Machiavelli views on politics

Niccolò Machiavelli was an Italian diplomat, politician, historian, philosopher, humanist, writer, and poet during the Renaissance period. He is most well-known for his political treatise The Prince, published in 1532 after his death. The Prince provides practical advice on how a monarch can gain and maintain power. Machiavelli drew on his extensive experience serving in the Florentine government to develop guidelines for leadership. He had served as secretary and second chancellor to the Florentine Republic before being dismissed and imprisoned when the Medici family returned to power in 1512. While in exile from politics, Machiavelli took the time to reflect on his observations of human nature and politics. In The Prince, he argues that morality and ethics should be set aside if necessary for power. His work supports quick attacks, trickery, and deceit to keep order and stay in control. When The Prince was first published, people were shocked by Machiavelli’s bluntness. His views were not popular. His name is linked to harsh leaders, and the word “Machiavellian” is still used today to describe sneaky plotting. Machiavelli’s ideas in The Prince, though challenged during his own time and now, have a big impact on modern political thinking and government work.

Machiavelli’s Pragmatic View
Machiavelli is known for his practical view on politics that pushes the idea that the ends can justify the means. In The Prince, he says that leaders must be ready to use tricks, harshness, and force if needed to keep control and bring order into society. Machiavelli thought that politics works in different ways than good behavior. To him, a good king shouldn’t be tied down by the usual right rules if obeying them could harm his country. He said, “If a prince wants to stay safe, he must learn not to be good. He should use this knowledge or not use it, depending on what is needed in each situation.” Machiavelli says that leaders should concentrate on real power things instead of dreamy ideas about being good. He says that in the harsh world of politics, a leader should be feared than loved. Leaders need to be smart, tricky, and ready to cheat both friends and people if needed to keep the country safe. In Machiavelli’s eyes, rulers should appear to have virtues like compassion and integrity when it suits them, but they must be able to act immorally and violently when they deem it necessary. The ends of maintaining power and achieving order justify the means, even if those means are unethical according to conventional morality.

Separating Morals from Politics
Machiavelli believed that politics should be separated from conventional morality and that a ruler should be concerned only with what is politically expedient. In The Prince, he argued that for a ruler to keep power it is necessary to be ready to act immorally at the right times. Though rulers in the past had tried to govern justly, those who succeeded in holding onto power were those “who have not hesitated to act in defiance of good faith, of charity, of kindness, and of religion.” According to Machiavelli, there are two types of morality – one that is appropriate for ordinary people, and another that rulers must follow to maintain power and stability. He stated that conventional Christian morality that encourages honesty, fidelity, compassion, and self-sacrifice should guide citizens. However, for rulers this conventional morality results in vulnerability. Rulers must be prepared to abandon these conventional moral virtues and be willing to act deceitfully and ruthlessly when required. Whereas individuals can afford to stick to moral principles, rulers who do so risk losing their state. As Machiavelli noted, “A man who wishes to make a profession of goodness in everything must necessarily come to grief among so many who are not good.” In this way, Machiavelli separated political action from general morality and ethics. He believed that necessity (necessity) should guide the actions of rulers, rather than moral ideas. Necessity dictated that rulers do whatever was expedient and effective for maintaining power and control. Morality was for ordinary citizens, not rulers tasked with upholding the state. This controversial separation of politics from ethics was perhaps Machiavelli’s most influential contribution to political thought.

Effective Leadership

Machiavelli argues that for a ruler to maintain power, he must be prepared to act immorally. He contends that it is more important for rulers to appear ethical, rather than to be ethical. According to Machiavelli, effective leaders do whatever is necessary to preserve their power and position, even if that means lying, cheating, and being ruthless. Machiavelli advises rulers to be cunning like foxes and feared like lions. A wise prince will be loved by the people, but he should avoid hatred. However, he should not worry if he has to be cruel from time to time to keep the people in check. Machiavelli states a ruler should be feared rather than loved because men are fickle and will turn on a loved ruler when it suits them. But a feared ruler will be able to command obedience through instilling terror. Overall, Machiavelli promotes the idea that in politics, the ends justify the means. He argues that morality has no place in the political arena and that rulers must use any means to achieve their goals, even if those means are unscrupulous or unethical. The priority of an effective prince is maintaining power, even if that requires harshness and violence. According to Machiavelli, it is better to be immoral, cunning, and feared than to be moral and loved if the goal is retaining authority and leadership.

Appearance vs Reality

For Machiavelli, maintaining power and control was more important than adhering to strict moral principles. He argued that a ruler should have appeared moral and virtuous rather than be so. As he wrote in The Prince:

Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you are.

