Niccolo Machiavelli PDF

# Niccolo Machiavelli ## General Introduction Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), Italian philosopher, is hailed as the first modern political thinker although he is hardly recognized as a profound political theorist. He was born in Florence, the centre of Italian culture where influence of the Euro...

# Niccolo Machiavelli ## General Introduction Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), Italian philosopher, is hailed as the first modern political thinker although he is hardly recognized as a profound political theorist. He was born in Florence, the centre of Italian culture where influence of the European Renaissance was the strongest among all areas. Machiavelli sought to incorporate the cultural values promoted by the Renaissance into the realm of political thinking: he was the first to do this. But he also propounded certain standards of statesmanship, variously interpreted, reinterpreted, and sometimes misinterpreted, which are responsible for his reputation as well as disrepute. Machiavelli was the son of a civil lawyer. Relatively little is known for certain about his early life. At a young age, he probably became a pupil of a renowned Latin teacher, Paolo da Ronciglione. There are some indications that he attended the University of Florence. It is revealed from his writings that he received an excellent humanist education that was informed by the Renaissance values. Machiavelli's early years in Florence were marked by Lorenzo de' Medici's ascendancy who was succeeded by his son Piero de' Medici. Piero de' Medici's expulsion in 1494 was followed by four turbulent years of republican government when Machiavelli was declared to be ineligible for political office due to his alleged loyalty to the Medici family. However, with the change in the republican regime in 1498, Machiavelli was appointed as the Second Chancellor of the Republic of Florence when he entered into public view. For the next fourteen years Machiavelli functioned as an official envoy on some thirty-five diplomatic missions, including four to France and Siena, two to Cesare Borgia and to the Papal Court, and one to the Emperor in Germany. In 1512, consequent upon the restoration of the Medici, Machiavelli lost his office and underwent a brief imprisonment. Then he retired to his farm outside of Florence and embarked on a literary career. In his attempt to gain the favour of the Medici, he wrote his famous monograph *The Prince* in 1513 which is addressed to Lorenzo de' Medici (1492-1515), the son of Piero de' Medici. Simultaneously he started writing another important work *Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius* (in short, the Discourses on Livy) which was completed in 1517. However, both of these works were published posthumously in 1531. Machiavelli also produced some minor literary works but his reputation as a political thinker rests on these two books. The treatment of government in the two books is significantly different. Some writers, including Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78), French philosopher, believe that Machiavelli expressed two different views which are inconsistent with each other. Some commentators talk of the two faces of Machiavelli. Unfortunately, people including most of the scholars regard *The Prince* as the real representative of Machiavelli's thought. In this monograph, Machiavelli has propounded two different sets of rules of conduct: one for the prince, that is the ruler, and the other for the ordinary people. The upshot of this approach is that the people should remain sincerely committed to the rules of conventional morality, but the prince should only be committed to the interest of the state, and simply pretend to follow morality without being bound by it in his actual conduct. This duplicity is treated to be the hallmark of 'Machiavellianism'. That is why Machiavelli is sometimes denounced as 'Devil's disciple' and 'Despot's tutor'. Leo Strauss (Thoughts on Machiavelli; 1958) dubbed Machiavelli a 'teacher of evil' because he counsels leaders to avoid the common values of justice, mercy, temperance, wisdom and love of their people, and resort to the use of cruelty, violence, fear and deception. In contrast, Benedetto Croce (1866-1952), Italian philosopher (Elementi di politica, 1925), describes Machiavelli as simply a 'realist’ or a ‘pragmatist' who advocated the suspension of commonplace ethics in matters of politics). Machiavelli had realized the moral values have no place in the sorts of decisions that political leaders are required to take. Then Ernest Cassirer (The Myth of the State; 1946) eulogizes Machiavelli as a scientist - a kind of 'Galileo of politics' who did not mix up the 'facts' of political life with the 'values' of moral judgement. Michael B. Foster (Masters of Political Thought, Vol. One; 1947) considers Machiavelli's political philosophy to be morally neutral and not necessarily immoral. In his view, Machiavellianism simply provides a system of technical rules for the acquisition and maintenance of power. It is like a handbook of carpentry which supplies a system of technical rules for the working of wood. If a person who has mastered these rules, uses them to break into houses or for other illicit purposes, the handbook cannot be held responsible for the reversal of