國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
95
Chapter 4:
The Machiavellian Tradition
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
96
Among the four traditions of Political Realism, there is not a tradition like the Machiavellian one being so clearly idiosyncratic. Machiavelli has always been the top candidate to blame for the infamy of the school of Political Realism mostly because of the notoriety of the statecraft he suggests. Nevertheless, numerous scholars attribute him as the most representative figure of Political Realism (Wight, 1992). But since he
holds such a flagrant reputation, how could he be so influential? Kenneth Thompson recognizes him as the “founder of realist politics” (1994, p. 62) and “the supreme
spokesman of crafty realist politics” (1994, p. 67); Jack Donnelly thinks he stands out
most prominently among Realists of an earlier century (2000, p. 24); and Kimberly Hutchings refers him as one of “the canonic forefathers frequently invoked by political realists” (1999, p. 15). How could his works be so important to the
scholarship of Realism? Does that simply signify the nature of immorality or amorality41 of the school of Political Realism? Is there any possibility in the tradition of Machiavelli that allows a variant interpretation of neither solely immorality nor amorality? These are the questions to be answered in this chapter.
In this chapter, we focus on Machiavelli‟s legacy in Political Realism.
Discussions will be initiated by an introduction of his thought. Then, discussions will be concentrated on the doctrine of raison d’état of which Machiavelli is believed to be
41 “Even today, one of the first words likely to come to mind when one mentions realism or political amoralism is “Machiavellianism”” (Donnelly, 2000, p. 24).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
97
the progenitor. The conception of the amorality or immorality of Political Realism will be discussed and a distinct Machiavellian viewpoint on this matter will also be presented. Aiming at discovering the richness of traditional legacies in the school of Political Realism, this thesis suggests a nuanced way of reading Machiavelli. The way maintains that Machiavelli‟s advice is not simply immoral nor is it entirely amoral. A number of core elements helping to identify this tradition will be pointed out in the following discussions. With these elements identified thereafter, to spot out modern successors of the Machiavellian tradition shall not be of too much hardship. The afterwards illuminated legacy of Machiavelli is expected to serve the function to disentangle the complex theoretical composition of modern Political Realism and to show Political Realism‟s traditional richness in diversity.
Glory, Virtù, and Fortune
How Machiavelli sees the role of a state for its citizens is essential to the
construct of his political thoughts. To Machiavelli, a political order is the prerequisite of individuals‟ not only daily harmonious lives but also moral achievements.
Machiavelli served the city-state Florence as a diplomat in a turbulent era. His practical experience instilled him of the significance of a stable political order to common people. The international situation back then was an unstable equilibrium
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
98
formed by the main political actors Naples, Venice, Florence, Milan and the papal states by the fifteen century (Boucher, 1998, p. 125). The balance of power among these states was at stake. States constantly allied with each other to counterbalance rising powers. During such an unstable period, Machiavelli learned deeply the utmost importance of national survival to a state. Hence, providing exhortations of avoiding subjugation by other political powers, Machiavelli calls attention emphatically and repetitively to the primacy of national security and political autonomy.
Machiavelli also suggests that glory and honor is what a political order naturally desires. He praises glory and honor and thus domination and expansion. Because of the competitive, distinguishing, and zero-sum nature of glory pursuit, when a state insatiably seeks for glory, imperialism follows (Donnelly, 2000, pp. 67-69).
Nevertheless, he warns that glory cannot be the overriding value over national security. “Reputation may also have instrumental value in the pursuit of power or gain.
But that is not why men seek it. … It is indeed highly valued—but not as a (mere) interest” (Donnelly, 2000, pp. 66-67). Honor and glory do matter to a prince‟s
standing in the torrent of history. Yet, a prince‟s pursuit of glory must not jeopardize his state‟s security. If one prince overly lusts in pursuance of glory, he cannot be a good prince in the eyes of Machiavelli. Because that means the prince lacks of ability to discern the wind of fortune (which will be discussed later) and therefore puts his
‧
leadership, but also the help of fortune. Machiavelli believes that a state‟s success or failure depends greatly on fortune (2005, pp. 128-131). Fortune, or Fortuna, was believed and depicted as a capricious and ruthless goddess. Her heart is always hard to predict and her decisions could never be altered. However, reflected on historical experiences, Machiavelli maintains that all grant political enterprises were accomplished by leaders of virtù who could not only seize opportunities which fortune offers but also alter adversity of fortune. That is to say, albeit one state may encounter unfavorable fortune, as long as its prince is equipped with the qualities of virtù, the state could still achieve grandeur and prosperity. “Those people who possessvirtù are those whom fortune most favours” (Boucher, 1998, p. 134).
