Political Thinkers and the Relation Between Virtuousness and Authority
Political thinkers from both ancient and modern times believe that moral virtuousness and legitimate authority are inextricably related. Furthermore, the ancient rulers were counseled on the importance of adhering strictly to the customary principles of spiritual goodness. As a result of the common belief that their survival was due to their good deeds, their law would be successful to the rest of their posterity. In his novel aptly titled ‘The Prince,' Machiavelli attacked the moralistic conception of power against the backdrop of this moral status.
Machiavelli’s Wish to Foster Republics in Italy
According to Machiavelli, there exists nothing like a moral pedestal from which people are judged with regards to the legitimate and illegitimate exercise of power. To support this view, Machiavelli opines that authority and power are the equal elements that function in tandem to realize the political objectives of a successful state. Furthermore, whoever has power has the rightful authority to command and wield a great influence over the subjects, but goodness alone does not confer or ensure authority. Conversely, Machiavelli contradicts the moralistic alignment of politics, as he feels that the only mandate of a political ruler is to acquire and maintain power. The supposition that Machiavelli wished to foster republics in the renaissance Italy is enhanced by the most prevailing inclination towards keeping principalities as opposed to their outright destruction. Thus, Machiavelli recommends that brutal force should be applied if need be to restore orderliness and consolidate power to rule.
Machiavelli’s Stance on New Principalities
The willingness to foster republics is captured by Machiavelli’s stance on the new principalities as illustrated in chapter III of ‘The Prince.’ In his subsequent submissions, Machiavelli highlights the failures of the past regime to harness new principalities and rule them effectively, while others are depicted as thriving. The case is given of King Louis XII of France who seized Milan and surrendered it to Ludovico’s army. Such failure is seen as emanating from weak establishments lacking adequate power and authority to integrate local cultures and even languages in their rule. Subsequently, Machiavelli also suggests that for the prince to consolidate power, he needs to successfully suppress an emerging revolt and any other further uprisings by harshly punishing the rebels while at the same time decimating the opposition. The ruler of a given principality can therefore declare brutal force on the subjects in response to the revolt in an unprecedented manner to avert such future attempts. On the other hand, the Romans are seen as implementing various policies in the provinces they annexed by sending out colonies, where they indulged the lesser powers without necessarily increasing their authority. Alternatively, the Romans established powerful rulers to rule on their behalf and did not allow any foreign power to gain reputation in their colonies. The Roman rule is further epitomized by its conquest of the kingdom of Macedonia and the refusal to let Antiochus hold any province in their territory. Machiavelli, therefore, appreciates the strong political stance taken by the Romans to impose their rule and suggests that any wise prince ought to follow the example of the Roman rule. Thus, the Romans being able to foresee the inconveniences from afar took the necessary measures, however brutal, to remedy political conflicts and prevent them from escalating. The same approach was never taken by King Louis XII of France who had been brought to Italy to fulfill the ambitions of the Venetians to acquire Lombardy. King Louis XII did not consolidate the lesser powers in his province and made the unwise decision to assist Pope Alexander to acquire Romagna, which only served to weaken him.
Methods to Hold New Acquisitions and Make Republics
Therefore, Machiavelli makes the supposition that there exist several virtuous methods that can be employed to hold a newly acquired province and make a republic out of it. In that case, bloodshed is avoided and only resorted to as a necessary means. Machiavelli’s desire to foster republics is also seen in his assertions which include the following:
- Installing a prince or colonies of one’s people in the event of a new acquisition.
- Indulging lesser powers in new acquisitions without increasing their power.
- Decimating those perceived to be powerful to make them more docile and governable.
- Preventing foreign entities from gaining any meaningful foothold and reputation in the provinces.
The high praise conferred to republics reflects Machiavelli’s position on the need to mitigate future problems instead of enjoying the benefit of time as the hallmarks of a true republic.
Machiavelli’s Calls for a Unified State and Strong Republics
Machiavelli’s Calls for a Unified State
Just as important as it was for Machiavelli to foster republics, the strong desire to liberate Italy from foreign invasions could have led to his calls for a unified state. Through the book ‘The Prince,’ Machiavelli rightly identified the house of Medici, the ruling family of Florence, to champion the unification efforts of Italy. Hence, the need to conquer free republics can be summed up as the efforts by Machiavelli to unite Italy, which contained several free republics. But since establishing power on such new republics was a difficult task for the prince, Machiavelli discussed three viable options to pursue. The options recommended for the establishment of the new republics that had lived by their own laws before the occupation include the following:
- Ruining them just as the Romans annihilated Capua, Carthage, and Numantia yet did not lose them. Greece also had to succumb to the destruction since diplomacy had failed to establish an effective Roman rule.
- Going to live there or installing colonies if one is a prince of a republic. This would pacify the inhabitants and make them governable when subjected to direct rule.
- Allowing the provinces to keep their own orders and set of rules but installing a puppet regime answerable to the ruling masters.
Machiavelli ultimately suggests that the republics offer a greater life despite its inherent challenges such as the desire for revenge, hence the most secure path to establish effective rule is to either eliminate or live in them.
Republics and Strong Executives
According to Machiavelli, strong executives can only be found in well-established republics. Machiavelli’s most favorite Republican was the prince called Cesar Borgia who was known to stupefy the people and satisfy the soldiers. The prince was the man of the people and reportedly against the aristocracy. The prince excelled at purging dissident elites as exemplified by Cesar’s actions of conquering Romagna. The prince also ruled through fear and without the direct consent of the governed. In addition, the prince controlled his own army and used it as necessitated by the circumstances. The republics are also shown as excelling in quelling dissident by quashing any entity encroaching upon their power.
Admiration of Strong Republics and Princes of Virtue
Interestingly, the beginning of chapter VI serves to highlight Machiavelli’s admiration of a strong republic with successful leaders and goes on to offer advice to aspiring princes on the need to emulate. Machiavelli exalts the princes who conquer by virtue as perfect leaders as opposed to the opportunists who seize power by fortune. The example is given of such excellent princes as marching the qualities of Moses, Cyrus, Theseus, and Romulus. Thus, the great princes that excelled in displaying their virtue acquired their principalities with some difficulty but rose above adversity to hold them with ease. The great princes are also alluded to as prophets and as such, those that used arms conquered while unarmed ones were ruined. The latter is shown in the case of Brother Girolamo Savonarola, the failed prince who did not have the people’s support.
Machiavelli’s Views on Republics and a Unified Italy
It, therefore, appears that Machiavelli had some sort of dissatisfaction with the republics of his day, given that most did not use adequate morality, force, and brutality to eliminate opposition as applicable. Similarly, Machiavelli’s sentiments serve to underscore the fact that those leaders of his time were actually not ready for the task of unifying Italy. Categorically, Machiavelli seems to support the idea that the common good cannot be experienced anywhere other than in a unified republic. In contrast, Machiavelli is open to the conquest of Italy by an outside force if only it will free it from the barbarians and unify it.
Conclusion
To sum up, the existence of imagined republics according to Machiavelli only exist in effectual truth and no moral rule made by man needs to be naturally bounding. The rules made exist in accordance with the necessity of each regime and ought to be obeyed under such necessity. Further, whatever is deemed necessary to establish a formidable republic may be declared just and reasonable, however virtuous or immoral. Ultimately, what constitutes justice depends on what the prince is ready to undertake or submit to in order to establish stronger and unified republics. Therefore, brutal force and reasonable virtuousness are the key ingredients of consolidating power to establish unified republics.
