The Key Ideas Of Leadership Of Machiavelli
When assessing the key ideas of Machiavellian thought, it has often been attributed that Machiavelli has been commonly read in a subjective manner, to which has driven false assertions that his key ideas constitute either a deceitful “lucid plan” (Strauss, 1957, p. 13), or promote homogenous male autonomy (Pitkin, 1999, pp. 19-25. ) According to Joseph Femia, it is because of a lack of understanding as to his ideas, which has led to an overall misunderstanding of The Prince, because all cynical assertions can be seen as a “self-fulfilling prophecy”, insofar as they have created, a “false assertion of alienation and mistrust, as to which the prince was designed to address” (Femia, 2004, p. 112). Moreover, to outright class Machiavelli’s ideas as amoral, as emphasised by Phil Harris, would be “a gross distortion”, for Machiavelli had only intended to teach all leaders how to deploy necessary tools in both the securing of power, the unifying the state and the perseverance of good governance (Harris, 2010, pp. 133-134).
Upon this realisation, there is a need to reanalyse the key ideas of leadership in regard to possessing virtu, controlling fortuna and preserving a controversial reputation.
Regarding the possessing of virtu, a particular set of skills required for any Prince, one can clearly see that Machiavelli was not interested in Princes building a heaven on earth (Femia, 2004, p. 43: Harrison, 2011), but instead upon the need to reject Cicero’s conception that leaders must never commit moral corruption, for the subsequent ends of a Prince guaranteeing political stability, liberty and justice, far outweigh the need to apply utopian virtu (Machiavelli, 2005, p. 53). As apparent in chapter XVIII, there is a considerable desire for all Princes to legitimately act against faith, charity, humanity, and religion and to become both a fox in order to effectively counter internal opposition, whilst also becoming a lion “in order to frighten the wolves” of external threats (Machiavelli, 2005, pp. 60-61).
Upon interpreting virtu, what is firstly clear is that there are multiple references, to which it can be suggested that Machiavelli has no clear definition (Harrison, 2011). However, what is unanimously agreed upon is that Machiavelli’s conception of virtu cannot be deemed equivalent to both the Christian and Utopian sense (Pitkin, 1999, p. 25). Upon Joseph Femia’s realist interpretation, it is of the utopian virtues that are themselves incompatible with Machiavelli’s ideal state, for there are “a never-ending cycle of recurrent sequences” as to which moral deeds cannot compete with Machiavelli’s conception of consistent virtues (Femia, 2004, p. 66). In contrast, Quentin Skinner rejects any notion of virtu being simply understood as a clear argument between liberality and clemency, for both are misunderstood and cannot effectively be depicted as virtues in times of need (Skinner, 2013).
Indisputably, one can acknowledge that Machiavelli did seek to separate the study of politics from the traditional analysis of God inspired morals (Harrison, 2011), however this is not to indicate that Machiavelli sought a complete abandoning of unconditional values (Femia, 2004, p. 13), nor can one conclude that Machiavelli idealised such deeds in response to the Church allegedly depriving the virtues of all previous Princes (Strauss, 1957, p. 26). Whilst Machiavelli certainly challenged virtues based upon the works of Aristotle and Christianity, he arguably sought no secular alternative, for his ideas do stem upon similar aims of the reformed faith movements of the Renaissance era, to whom had sought to apply deeds to build a pragmatic just society (Korvela, 2006, pp. 150-54). This claim can likewise subsequently link back to Machiavelli’s assertions that all Princes, whenever possible, should at least appear to embrace mercy, humanity, honesty and religious ideals (Harris, 2010, pp. 133-134), primarily because Machiavelli himself never urged evil and only advocated immoral deeds when necessary to successfully achieve the ends of preserving both liberty and the unity of the state (Scott and Zaretsky, 2013).
Within the contemporary political sphere, Machiavelli’s stance on virtu can be certainly realised for leaders have often applied bad deeds for their own ends (Scott and Zaretsky, 2013). Indeed, as rightfully contended by Michael Walzer, it is in reality we often recognise a successful politician by his dirty hands (Walzer, 1973, p. 168) given that society is constituted by rules for which leaders can, and will, reshape in times of need (Walzer, 1973, pp. 169-175). Undeniably, one can claim that even a soft leader including Angela Merkel can be seen to have become a fox in securing her virtu, for she was able to consolidate her own power by applying virtues to stab her own political party, which subsequently resulted in Merkel becoming both CDU leader and first female chancellor (Marr, 2013).