Virtù is a Latin term compounded of extraordinary qualities and it has no single
corresponding word in English. Virtù 42 “refers to those things especially characteristic of man, the qualities that make us human” (Donnelly, 2000, p. 175).
Generally, men of virtù are “of the most noble and distinctive human excellences, achievements, and aspirations” (Donnelly, 2000, p. 175). “It [virtù] is a combination
42 Quoted from Donnelly, the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “superiority or excellence;
unusual ability, merit, or distinction” (Donnelly, 2000, p. 175). According to Donnelly, “Machiavelli often uses virtù in this sense. …Virtù refers only to those abilities that command praise and deserve emulation” (Donnelly, 2000, p. 175).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
100
of valour and courage, but above all it points to balanced judgment and astuteness”
(Boucher, 1998, p. 134). Therefore, a leader of virtù knows how to draw support from favorable fortune and most importantly, he is also capable of challenging and reversing adverse fortune. Virtù is important not only to rulers but also to soldiers.
Soldiers with virtù are considered as soldiers with the qualities of “manliness, self-discipline, purposefulness, determination, bravery, boldness” (Thompson, 1994, p.
65). Either in times of peace or war, the leader‟s and the people‟s virtù decide if a state is prosperous and successful or the opposite. With virtù, one can not only secure his state, but also accomplish glorious political undertaking.
This special emphasis on virtù sheds great light on how Machiavelli conceives of the role of morality. Machiavelli believes that a prince of virtù is able and willing to decide what has to be done regardless of conventional moral commands. It does not mean that a competent prince shall ignore all the moral principles. Instead, it means a prince of virtù adheres to a role-related morality which is different from the conventional and universally-applied moral principles. This will be discussed further later on. But what is important to note here is that Machiavelli actually pictures a prince of virtù who can lead his people not only to seize the chance that Fortuna offers but also to resist and dominate her when she no longer favors the country.
Machiavelli puts an emphasis on the importance to develop a country‟s power in
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
101
terms of military force. With modern concepts of Political Realism, scholars suggest that a state pursues power in order to countervail foreign countries‟ power. However, what is more important for Machiavelli is that the purpose of pursuing power is actually for being as prepared as possible when the goddess Fortuna suddenly turns to be disagreeable. It was the kind of leaders who were of virtù and carry a sacred mission to lead the entire country unwaveringly that Machiavelli pictured when he acutely found that none of the main Italian city-states were quite ready for sudden, merciless, and unpredictable changes of the wind of fortune. To understand in modern Realist words, a possible interpretation would be that a good political leader should always keep his mindset in a state of war. For Machiavelli, peacetimes among states are only times of temporarily truces. One cannot foresee when the next devastating war will happen. Therefore, a prince should always be in vigilance bewaring of possible threats otherwise he would be an incompetent leader seeing he puts his country‟s survival at risk. A prince should presume that his kingdom is always in a special state of time and conditions (emergency state). Only in this way, his people can enjoy domestic peace and he could serve his responsibility qua leader properly.
Advising the Statecraft
Basically, The Prince is a work of advising how to rule a state. Machiavelli
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
102
recommends his philosophy based on his observation on human nature. He shows in
his exhortations an extremely distrustful attitude to human nature. According to Machiavelli, humans are “ungrateful, changeable, pretenders and dissemblers,
avoiders of dangers, and desirous of gain” (Machiavelli, 2005, p. 91). Also in one of his poems, quoted from Donnelly, he depicts human beings as “insatiable, arrogant, crafty and shifting, and above all else malignant, iniquitous, violent, and savage”
(2000, p. 73). His pessimistic perspective on human nature naturally leads him to believe in strong government because he believes that when restrictive force is absent, evil deeds are committed constantly (Machiavelli, 2003, p. 28; 144).
What else is more important than a strong government to curb the unreliable, vicious, and malign populace is the role of a prince. That is when Machiavelli‟s reputation begins to get repugnant. Machiavelli suggests that it is the ugliness of human nature compels a prince to be crafty and formidable in order to secure his
political foundation and domestic compliance. Machiavelli suggests a prince to be a fox and at the same time a lion. In his own words, “a prince… must … be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to awe the wolves” (Machiavelli, 2005, p. 94). Being a fox
does not merely mean to be able to recognize traps but it also means to be sly and unpredictable. On the other hand, being a lion means a prince must be skilled in manipulating fear and power and show no mercy to potential challengers,
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
103
international or domestic. In other words, a prince should be as cunning as a fox and as formidable as a lion.
