Niccolò Machiavelli is a misunderstood character in history. He is often thought of as an advocate for immoral and unethical ways of achieving power, so much so that the term Machiavellian is frequently used to describe someone who is manipulative and deceitful. While this definition is useful for understanding and talking about our societal and political systems, it’s not an entirely accurate interpretation of his writing and philosophy.
In his book, Burnham examines Machiavelli’s political philosophy and one of his core conclusions is that people are naturally self-interested. “The primary object, in practice, of all rulers is to serve their own interest, to maintain their own power and privilege,” he writes, “There are no exceptions. No theory, no promises, no morality, no amount of good will, no religion will restrain power.” Some people are truly altruistic, he admits, but they are not the types to rise to power. “If one is to govern men, more useful than a sense of justice are perspicacity, a ready intuition of individual and mass psychology, strength of will and, especially, confidence in oneself.”
At his core, Machiavelli was a realist. His political philosophy has grown to become “immoral” and “unethical” because that is the nature of politics as he experienced it. His answer to the question “How do people gain power and keep it?” is that they are deceitful, and if you want to gain power, you must act in kind. If you behave in moral or ethical ways, you will not gain power. It is not a matter of feeling but a matter of fact. “I have found it always true, that men do seldom or never advance themselves from a small beginning, to any great height, but by fraud, or force,” he writes. We the people see this every time a politician makes promises on the campaign trail and then fails to deliver them once assuming office. They tell us what we want to hear and we give them our money and attention and votes, yet once they are victorious they go about their own agenda.
He encourages us to never believe what a politician (or person in position of power) says without also considering their actions, motivations, and outcomes. Speech is just one data point among many, and often the most compelling yet least informative. He believes that “the high-minded words of the formal meaning serve only to arouse passion and prejudice and sentimentality in favor of the disguised real aims.” In fact, the majority of speech made by people in power is designed to keep them in power, and when someone speaks out against them, they retaliate. For example, when Machiavelli says that rulers lie and break faith, they say he libels human nature; When Machiavelli says that ambitious men struggle for power, they say he is apologizing for the enemy opposition and is trying to confuse you; When Machiavelli says that we must keep strict watch over officials and subordinate them to the law, they say he is encouraging subversion and the loss of national unity; When Machiavelli says that no man with power is to be trusted, they convince us that his aim is to smash all our faith and ideals. When anybody attempts to point out the fraud of the elite they are viciously attacked for subversion and treated like a criminal because the elite cannot let the truth be known for fear that their power will be taken away.
This devious tactic used by those in power—denouncing those who denounce them—is one of the routes by which Machiavelli has become the devious historical figure we think of him as today. The truth is, if people understood his philosophy they would become much more difficult to govern.
Machiavelli disabuses us of the idealization of democracy, which he argues can never truly exist. The reason for this is quite simple: when any social organization becomes large enough, not every voice can be heard. Sure, democracy might work in a group of five, but once the numbers grow too large (in a community, city, state, or country) some members most forgo their right to voice their opinions for the sake of time. What naturally occurs is that the populous majority grants a minority of people in the group the power to make decisions and to allocate money and resources. “Social life cannot dispense with organization,” he explains, “the mechanical, technical, psychological, and cultural conditions of organization require leadership, and guarantee that the leaders rather than the mass shall exercise control. The autocratic tendencies are neither arbitrary not accidental nor temporary, but inherent in the nature of organization.” This is an iron-clad law of social organization: regardless what form it takes (democratic, authoritarian, etc.), when groups of people get together and organize, a minority govern and a majority follow.
If we combine this reality with the fact that people are naturally self-interested, it becomes simple to see that those in power will allocate more money and resources for themselves and bend the rules in their favor so that they and their ilk will maintain their grip on power. It is the natural product of social organization in all its forms.
Machiavelli was not suggesting that people should be morally or ethically ambiguous, he was simply stating that if you have a desire for power, you must be. Fraud is the name of the game. Because of this, he (and Burnham) caution us against believing what the powerful say and instead remind us that they are only looking out for their own interests. “An honest statement to the masses, which by the nature of the case of a politician cannot give,” Burnham writes, “would have to say: you cannot rule yourselves; distrust all leaders, and above all those who tell you that they are merely expressing or representing your will; erect and cherish every possible safeguard against the unchecked exercise of power.”
Leave a Reply