Given it is understandably just for Princes to deploy immoral virtues when needed, there is also a considerable need to revaluate Machiavelli’s idea of fortuna, to which are the external events plaguing any Prince’s legacy. What Machiavelli firstly emphasised was that fortuna was of a similar character to a destructive river, for which can ruin everything in its path (Machiavelli, 2005, p. 84). According to Machiavelli, whilst recognising that fortuna could vary depending upon the context and occasion, for any Prince, it is of excessive importance to tame fortune, as for any Prince who alternatively relies completely upon fortuna will sow the seeds of his own destruction (Machiavelli, 2005, pp. 85-86). In Chapter VII, Machiavelli exemplifies this by depicting how two leaders went about their own controlling of fortuna through virtu. To Machiavelli, Francesco had only become Duke of Milan through his wise appropriation of virtu to consolidate fortuna, whilst Cesare Borgia, once he had lost all his inherited fortuna, despite attempting to apply all notions of prudency and virtuosity, subsequently lost his state (Machiavelli, 2005, pp. 24-25). What is also clear is that fortuna is undoubtedly feminine yet is always the friend of young men and can always be tamed by pragmatic men as to those who proceed with gentleness (Machiavelli, 2005, pp. 84-87).
Upon assessing fortuna, it is primarily evident that Machiavelli’s depiction of language is of significant controversy. Through her feminist analogy of The Prince of princely qualities, whilst Hannah Pitkin acknowledges that the themes of Machiavelli are political and public, the imagery of examples associated, particularly with fortuna, are nonetheless depicted in the way as to express both the personal and sexualised, for the single benefit of legitimising the superiority of male autonomy (Pitkin,1999, p. 25). Skinner additionally takes issue with fortune’s credentials, by branding it a “horrendously sexist discussion” to which brings out the domination of the real man with superior virtu (Warburton and Skinner, 2009). Whilst undoubtedly fortuna is associated with femininity, it would be an oversight to simply conclude that fortuna solely legitimises male leadership because, as correctly noted by Joseph Femia, one can see that Machiavelli was speaking metaphorically (Femia, 2004, p. 41), in that fortuna was not a literal superhuman figure shaping external events (Femia, 2004, p. 41). Even as highlighted by Strauss, a key cynic of Machiavelli, the feminine references to fortuna, are not meant to be taken seriously for such description merely served as a pedagogic function in seeking to appeal to all young Princes in the making, as to adhering to old teachings (Strauss, 1957, p. 38).
Upon a wider assessment, what Machiavelli was effectively recognising was a complete uncontrollable force to whom spares no Prince from exemption (Machiavelli, 2005, p. 84). Therefore, one can consider fortuna, as an anti-virtu, but not of ‘temporal instability’ (Harrison, 2011), for it can be depicted as ubiquitous, clearly operating beyond a civic and personal life in both times of peace and war (Frazer and Huchings, 2011, p. 61). One can also see that fortuna enables the flourishing of free will, because it is “the arbiter of one half of our actions” (Machiavelli, 2005, p. 84) to which, as addressed by Mark Jurdievic, leaves one half of Princes to actively pursue their own free will in order to regulate the flowing of fortuna (Jurdjevic, 2014, p. 14). However; to undoubtedly understand Machiavelli’s conception of fortuna, it is of significant importance to acknowledge that The Prince was written at the height of turbulent times, in which solely relying upon fortuna had been hopeless for all previous Italian principalities (Frazer and Huchings, 2011, p. 61). Indeed, according to Machiavelli “If Italy had been protected with proper virtu, as is the case in Germany, Spain, and France, either this flood (of foreign conquests) would not have produced the enormous upheavals that would not have struck here (Florence)” (Machiavelli, 2005, p. 85). Machiavelli’s regards for the past and his new conception of fortuna, can therefore serve both a warning and of a recognition to advance the cause of effectively confronting fortuna for ensuring political stability, for both Princes and subjects (Jurdjevic, 2014, p. 11). Moreover, it is unquestionably apparent that Machiavelli’s views on fortuna have withheld the test of time, for one can evidently draw links to even the softest of leaders. With Angela Markel’s recent economic agenda, one can attribute that Merkel intentionally deployed austerity measures upon weaker Eurozone countries to effectively steer the ship, for both the preserving of the Eurozone and in the long term, for guaranteeing the superiority of the German economy (Abadi, 2013).