Machiavelli thinks that the populace is extremely unreliable and inconsistent, so a
prince needs to be in vigilance all the time. A prince should not and cannot rely on people‟s love. Relying on fear, instead, always holds changeable populace in curb.
“For Machiavelli, the evil and egoistic passions at the core of human nature often can be repressed only by force, and at times only by ferocious cruelty” (Donnelly, 2000, p.
25). Also, a good prince should be equipped with the ability to apply crafts when it is necessary. A crafty prince cannot and do not trust anyone easily. A prince should see every man in his princedom as the potential ambitious assassin and every state outside the borders the hostile invader (Haslam, 2002, p. 32; McClelland, 1996, p. 156).
Furthermore, a prince has to know that people do not observe faith so a prince must not to be bound by his promises “when such observation turns against himself”
(Machiavelli, 2005, p. 94). Knowing how to adapt to the current of time is one of the important qualities of a prince of virtù even though that would compromise the fair name of him.
It would be good if the prince can cover his immoral but necessary conducts with an ostensibly justifiable and aboveboard pretention. But it would be better if the prince can control his people‟s perspectives beforehand. Acting is not enough for
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
104
covering up all the “necessary evils”. Manipulation of the gullible populace would be
a much more efficient and shrewd way to quiet the populace even before the suspicion comes into pass. Human nature is gullible and malleable, a prince is suggested to acknowledge that and apply all the possible devices to manipulate it (Machiavelli, 2003, p. 113; 2005, p. 94). For Machiavelli, human nature is essentially and constantly wicked and base. However, it can be remolded by means of education, law43, and institution (Thompson, 1994, p. 64).
Suggesting utilizing education, laws, and institutions incurs Machiavelli general opprobrium. But what makes some people condemn Machiavelli so indignantly is his suggestion of using religions. The Roman experience inspired and impressed
Machiavelli of how great a force religions could serve in stabilizing the society. He believes that “[t]he fear of God is the most effective means of instilling into the populace discipline, obedience, and order” (Boucher, 1998, p. 104).
This way of seeing religions draws out an important point to clear. One may naturally suggest that there is certain degree of similarity between Augustine and
Machiavelli in their perspectives on human nature. Undeniably, they both share a similar dismal image on human nature. Haslam suggests that “Machiavelli‟s
comments on the nature of man are scattered but entirely consonant with an
43 Therefore, the legislators must assume the wickedness of human nature while making laws (Machiavelli, 2003, p. 28).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
105
Augustinian pessimism” (Haslam, 2002, pp. 29-30). However, Machiavelli‟s advice
of using religions to control society has distinguished his assumptions of human nature from Augustine‟s. Machiavelli‟s assumptions of human nature are derived from
his observations without religious reference. This pragmatism suggests a focus on reality that “leaving behind the things that have been imagined about a prince, and discussing those that are true” (Machiavelli, 2005, p. 87). An attitude of separating the
normative ideas and the reality is thus shown. We could properly associate him with the Thucydides‟ inheritance yet we must be careful when we put Machiavelli together
with Augustine. Arguably, we could suppose that Machiavelli‟s observation on human nature is influenced by Augustine‟s understanding of the earthly world.
Besides, as mentioned in Chapter 3, for Augustine, the ultimate reference of all actions is God. But what Machiavelli suggests is to ask a prince to act according to the doctrine raison d’état. For Machiavelli, the reason of state is above everything else, including morality, freedom, and faith. Speaking plainly, for Machiavelli, state is above God. Thus we can see that the doctrine of raison d’état is essentially at odds with Christianity. Scholars also suggest that it is exactly because Machiavelli was a pagan without knowing the horror of going to hell otherwise he would not have suggested such a sacrilegious thought (Meinecke, 1984, p. 29).
