The Art of Politics: Machiavelli Part I

1
The Art of Politics MachiavelliPart I

• Studying Politics as an end in itself, not just
  as a means

2
Politics as an Art

• Our purpose here is to study politics as an end
  in itself, not just as a means by which policies
  are created, implemented, etc.
• How to become a politician and navigate politics
  is akin to becoming a professional athlete,
  doctor, or other professional.
• Successful politicians help shape the future by
  leading the political process successful
  policies are rooted in successful politicians
  it is talent, skill!

3
Background on Machiavelliand the Prince

• Machiavellis political and theoretical writings
  start off as a magnificent point to begin our
  class.
• Machiavellis work is insightful especially in
  those situations where there is instability or
  substantial change at hand. The Prince is a
  playbook, a manual of sorts, for leadership where
  government needs to be created or stabilized.

4
Machiavelli

• Lived 1469-1527 Medici, Italy.
• Lived an unstable period of the fractured,
  war-prone city-states of the Italian peninsula
  (before unification as a single country).
• Hence, the key problem to his period is the lack
  of a unified, stable government for Italy, due to
  intervention by outside monarchies and the
  political strength of the Pope.

5
Machiavelli as first Modern Political Theorist

• Machiavelli is considered the first political
  theorist due to rejection of Ancient philosophy,
  which is characterized by
• Happiness is goal- a well formed society like a
  beehive- everyone in their place and peaceful.
  (Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, etc.)
• Holistic philosophy - including all facets of
  existence- ontology
• Nature or Gods control fate of humanity.

6
Machiavelli vs. Ancients

• For the Ancients, politics was simply a means to
  an end (the ideal polis for the Greeks or for the
  early Christian Church, the best community man
  can produce reflecting Gods wishes.
• Machiavelli, in contrast, seeks to study politics
  for its own sake. Hence, he would support the
  idea of a Department of Political science,
  although the term Science was not as developed
  in his time.

7
Machiavelli, in contrast

• Believes that man must control his own destiny,
  not God(s) or society. In so doing, man is in
  effect not allowing nature to dictate his fate.
  
• Less focus on good of collectivity over the
  individual preface to Liberal theorists, Locke,
  etc.
• Machiavelli employs a methodology based on crude
  inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive
  philosophy) and historical analysis. However,
  it is not value-free theory, it is still
  normative and prescriptive.

8
The Prince

• Written as a gift for Prince Lorenzo de Medici,
  in order to help win a political job. Hmmm,
  sounds like today!!
• The Prince is not as coherent as most theoretical
  works due to its purpose as a gift and as a
  playbook of sorts for politicians, but contains
  many useful insights.
• Machiavellis more important work is the
  Discourses on Livy, which explains how and why to
  set up a Republic.

9
How might we apply The Prince to our world today?
Lets extend the Prince to current debates,
such as the situation in Iraq.Please feel free
to offer comparisons!!
10
Book I on Gov. Typology

• People live under two types of governments,
  principalities and republics.
• Dominions so acquired are either in the habit of
  living under a prince or used to being free
• What does this sound like? How does it compare to
  our world today?

11
Book I on Gov. Typology

• This passage suggests that people are socialized
  to adapt to a certain political culture.
  Implications?
• Hence, can Iraqis be expected to support
  democracy?
• To what extent can democracy be spread to other
  countries, especially by force?
• Should we be surprised that Iraqis are resisting
  the US military?
• Even if the United States were to leave Iraq with
  an elected government, would it stand on its own
  feet for long?

12
Book I on Gov. Typology

• This passage also foreshadows issues in
  subsequent books of the Prince.
• they are acquired either with the arms of others
  or with ones own,
• either by fortune or by virtue.

13
Book II

• This book at first would seem to be of less
  relevance today. But think what does it really
  say.
• Are there hereditary principalities today? Yes,
  all the Arabian peninsula states except Yemen
  Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, etc.
• Others do not call themselves so but have set
  up blood dynasties N. Korea, Syria, Argentina
  (Perons), USA ? (I couldnt resist the joke, or
  is it?), et al.
• Some hereditary monarchies are now republics UK,
  France, Norway, Belgium, Japan, Thailand, etc.

14
Book III Mixed Principalities

• Machiavelli says that hereditary principalities
  are stable since ruling families are recognized,
  but were they always that way?
• Now it is becoming clear that what Machiavelli is
  doing is describing what we today see as a
  difference between regimes where there is some
  popular control and those where few people are in
  control.
• Of those where few control, principalities are
  either hereditary (stable) or mixed (new and
  likely unstable). That is of much relevance
  today.