In relation to a Princes reputation, according to Machiavelli, it is firstly of any advantage for a Prince to acquire the reputation of being a miser, as to securing a relationship of generosity. Upon Machiavelli’s historical reflection of Pope Julius II in chapter XVI, one can see it was himself who decided not to maintain a generous reputation, in order to wage a successful war (Machiavelli, 2005, p. 86). Therefore, it is subsequently beneficial for all Princes to become a miser without being hatred, as to be forced to incur a reputation in being over- generous, which may in the fuel a dangerously loathed reputation in the long term. Indeed, this concept also stems from the idea that it is safer for any Prince to be feared than to be loved, so long as the Prince never becomes hated amongst his subjects (Machiavelli, 2005, p. 58-59), for nothing will invariably save the Prince for when his subjects are in contempt, for they can use their resources to overthrow the prince (Machiavelli, 2005, pp. 62-72). Indeed, upon a contemporary assessment, one can arguably comprehend that Donald Trump’s quest for public affirmation during the 2016 election goes against Machiavelli’s advice, for his overpromising and populist rhetoric to “Drain the Swamp” may eventually lead him to deepen his already unpopular status (Ignatius, 2017). Whilst certainly it appears controversial to be regarded as both miserly and feared, it is important to acknowledge Machiavelli was” a product of a particular time and place” (Femia, 2004, p. 15) in which Florence was in constant danger from external attack and that he himself had been both victim to political tyranny, torture and exile under the Medici Administration (Femia, 2004, p. 3).
Because of his previous experience, one can understand why Machiavelli had acquired a critical conception of human nature. Undoubtedly, Machiavelli’s view of human nature was considerably negative, for he evidently expressed that any society was naturally divided into competing interests of ravaged humans (Femia, 2004, pp. 63-70). However, one cannot conclude that he was an outright pessimist for it was also the case he also sought to advocate rule in the interest of humanity during peaceful times (Jurdjevic, 2014, p. 2). Additionally, one can also understand that Machiavelli was not legitimising a complete tyranny, for he only advocated a temporary monarchic dictatorship and a devious reputation during unstable times (Ledeen, 1999). What can ultimately be demonstrated was that Machiavelli sought to reassure all those in power not worry about being depicted as both cruel and miserly, for there would always be legitimate occasions in which princes had to appear in such manner for the sake of preserving their figure hood and to ensure the maximum liberty and justice for one’s own subjects when needed (Warburton and Skinner, 2009: Skinner, 2013). Therefore, one can also come to the conclusion that Machiavelli was both a democrat and a devil in advocating for the rule of a miserly and fearful Prince during times of civic corruption, whilst also advocating generous rule by the public in times of peace, tempered by notions of prudence and humanity (Machiavelli, 2005, pp. 55-57: Harris, 2010, p. 133).
Upon a concluding reflection, Machiavelli’s princely ideas, whilst undoubtedly brute, are nevertheless valuable for any princely leader to effectively preserve his own figure, as well as justice and liberty within his state. Whilst virtu may appear controversial in departing from the notion of goodness to commit immoral deeds, in practical reality, it is justified in securing both the justice and liberty of the state during uncertain times. Regarding the controlling of fortuna, whilst there is controversy in its description, this isn’t to be taken literally and that there is a just understanding for all Princes to effectively restrict fortuna as an external constraint. Moreover, it is because of Machiavelli’s critique of human nature for which he details it’s in the interest for all Princes to tactically deploy, when necessary, a fearful and miserly reputation for the sake of avoiding both external attacks and internal strife during despairing times.