Machiavelli‟s doctrine of raison d’état should be understood together with the
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
106
significance of virtù and the concept of virtù gives a better idea of how Machiavelli
must be a pagan. “In general, raison d’état is operationalized virtù, that is, doing what is necessary for the interest of the state” (Boucher, 1998, p. 137). The doctrine of raison d’état means to do what is necessary for the state‟s interest to do. The prince
who sees this necessity and does not hesitate to do so has the quality we so called virtù. What virtù requires often goes completely against the Christian Commandments
such as killing, perjury, abandoning faith … etc. (Donnelly, 2000, p. 175). Cesare
Borgia (the Duke Valentino) whom Machiavelli admired is the exemplary figure of virtù. His brutal, menacing, cold-blood, and ferocious character reflects clearly the
heathen nature of Machiavelli‟s accounts (Boucher, 1998, p. 128). Machiavelli‟s
paganism does not necessarily exclude the possibility of him referring to Augustine‟s philosophy for his formation of viewpoints on human nature. But we can be sure of that Machiavelli does not take in the other part of Augustine‟s philosophy, that is, Christianity, which is the starting point of Augustine‟s philosophical construct. These two traditional precursors do overlap on perspectives on human nature. But Augustine‟s philosophy predates Machiavelli‟s and Augustine‟s remarks are much more systematic and integrated than Machiavelli‟s on the point of human nature.
Furthermore, Machiavelli‟s doctrine of raison d’état characterizes his Realist legacies much more vividly and cogently than his assumptions of human nature. Therefore, it
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
107
does not concern us the problem of distinction between these two traditions.
The overall concern in The Prince is efficacy and efficiency of ruling.
Machiavelli‟s suggestion of relying on fear does not mean a prince cannot have
himself loved. Machiavelli suggests that it would be good if a prince is loved by his
populace. Yet, the unreliability of human necessitates a prince to look for a more certain way of governance. Here comes the Machiavelli‟s most-quoted dictum: “it is much safer to be feared than loved” (Machiavelli, 2005, p. 91). But it does not follow
that one cannot be both loved and feared. Nearly impossible, but that would
notwithstanding be the best scenario, for Machiavelli. If a prince cannot acquire people‟s love, he at least should eschew their hatred (Machiavelli, 2005, p. 92).
Because hatred is counter-productive for a prince‟s ruling (Haslam, 2002, p. 30). Over all, Machiavelli‟s accounts are considerably utilitarian. For example, although he
suggests a prince to act outside of the moral context, he exhorts a prince to stay away from people‟s wives and properties. Not because of deontological concerns. Instead, it
is because such conducts are sure to incur long-lasting hatred from the populace which is counter-productive to ruling. The political foundation of ruling may as well be impaired as a result. Machiavelli‟s philosophy suggests that a prince should always reflect on the instrument ends when formulating policies.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
108
The Doctrine of Raison d’État
The auxiliary concepts of the Machiavellian tradition have been presented hitherto and from this section the most crucial concept in the Machiavellian tradition will be identified and discussed. The doctrine of raison d’état, the major characterizing element, is believed to be the main legacy that Machiavelli has left for theorists of international relations. Raison d’état, which is common to all Political Realists, or
reasons of state in English, signifies “the belief that, where international relations are concerned, the interests of the state predominate over all other interests and values”
(Haslam, 2002, p. 17). Machiavelli is considered “the first person to discover the real nature of raison d’état” (Meinecke, 1984, p. 41). Murray attributes Machiavelli as the
progenitor of raison d’état on account of that Machiavelli‟s philosophy brought an end to “the era of the „mirror of princes‟, when the virtues of a prince were of more
pressing concerns to writers than the interest of his state, and the beginning of a new era, in which the interest of the state overrode all considerations of personal virtue”
(Murray, 1997, p. 41). Despite of his prolificacy, his political thought concerns primarily this doctrine (Meinecke, 1984, p. 29). He did not explicitly use the same terms that we use today such as raison d’état or reasons of state, but we are left no doubt that the doctrine of raison d’état epitomizes his political oeuvre (Haslam, 2002, p. 28).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
109
One point has to be made clear first. Machiavelli‟s works do not simply exhort an
immoral style of ruling. Machiavelli places the interest of community prior to the individuals‟ but it does not follow that the interest of individuals‟ could be trampled at one‟s pleasure. Machiavelli believes that human beings assemble for the easier
acquirements of common goods (Boucher, 1998, p. 94). So a state is essentially a subject of interest. It is not and should not be restrained by some pre-existing missions except for the substantial interest of the people (Feng, 2010, p. 5). For the constituent citizens, security stands above all the other common goods for “[w]ithout its protection, the life of man is tragedy, a unending movement from one calamity to
acquirements of common goods (Boucher, 1998, p. 94). So a state is essentially a subject of interest. It is not and should not be restrained by some pre-existing missions except for the substantial interest of the people (Feng, 2010, p. 5). For the constituent citizens, security stands above all the other common goods for “[w]ithout its protection, the life of man is tragedy, a unending movement from one calamity to