moral standards. Finally, Quentin Skinner (The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Vol. One, 1978) takes a milder view of Machiavelli's position because he allows any departure from the conventional morality only as a last resort. Machiavelli advises that the Prince ought to do good if he can, but must be prepared to commit evil if he must. George H. Sabine (A History of Political Theory; 1973 ed. with Thomas L. Thorson) has rightly observed that in fact there is no inconsistency between Machiavelli's two leading books - *The Prince* and the *Discourses on Livy*. Both deal with the same subject - the causes of the rise and decline of states and the means of making them permanent. *The Prince* deals with monarchies or absolute governments, and the *Discourses* mainly with the expansion of the Roman Republic. Quentin Skinner has also argued that Machiavelli was basically a republican; that it is wrong to treat *The Prince* and the *Discourses* as part of different literary traditions. When these are read together, it is established beyond doubt that in his view Republic was the ideal form of government; the conditions of founding and maintaining it are elaborated in the *Discourses*. It can be founded only when people themselves are virtuous. Where people are vicious, as in the case of Italy in Machiavelli's times, the founding of a Republic was impracticable. So in *The Prince*, Machiavelli recommended the founding of a Monarchy which was practicable under the prevailing conditions. ## Machiavelli's Classification of Governments | Type of Government | Ideal Form | Practical Form | |---------------------|----------|---------------| | | Republic | Monarchy | | | Recommended for virtuous people | Recommended for vicious people | ### Republic Republic refers to a form of government under which people are treated as 'citizens' having equal status, and not as 'subjects' of a single ruler or a ruling class. Government derives its authority from the people, and not from any other source. In practice, a republic is contrasted with Monarchy or Aristocracy. ### Monarchy Monarchy refers to a form of government in which a King, Queen or any other royal personage reigns over a country and who is technically regarded as the supreme legal authority in that country. The people are treated as his 'subjects' unless the whole system is governed by a Constitution. On his death or retirement, the authority will pass to another member of his family, according to the prevailing custom or law. ### Aristocracy Ariscracy refers to a form of government in which supreme authority is shared by the chosen few, such as the nobility, who are regarded superior to ordinary citizens either by birth, possession of wealth or by virtue of a special status derived from the prevailing custom. Ordinary citizens are treated as 'subjects' of the aristocratic class. ## Machiavelli's Motive behind Writing the Prince Machiavelli's motive behind writing *The Prince* was to obtain employment under the Medici. This purpose could be achieved only through eulogizing monarchy as he did in *The Prince*, and not by eulogizing republic, as he did in the *Discourses*. A closer reading of the two will reveal the continuity of his mode of thought. As Sabine (A History of Political Theory; 1973 ed.) has elucidated: "Both books show equally the qualities for which Machiavelli has been especially known, such as indifference to the use of immoral means for political purposes and the belief that government depends largely on force and craft." For example, the following extracts from the *Discourses* seem to be fully in consonance with the line of argument adopted in *The Prince*: "It is well that, when an act accuses him, the result should excuse him; and when the result is good, as in the case of Romulus (his murder of his brother), it will always absolve him from the blame. For he is to be reprehended who commits violence for the purpose of destroying, and not he who employs it for beneficent purposes ... ... where the very safety of the country depends upon the resolution to be taken, no consideration of justice or injustice, humanity or cruelty, nor of glory or shame, should be allowed to prevail. But putting all other considerations aside, the only question should be, What course will save the life and liberty of the country?” In any case, it is Machiavelli's "genuine enthusiasm for popular government of the sort exemplified in the Roman Republic" that is the keynote of the *Discourses*. In short, Machiavelli nowhere compromised his view of the Republic as the ideal form of government; he accepts monarchy only as a concession to the practical necessities of his time and place. In fact his writings hardly belong to political theory proper; he is chiefly interested in the mechanics of government. He focuses on the means and measures by which states could be made strong, their power could be expanded, and their weaknesses could be overcome. He tends to set aside religious, moral and social considerations if they come in the way of success of the mission. In Sabine's words Machiavelli is "for the most part.... not so much immoral as non-moral". Machiavelli's scale of preference for various forms of government is unmistakable. His first preference goes to Republic or popular government which must be set up where possible. If it cannot be