15
Book III Mixed Principalities

• The international system is just full of such
  unstable Principalities
• Almost all of Africa since decolonization.
• All of Central Asia.
• Majority of Latin America since independence.
• Large parts of the rest of Asia.
• Eastern Europe for most of the past 100 years.
• Hence, much of the Prince is dedicated to how to
  turn a Mixed Principality into a Hereditary one,
  whereas in the Discourses, his other big work, he
  explains how to form a Republic.

16
Book III Mixed Principalities

• Coups, insurrection, civil war, are a risk where
  there is a competition for power between
  individuals, groups, ethnicities, tribes, clans,
  ideologies, etc.
• A new leader needs to please people and fend off
  enemies.
• Consider the problem of replacing a regime when
  one is a citizen of that country now consider
  what it takes from the outside. Lets discuss
  Iraq.

17
Example of Iraq

• For even though one may have the strongest
  armies, he always needs the support of the
  inhabitants of a province in order to enter it.
  (Book III)
• In comparison to Iraq, Afghanistan appears to be
  more welcoming with fewer people resisting, but
  some regions are more hospitable than others.
• We go on

18
Example of Iraq

• Now I say, that such states which, when
  acquired, are added to an ancient existing
  state of him who acquires them, are either of the
  same province and same language similar culture,
  etc., or not. When they are, they may be held
  with great ease, especially if they are not used
  to living freeBut when one acquires states in a
  province disparate in language, customs, and
  orders, here are the difficulties, and here one
  needs to have great fortune and great industry to
  hold them

19
Example of Iraq

• Again, it may have been very naïve to expect that
  Iraq would not rebel, at least according to
  Machiavelli, and that the United States could
  control the situation without extensive Iraqi
  help. The Bush administration understood this
  last point, but not necessarily the first.
• The key to success in Iraq is that Iraqis need to
  govern themselves, but if they do will it be a
  democracy, or even stable?

20
Example of Iraq

• Machiavelli even suggests that the conquering
  prince go live there.
• Should President Bush or other Cabinet members
  move to Iraq?
• Another option is to have your citizens colonize
  the conquered land and go and rebuild.
• While the US has attempted to rebuild Iraq, I am
  not sure we could find many volunteers.

21
Example of Iraq

• What is the other option?
• Crush those that resist with brutal power. It
  takes more than shock and awe, it takes kill and
  kill to instill fear and awe.
• Even then, weak countries dedicated to their
  cause have thrown out imperial powers
• France in Algeria, Indochina
• Soviet Union in Afghanistan
• USA in Vietnam

22
Use of Brutal (necessary) Force by a Democracy

• Can the United States, as a democracy, use the
  brutality necessary to win in Iraq, or will
  Americans inevitably become repulsed at the
  violence and abandon Iraq?
• What is moral?
• If we impose regime change, topple Saddam, in the
  name of morality, can we dispose of morality to
  win?
• Do the ends justify the means?

23
Use of Brutal (necessary) Force by a Democracy

• ...men should either be caressed or eliminated,
  because they avenge themselves for slight
  offenses but cannot do so for grave ones so the
  offense one does to a man should be such that one
  does not fear revenge for it.
• The French lost Algeria, and the USA lost South
  Vietnam because these wars became very costly and
  perceived as immoral by many.

24

• Can we win with this?

25
To what extent do you believe non-Americans are
convinced this is isolated. Even if isolated,
the ability to manipulate this is a generous
present to the enemies of the USA.
26
Other points of Book III on disorder

• The last few pages of Book III are interesting
  because they advise the Prince to crush
  rebellions that in the end will not be avoided.
• In Iraq, did the lack of proper plans for
  occupation and slow response to the growing
  resistance allow these terrorists, jihadists,
  etc., to grow in strength?

27
Book IV The New State

• This book mostly focuses on whether a state
  conquered will have an autocracy, rule by one and
  his servants or by a monarchy that includes an
  aristocracy.
• What is notable is that a Republic does not seem
  to be an option.
• Why is that the case?

28
Book IV The New State

• For Machiavelli, a recently conquered state, or
  new ones in general, may be too prone to civil
  violence and instability, necessitating that
  people be bought off or crushed.
• What would Machiavelli suggest today?
• Are there alternative policies today that might
  work, or does Machiavelli capture for us a
  classical problem?