One can draw out Machiavelli’s assumptions about human beings based on his analysis of power and his real-world examples.
- We possess a desire for freedom that is intrinsic and therefore a capacity for rebellion that is equally intrinsic.
- We are naturally corrupt. No one and nothing can perfect us. In theological terms, we are all sinners. Some may sin more, some may sin less, but no one is without sin.
- A desire to conquer or dominate other states is also intrinsic to political collectives – nation states especially. Intrinsic does not mean that it will always be acted upon – just that it is present in every polity.
- War is a natural phenomenon. It is endemic to the species.
Numbers 1,2 and 4 are in line with history as I have read it and with my own personal experience. Number 3 strikes me as peculiar to a time of competing warlords and city states (the nature of Machiavelli’s Italy in the 14th century). I look at most democracies and do not see evidence of this. I do not think Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, or New Zealand are up for conquering anyone. Currently, Putin’s Russia and Xi’s Jinping China come to mind as embracing this view of power. The US needs to be very careful in making judgements, however. We have waded up to our waists in innocent blood.
Machiavelli’s advice was for a warlord, one who had to be nimble, always on guard, always suspicious, ready to drop or build an alliance in a moment, one who had already committed many acts of violence to arrive at his position and who therefore had to be prepared to act quickly and with few scruples in order to retain power.
Within the context of that world, murder and treachery are necessary. For example, when Machiavelli describes the conquest of a formerly self-governing city or province, he writes “The truth is the only sure way to hold such places is to destroy them. Rebelling, its people will always rally to the cry of freedom and the inspiration of their old institutions. It doesn’t matter how long they’ve been occupied or how benevolent the occupation, these things will never be forgotten.”
A few pages later he writes, “On the other hand we can hardly describe killing fellow citizens, betraying friends and living without loyalty, mercy or creed as signs of talent.”
And this too: “Cruelty well used is short lived and decisive.” Cruelty “badly used [is] not drastic enough at the beginning but grows increasingly cruel later on.”
The only virtues that seem to govern Machiavelli’s view of power are intelligence and decisiveness. One must be smarter than one’s adversaries. One must act before they do and act with confidence and enormous force. Duplicity, silence and the ability to anticipate are the secondary ideals that flow from intelligence and decisiveness. Strike suddenly and strike to kill, never to wound. Employ cruelty but within strategic limits.
Democracies create barriers to all of this. Sometimes those limits are ignored, sometimes abused, but the democratic process, the rule of law and freedom of speech, all antithetical to Machiavelli’s warlords (and contemporary warlords and wannabe dictators), ensure an accounting at some point. Democracies also always have some constituency that wholly rejects cruelty, murder, and torture. That constituency alone serves as a warning system for the democracy as a whole and as an example of a morality-based approach to governance.
While we are a mess as a species, democracies are our best and only chance really to encourage the better aspects of our nature – pity and kindness and mercy, a desire for fairness and justice, a desire for stability. As Jack Aubrey put it, “Men must be governed,” but the only humane way to do so is to ensure that democratic values endure.