established because the people are not fit to have a republic, the second preference goes to Monarchy. In any case, he is not in favour of setting up Aristocracy anywhere because of his exceedingly low opinion about this option. He is convinced that the interests of the nobility are antagonistic both to those of monarchy and of the middle class. He argues that these 'gentlemen' who live idly on the proceeds of their wealth without giving any useful service, are 'everywhere enemies of all civil government'. ## Machiavelli's Method In the history of political thought, Machiavelli is sometimes distinguished as “the first modern political scientist”. This claim rests on his reliance on empirical method, particularly in the study of political behaviour. William T. Bluhm (Theories of Political System: Classics of Political Thought and Modern Political Analysis; 1978) has described Machiavelli as the pioneer of behviouralism. In fact, it was Machiavelli who emancipated the study of politics from the predominance of metaphysics and theology and placed it on historical and realistic foundations. Instead of treating politics as a means to the realization of some transcendental or other-worldly objectives, Machiavelli conceived it as the instrument of acquisition, preservation and expansion of power which could be accomplished by harnessing the faculties of the people as they exist in the real world. ### Empirical Method Empirical method refers to a method of study which relies on observation of facts through sense-experience (that is the experience obtained through sight, sound, smell, taste and touch), and not on speculation. Under normal conditions, sense-experience of all human beings is bound to coincide, hence their observation and description of facts will always be identical. Thus we can verify the results of our observation by comparing them with others' observation. Empirical method is regarded to be the foundation of all scientific investigation. ### Behaviouralism Behaviouralism refers to an approach to the study of politics which does not focus an abstract institutions and ideas but undertakes an indepth study of the observable behaviour of various actors in the realm of politics, such as voters, legislators, high officials of the executive and the judiciary, etc. It seeks to present its results in the form of quantifiable data which can be used for further research. ### Metaphysics Metaphysics refers to a branch of philosophy which inquires into the nature of reality behind the universe that is beyond our comprehension through the scientific method. Since our knowledge of natural sciences is based on empirical observation, it is believed that the subject-matter of metaphysics is beyond the reach of our sense-experience. ### Theology Theology refers to the study of the nature of God and of God's relationship with the world we perceive as well as other mystical entities like soul, heaven and hell, etc. in accordance with the teachings and practices associated with a particular religion, such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. which offer different explanations of these issues. Theological knowledge is a matter of faith rather than a matter of scientific or philosophic inquiry. Machiavelli claimed that he had introduced a new method of studying politics which was not used by his predecessors. In his Preface to *The Prince*, he defined his method as "drawing maxims or rules for successful political behaviour from history and experience". It is true that he tried to substantiate his guidelines for successful statesmanship with suitable examples from his contemporary or historical events. He followed this method almost in all contexts both in *The Prince* and the *Discourses*. For example in *The Prince*, he observes that if a ruler seeks to acquire reputation for generosity, he is bound to come to grief. So a prudent prince will not mind being called a miser. To substantiate this point, he continues: "Pope Julius II made use of a reputation for generosity to win the papacy, but subsequently he made no effort to maintain this reputation, because he wanted to be able to finance his wars. The present King of France has been able to wage so many wars without taxing his subjects excessively only because his long-standing parsimony enabled him to meet the additional expenses involved. Were the present King of Spain renowned for his generosity he would not have started and successfully concluded so many enterprises." Similarly, in the *Discourses* he states a rule that if a ruler is accused of committing a wrong act, but its result proves to be good, it will always absolve him from the blame as Romulus was absolved of the blame of murdering his brother. Machiavelli underlines these examples because similar action in a similar situation will always bring similar result. He was sure that the affairs of the world are conducted by men who have and always have had the same passions, which of necessity produce the same result. Machiavelli's method has been called inductive or scientific on the ground that he drew conclusions from practical or historical experience of human nature that does not change under different political regimes. His originality lies in focusing on man's behavioural patterns instead of Christian moral precepts for the analysis of politics. However, critics have