ends, only worse. With modern technology, people are all the time scrutinizing leaders exactly on their means. A leader can take action on something, and get a good outcome, but can soon take lots of grief from it because people now have live, internet access to way too much information about the means to leader's ends. Granted, that in itself isn't a problem, since it can keep a leader honest. However, citizens today can be just as mindless about governmental affairs as in Machiavelli's day. Only now, people love or hate a leader not based on the ends the leader gets, but often based well before the leader does anything. Now, people will find a reason to praise or condemn a leader based only on how the leader aligns with a person's political view points (regardless of an objective analysis of means and ends).
But I digress. I kind of related to Machiavelli as I was reading this. He was a strong supporter of Republican government (that differs from a GOP type republican, in case you didn't know). However, The Prince advocates a strong single ruler. He recognized that his ideals for government doesn't necessarily match what might be best for his country (best being a flexible, and subjective word). It may suck to have a utilitarian prince, but with France, Spain, and the Papacy coming in and trying to take over different states, maybe Italy needed a prince to unite it into one country. Idk, but it worked in France, England and Spain (well, from a 1513 point of view, I guess). I definitely have my own ideals about what a government should be, but I often feel frustrated about the lack of knowledge people have even about the history of our country. Sometimes I even wonder if maybe people deserve a harsher form of government as a "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" sort of message. But mostly, I just come up with great ideas for sci-fi or distopic stories.
I find Machiavelli's advice about counsel very good advice. He advises that princes need people who are willing to be honest with advice (not flatterers) but that a prince cannot welcome advice whenever. Rather, a prince needs to let people know he wants advice only when asked, but must make sure to ask a lot of questions. Then, he must take the time to wisely think the advice over, alone, and then be firm when enacting what he's decided. But it's important that a prince is wise, so as to know what to do with good counsel. If the prince were dumb, he'd be open to being lead by the advice of one person, and that person would be able to control the prince. Or the dumb prince would get counsel from many and it'd be counsel overload, and the prince wouldn't be able to evaluate it. I think this is great advice for modern leaders. First, a modern leader needs to be wise/intelligent/whatever enough to be able to take advice from all over and then evaluate it to use in making good decisions. That way, we don't get a puppet ruler, controlled by others because he's too dumb to understand things himself. I particularly like the part where the leader needs to contemplate the advice on their own, and then stand strong behind their decision.
Okay, I get it, this post is super long, and full of maybe too deep, maybe too boring stuff, but I can't help it. I read these things, and since I think about these things, they are going on my blog. :P But if you read this fall, I will end this discussion with some fun sexism. >_<
So, Machiavelli is discussing Fortune and men's actions, i.e. should men even take advice because Fortune can be a bitch and make people fail no matter how good their advice. He discusses men being either impetuous (fyi, acting quickly w/o thought or care) or cautious, and men don't change and will only succeed with one or the other depending on what Fortune prefers at the time. Then, he drops this gem. "I certainly think this: that it is better to be impetuous than cautious, for Fortune is a woman, and it is necessary, if you wish to keep her down, to beat her and knock her about. And one sees that she lets herself be conquered by men of this sort more than by those who proceed coldly. And therefore, like a woman, she is always the friend of the young, because they are less cautious, fiercer, and command her with more audacity."
Of course, I'm going along, and once I read this I'm all "Wtf?!?!?!?!" I'm super offended, and for the record, I much prefer cautiousness. And another thing, women, just like Fortune, don't need to be conquered. Boo!! That's some other thinking that is outdated and useless, thank you very much!
No comments:
Post a Comment