Machiavelli contended that most people judge others by appearance alone. It is the reputation and impression conveyed that matter, not one’s true character. The ruler who seems good will be respected, while the ruler who seems bad will be despised, no matter their true nature. As such, Machiavelli advised rulers that it was better to cynically adopt virtues only when useful, rather than embody them consistently. For example, qualities like compassion, integrity and honesty can appear virtuous, inspiring love among the people. However, Machiavelli cautioned that these same traits can lead to greed, dissent, and weakness when practiced in governance. Instead, he argued that rulers should wear a “mask” of morality and righteousness while being ready to act immorally whenever required by political necessity. The ends justify the means in Machiavelli’s philosophy; whatever actions maintain stability and control are justified, even if cruel, deceitful, or unethical. As he infamously wrote, it is sometimes better for a prince to be feared than loved. This central concept – that appearances matter more than reality in the political realm – was incredibly influential. But it also courted significant controversy given its divergence from traditional Christian ethics of the time. Ultimately, Machiavelli prized political results over spiritual or moral purity. For him, the ruler who merely governs well earns as much respect as one who is good.

Cruelty and Violence
Machiavelli recognized cruelty and violence as unsavory but sometimes necessary tools for maintaining power and order. He argued that excessive morality and ethics enabled disorder, making the state vulnerable to lawlessness and external threats. In Machiavelli’s view, a wise prince must be willing to act immorally, even brutally, when required. Specifically, Machiavelli advised rulers that it can be better to be feared than loved. Committing cruelties all at once at the start of a reign establishes a fearsome reputation that makes subjects less likely to rebel later. Random acts of violence send a message to deter further dissent. However, cruelty should not be used frivolously – only when truly needed to keep the state strong and stable. Excessive cruelty breeds resentment that can undermine a ruler’s authority. Machiavelli saw brute force as occasionally necessary but did not advocate mindless savagery. Rather, he argued that difficult choices and morally questionable acts can, paradoxically, create the security and prosperity that allow the greater good of society to thrive. The ends justify the means when it comes to preserving the power of the state above all else.

Fortune and Free Will
Machiavelli thought that luck is big in people’s lives, but it doesn’t fully decide the results. In The Prince, he wrote:

“Good luck controls half of what we do, but it still lets us guide the other half or maybe a bit less.”

Machiavelli said that luck likes brave people – those who can change and grab chances when they come. He said that big people should learn to be brave and see the future well. This is so they can try to control luck and make it happen the way they want. Machiavelli also said that free will plays a big role in choosing political results. He thought that if leaders use their smarts, guts, and good choices, they can see problems coming and beat challenges. This helps them turn luck their way. A smart king can handle wealth by being ready to make quick decisions as things change. Machiavelli viewed fortune as a river that could either harm or help people. Leaders can’t fully control luck, but they can lessen danger by getting ready and being flexible. This means handling bad luck as best as they can. Machiavelli’s idea of real leadership means acting against chance. This is very important.

Critiques of Machiavelli
Machiavelli’s books, especially The Prince, have been causing trouble since they first came out. Many people were surprised by his honest and practical talk about bad ways to get and keep power in politics.

Some of the major criticisms of Machiavelli include:

  • Immoral and amoral: Machiavelli says that what’s right and wrong shouldn’t mix with politics. He pays almost all attention to what works, not what is right. Many people think it’s really bad when bad actions are approved for political reasons.
  • Power-hungry: Machiavelli talks about getting and keeping power as the prince’s main goal. He says to use any method needed to get and grow power, including trickery, force, and backstabbing. People who give their opinion say this ignores right and wrong in the chase for control.
  • Cynical view of humanity: Machiavelli negatively looks at human nature. He thinks people act for themselves and treat meetings as tactics, not right or wrong things. He suggests changing this self-interest by using fear and rewards. Critics say this stops people from having the chance to be good.
  • Authoritarian: Machiavelli pays attention to one strong leader who holds complete power. He doesn’t talk about checks on power or people’s rights. Critics argue this sets the foundation for a ruling system that ignores democratic values.
  • Overly harsh: Machiavelli says that sometimes bad actions are needed, but critics say some of his suggestions are too rough and violent. They say there are limits to what’s okay to do even when trying to get power.

Machiavelli’s writings are still important but very debated. Some people think his direct practical thinking is a new way to understand power and politics. But others say he doesn’t care about what’s right or wrong and supports bad, bossy leaders. His critical view of people and support for bad things still gets disapproval today.

In the end, Machiavelli had very different views on what is right and leading in politics. He said that politics and right and wrong should stay apart. He thinks a tough ruler may need trickery, lies, and carefully planned violence to keep their hold on power. Machiavelli’s ideas have been called selfish and negative. He thinks leaders need to be liked and frightened to become successful.
His very important book The Prince showed how to hold power and the tough side of politics. Machiavelli said it’s okay to do bad things if needed, but he thought leaders don’t have total free will. They act within limits set by luck and need. Even though there was controversy, the thoughts of Machiavelli on how politics and morals interact have changed the way we think about politics today and being a leader. In the end, Machiavelli gave us an understanding of leadership methods that work but feel wrong. His history shows the balance between good moral values and the practical facts of keeping power and social peace. We should not copy everything Machiavelli did, but his thoughts make us look closely at right and wrong actions in leadership and political plans in the real world.