pointed out that Machiavelli's method was only superficially scientific and historical. He did not follow inductive method of proceeding from 'particular to general'. He did not scan historical events to arrive at a general rule, but laid down a rule on the basis of his own understanding, and gathered some historical examples to substantiate it. Nor his method is deductive, that is the method of proceeding from 'general to particular' because he did not examine any events that might falsify his claim. As George H. Sabine (A History of Political Theory; 1973 ed.) has significantly observed: "Machiavelli was not much interested in philosophy and not much inclined to generalize beyond maxims useful for statesmen. He sometimes merely stated his principles, often merely took them for granted; practically never did he try to give any proof of them." That is why Machiavelli is seldom regarded as a profound political theorist. He never touches upon the central problems of political philosophy, such as the philosophical justification of the existence of the state, grounds and limits of political obligation, etc. He never looks beyond the necessities of practical politics although his vision was fairly broad in this area. As Sabine has pointed out: “Machiavelli... writes about nothing and thinks about nothing except politics, statecraft, and the art of war... He was perhaps too practical to be philosophically profound, but in politics pure and simple he had of all his contemporaries the greatest breadth of view and the clearest insight into the general tendency of European evolution (ibid.). "It is misleading to say... that Machiavelli followed an 'historical method, because his examples were often drawn from the past. He used history exactly as he used observation guided by shrewdness and common sense. " - George H. Sabine (A History of Political Theory; 1973 ed.) ## Separation between Politics and Ethics Machiavelli is widely denounced because he erected a wall of separation between politics and ethics. In the classical tradition, particularly in the tradition of Greek political thought, ethics was viewed as the very foundation of politics. It is ironical that in the age of revival of classical models, that is the Renaissance, Machiavelli made a striking departure from this classical ideal. ### Ethics Ethics refers to a branch of learning, concerned with the principles of good conduct. It inquires into the foundations of our moral beliefs and rules about right and wrong. This term is used as a synonym of moral philosophy as well as a set of principles of good conduct concerning a particular profession such as 'medical ethics' or 'business ethics'. Classical political philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who regarded politics as the pursuit of good life, treated ethics as the foundation of politics. But Machiavelli (1469-1527), early modern thinker, who believed that politics was governed by its own independent standards, pleaded for separation between politics and ethics. In the contemporary world, Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), Indian political activist and social philosopher, insisted that in all human activity, means should be as pious as the end; he recognized ethics as the indispensable foundation of politics. Machiavelli firmly held that politics is governed by its own independent standards; hence it cannot be bound by the conventional ethical standards. So he insisted on separation between politics and ethics. In principle, he agreed that republican government which was informed by high moral standards was best for everyone. But it would function only when people were inherently virtuous. Since the Italians of his times were basically selfish, greedy and corrupt, they could be controlled only by a strong and prudent monarch. Again, in principle the ruler should be honest, righteous and true to his word, but in practice nobody could have all these qualities, nor these qualities will enable him to rule over selfish, greedy and ungrateful people. So the Prince should focus on the preservation of the state without being bound by moral obligations. If he resorts to the use of ignoble means for achieving a noble end, he will be exonerated by the people for using these means after seeing the laudable results of his efforts. Machiavelli does not contend that 'end justifies the means' (as sometimes alleged); rather he claims that a ruler's success will be judged by popular verdict, and that he will be excused using dubious means if he is successful at the end, for in politics "where there is no court of appeal, one judges by the result". If political expediency requires the Prince to set aside traditional morality, he should go ahead in the interests of successful politics... “Let a prince set about the task of conquering and maintaining his state; his methods will always be judged honourable and he will be universally praised.” - Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince) In the popular imagination Machiavelli is an advocate of immorality. A more refined interpretation... sees him as a defender of political amorality. Politics, that is to say, obeys its own logic, follows its own rules, and judges actions in accordance with its own standards of success or failure. - Joseph V. Femia (Political Thinkers from Socrates to the Present, ed. by David Boucher, Paul Kelly; 2009) In the contemporary debates on the nature of politics, it is sometimes argued that Machiavelli approved the use of immoral means for achieving political ends, and held that the use of these means would be treated as honourable after seeing its salutary results, so he was the first to encourage the use of 'dirty hands' in politics. It is further argued that Machiavelli not only allowed the use of 'dirty hands' for political purposes, but he also justified their use as if these hands are actually clean and praiseworthy because they are able to accomplish great things like saving the community from an imminent disaster. Machiavelli sought to reduce politics to a business involving cost-benefit analysis instead of treating it an instrument of attaining human values. Critics of this attitude argue that once the use of dubious means for achieving a laudable goal is allowed, these means would soon be used for serving less important purposes, leading to a general moral decline, widespread corruption, and consequent disaster. That is why Mahatama Gandhi (1869-1948), Indian political activist and social philosopher, insisted that our means should be as pious as the end, because a wrong way will never take us to a right destination. In any case, Machiavelli's position on this issue needs a closer examination. ### Dirty Hands Dirty hands refer to a metaphorical expression for the view that the practice of politics necessarily involves the use of immoral means; it requires one to adopt some policies or decisions which could be harmful to innocent people. It is contended that politics is always conducted with 'dirty hands'; it cannot be handled with clean hands. This view corresponds to the popular notion that politics is a 'dirty game'. It implies that (a) Politicians are generally immoral; and (b) Those who wish to pursue a clean profession, should abstain from politics. The origins of the concept of 'dirty hands' are usually traced in Machiavelli's philosophy who held that the use of immoral means for achieving political ends would be treated honourable by popular verdict on seeing its salutary results. ## Machiavelli's Statecraft While Machiavelli advised the ruler to set aside moral bindings in order to achieve his end, he did not think that the conventional morality was totally irrelevant or redundant in the context of politics. He conceded that moral corruption in a people makes good government impossible. As Sabine has argued: "Machiavelli...had nothing but admiration for the civic virtues of the ancient Romans and of the Swiss in his own day, and he believed that these grew out of purity in the family, independence and sturdiness in private life, simplicity and frugality of manners, and loyalty and trustworthiness in performing public duties are of the best with morale as truly as with guns, and the wise ruler sees that both are of the best quality." In this way Machiavelli enunciates a double standard of morals, one for the ruler and another for his servants as well as citizens. The ruler's moral implies his undivided commitment to strengthening the state and enhancing his power in order to maintain law and order within the state and to ensure effective defence from foreign invaders. His performance will be judged by his success in fulfilling his responsibility. He is allowed to depart from the conventional morality only to enable him to carry out his own moral responsibility. But his servants and the citizens are not allowed to depart from the conventional morality, otherwise the purpose of the state itself will be defeated. Moreover, Machiavelli is quite sensitive to the significance of morals in social life. He is fully aware that if the Prince himself is righteous in his conduct, his legitimacy as a ruler will be immensely enhanced. So he advises the Prince to maintain high standards of morality as far as feasible, and depart from it only when it is absolutely necessary to do so in the interest of the state. Even where he is constrained to depart from morality, he should pretend to be righteous. In his *Discourses on Livy*, Machiavelli observed: > "It is well to seem merciful, faithful, humane, sincere, religious, and also to be so; but you must have the mind so disposed that when it is needful to be otherwise you may be able to change to the opposite qualities... A prince...must not deviate from what is good, if possible, but be able to do evil if constrained.” Machiavelli wants the Prince to act so carefully that he is held in high esteem among the people. The Prince must be conscious of the prevalence of 'universal egoism'. It means that human nature is essentially selfish: men always seek security but they also know that they are too weak to provide for it from their own ability or resources. Government is founded to provide them security from internal offenders as well as external enemies. Besides, men are also aggressive and acquisitive but their possessions are bound to remain limited due to natural scarcity. It is government that keeps their aggressive tendencies in check. A wise ruler will frame his policy with a view to creating an atmosphere security of life, property and honour of the people. People's love of property was powerfully expressed by Machiavelli in his famous saying in *The Prince*: > "Men sooner forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony." In Machiavelli's view, a prudent ruler may kill people, but he will not plunder them. As regards the protection f women, Machiavelli advises the Prince to take steps to provide for effective security of women in his state. People will be loyal to their ruler when they are sure that their life, property and women are perfectly safe in his guardianship. When all these conditions are taken into account, we find that Machiavelli did not aim to undermine the foundations of morality in society. As a sincere patriot, he was particularly anxious to build a strong nation-state in Italy which was then fragmented into five parts: Florence, Venice, Naples, Milan, and the territory of Roman Catholic Church. He wanted his country, that is Italy to win a respectable place among other nation-states of Europe: England, France, Spain and Germany. He was also worried about the prevailing moral corruption among Italians. He would have liked to set up a republic, that is a popular government in Italy, if possible. But the decay of private virtue as well as civic probity and devotion had made it impossible. He realized that when civic virtues had decayed, there was no possibility to restore them, or to carry on an orderly government without them. The only course left before him was to recommend the setting up a despotic rule. Machiavelli held that when people lack virtue, the ruler should bring in his virtue to make up for the deficiency. It will be patently unfair to call him "Devil's disciple' or 'Despot's tutor'. In fact, Machiavelli was trying to establish the primacy of political virtue and to show that moral virtue was a necessary but not a sufficient condition of political virtue. Machiavelli had realized that despotic rule should be resorted to only under two special conditions: (a) For building a state out of fragmented little cities; and (b) For establishing control over corrupt people. Once a state is founded, it could be sustained by granting people some share in the government, and ensuring full safety of their life, property and honour. Sabine has aptly expressed Machiavelli's view on this point as follows: "Despotic violence is a powerful political medicine, needed in corrupt states and for special contingencies in all states, but still a poison which must be used with the greatest caution" (A History of Political Theory; 1973 ed.). > Single rulers are necessary to found and reform states; republican governments are better at sustaining them once established. - Niccolo Machiavelli (Discourses on Livy) ## Machiavelli's Statecraft > "Government consists in nothing else but so controlling subjects that they will not be able to nor have the cause do you harm." - Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince) Machiavelli's enunciation of statecraft comprises his most notable as well as most controversial contribution. It is notable because it provides unique guidelines on the art of government, it is controversial because it is supposed to promote unscrupulous ways of governance, and vindicate certain immoral practices. That is why some critics describe Machiavelli as 'Devil's disciple' and 'Despot's tutor". However, much of his condemnation is based on the misinterpretation of his message. ### Statecraft Statecraft refers to the art and the set of techniques that are applied for managing state affairs. In a broader sense, it includes the art of consolidating state power, particularly in the face of threats from foreign powers. In this sense, it is very close to diplomacy which implies the art and procedure of dealing with foreign nations with a view to protecting the interests of one's own country. It is important to note that Machiavelli thinks of a statesman not only as a person who builds and manages his affairs, but also as one who creates laws and governs who determine the national character of his people. Moral and civic virtue grows out of the law that a statesman gives to his people. Machiavelli believes that when people are corrupt, a state should be founded by a single man who would not only create a political structure but also shape moral and social character of people. He will function as lawgiver as well as the architect of state and society. He will apply his political genius to create a military power strong enough to build a nation-state through unification of disorderly little cities and to infuse new public spirit and civic loyalty into the people. According to George H. Sabine, Machiavelli's prince is the perfect embodiment of shrewdness and self-control who makes capital of his virtues as well as vices. Machiavelli had a temperamental admiration for the resourceful type of ruler, even if he was unscrupulous. He deprecated half-way measures in politics which betray a ruler's weakness rather than his conscientious behaviour. Machiavelli goes to the extent of suggesting that even cruelty should be done with a firm hand, for half-hearted cruelty will bounce back on the ruler. As he asserts in *The Prince*: > "Men should be either treated generously or crushed, because they take revenge for slight injuries - for heavy ones they cannot.” Machiavelli conceded that compassion is better than cruelty. But if cruelty is necessary to bring about an orderly government, and it is so proved by the results, it would be considered to be more admirable than compassion. As illustrated in *The Prince*: > “A prince should want to have reputation for compassion rather than for cruelty; nonetheless, he should be careful that he does not make bad use of compassion. Cesare Borgia was accounted cruel; nevertheless, this cruelty of his reformed the Romagna, brought in unity, and restored order and obedience. On reflection, it will be seen that there was more compassion in Cesare than in the Florentine people, who, to escape being called cruel, allowed Pistoia to be devastated.” (Pistoia was a subject-city of Florence. In 1501-02, it was devastated due to the conflict which broke between two rival factions. Then order was forcibly restored there by Florence.) Machiavelli advised that a prince should not worry if he incurs reproach for his cruelty so long as he keeps his people united and loyal. By ordering executions of only a few individuals he can save the whole community from a disaster. Machiavelli concedes that under normal conditions a prince would like to be loved as well as feared. But it is very difficult to combine these two conditions. When he is required to choose between the two, "it is far better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both". This advice is particularly meant to deal with the people who are "ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers", who "shun danger and are greedy for profit". Machiavelli warns: "Men worry less about doing injury to one who makes himself loved than to one who makes himself feared." Then he elaborates: "The bond of love is one which men break when it is to their advantage to do so; but fear is always effective." Even if a prince is unable to create the love of his people, he should carefully avoid becoming an object of hatred. So Machiavelli warns: "The prince...will be hated if he is rapacious and aggressive with regard to the property and the women of his subjects. He should refrain from these.” Another important issue of statecraft is: How princes should honour their word? Machiavelli concedes that under normal conditions a prince should always honour his word and be straightforward rather than crafty in his dealings. But contemporary experience showed that princes who had achieved great things were those who had taken their word lightly, and who had achieved success through trickery and cunning. Machiavelli identifies two ways of fighting: men would fight by law; beasts would fight by force. But a prudent prince must realize that where the first method proves to be inadequate, he could have recourse to the second. So "a prince must understand how to make a nice use of the beast and the man". Here Machiavelli cites an example from the ancient writings: Achilles and many other princes of the ancient world were sent to be brought up by Chiron, the centaur, so that he might train them his way. In Greek mythology, a centaur refers to a typical creature who has the upper body, arms and head of a man, and the main body and legs of a horse. The allegory of centaur implies that the teacher of the princes was half beast and half man, and he taught them how to act as a man and as a beast, according to the exigencies of a situation; otherwise they would not survive! When it comes to acting like a beast, Machiavelli advises the prince to learn from the fox and the lion. He argues that "the lion is defenceless against traps and a fox is defenceless against wolves". So a prince should act like "a fox in order to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten off wolves". Those who simply act like lions are stupid. Those who have known best how to imitate the fox have come off best. In Aesop's fables (sixth century B.C.), fox is depicted as an embodiment of cunning and trickery. When a prince acts like a fox, he makes promises to others to save himself from their wrath, but he will "not honour his word when it places him at a disadvantage and when the reasons for which he made his promise no longer exist". If all men were good, it would have been advisable for the prince to keep his word; but "because men are wretched creatures who would not keep their word to you, you need not keep your word to them. A prince will never lack good excuses to colour his bad faith. Here Machiavelli hints at the natural weakness of men: "Men are so simple, and so much creatures of circumstance, that the deceiver will always find someone ready to be deceived." Machiavelli advises the prince to pretend to be good in the eyes of others in order to win their praise and loyalty. But he should always be ready to act as a practical man. As elucidated in *The Prince*: "A prince... should appear to be compassionate, faithful to his word, guileless, and devout... and indeed he should be so. But his disposition should be such that, if he needs to be the opposite, he knows how." In short, Machiavelli's discussion of the statecraft is quite illuminating which compares favourably to the unique wisdom of Kautilya, ancient Indian exponent of the art of government. **Questions:** 1. Critically examine Machiavelli's views on the relationship between ethics and politics. Do you hold him responsible for the moral decline in politics? 2. "Machiavelli made a unique contribution to the discussion of statecraft." Elaborate and comment. 3. Write short notes on: (a) Machiavelli's method; and (b) Machiavelli as the first modern thinker.