today we would know about the modern secular nation state and political realism.
Modern secular nation state
One of the major contributions of Machiavelli is that he separated religion from politics and set the
tone for one of the main themes of modern times, namely secularisation of thought and life.
Machiavelli criticised the church of his day precisely for political and not religious reasons. He
recognised that the existence of the papal state and its ceaseless struggle to dominate political
affairs was a primary cause of Italy’s inability to unite into one political unit.
Though culturally vibrant and creative, Italy remained politically divided, weak, and a prey to
the imperial ambitions of the French, German and Spanish. All of them were unable to unite the
entire peninsula. The Florentine Republic reflected severe factional conflicts and institutional
breakdown Italians could not reconcile to the fact that an age of heightened cultural creativity and
scientific discoveries coincided with loss of political liberty leading to foreign domination. As Prof.
Sabine has rightly pointed out, Italian society, intellectually brilliant and artistically creative more emancipated than many in Europe……. was a prey to the worst political corruption and moral
degradation’. It produced some great minds and intellectuals of that period like Leonardo da Vinci,
Michelangelo and Santi Raphael. Its galaxy of artists made Renaissance Italy compared to Athens
of the 5th century B.C. However, While Athens flourished politically with a vibrant participatory
democracy, in Italy there was a political vacuum.
Writing at a time of political chaos and moral confusion, Italian unification became the chief
objective for Machiavelli, who could see clearly the direction that political evolution was taking
throughout Europe. He desired to redeem Italy form servitude and misery. Like Dante he dreamt of
a united regenerated and glorious Italy. In order to achieve this, any means, were justified, for the
purpose was the defense and preservation of the state and its people. Thus freedom of the country
and the common good remained the core themes of Machiavelli’s writings. A perfect state,
according to Machiavelli, was one promoted the common good, namely the observance of laws,
honouring women , keeping public offices open to all citizens on grounds of virtue, maintaining a
moderate degree of social equality, and protecting industry, wealth and property.
Machiavelli is perhaps the first political thinker who used the words state in the
sense in which it is used nowadays, that is something having a definite territory, population,
government and sovereignty of its own. It was on Machiavelli’s concept of a sovereign, territorial
and secular state that Bodin and Grotius built up a theory of legal sovereignty which was given a
proper formulation by John Austin. In other words, Machiavelli gave the state its modern
connotation. His state is the nation free from religious control. He has freed the state from the
medieval bondage of religion. Machiavelli almost identifies the state with the ruler. The state being
the highest forms of human association has supreme claim over men’s obligations.
In both ‘Prince and Discourses’ Machiavelli insists on the necessity of extending the territory
of the state. According to him, either a state must expand or perish. His idea of the extension of the
dominion of state did not mean the blending of two or more social or political organisations, but the
subjection of a number of states under the rule of a single Prince or common wealth. Roman state
and its policy of expansion perhaps set and ideal before Machiavelli. Force of arms was necessary
for both for political aggrandisement as well as for the preservation of states but force must be
applied judiciously combined with craft.
POLITICAL REALISM
Machiavelli is regarded as the father of modern political science and the first realist in western
political thought. He was a student of practical and speculative politics. A realist in politics he cared
little for political philosophy as such. His writings expound a theory of the art of government rather
than a theory of the state. He was more concerned with the actual working of the machinery of
government than the abstract principles of the state and its constitution. As Prof. C.C Maxey has
rightly pointed out ‘his passion for the practical as against the theoretical undoubtedly did much to
rescue political thought from the scholastic obscuratism of the middle ages.’
Machiavelli was the first to state and systematically expose the power view of politics, laying down
the foundations of a new science in the same way as Galileo’s Dynamics became the basis of the
modern science of nature. Machiavaelli identified politics as the struggle for the acquisition,
maintenance and consolidation of political power, an analysis developed by Thomas Hobbes and
Harrington in the 17th century, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the 18th century Pareto Mosca and Robert Michels in the 19th century, and Robert A Dhal, David Easton, Hans J.
Morgenthau Morton A Kaplan etc in the 20th century.
Machiavelli’s writings do not belong to the domain of political theory, He wrote mainly of the
mechanics of government, of the means by which the states may be made strong, of the policies by
which they can expand their power and of the errors that lead to their decay and destruction. Prof.
Dunning called Machiavellian philosophy as “the study of the art of government rather than a theory
of state”.
The Prince of Machiavelli is the product of the prevailing conditions of his time in his country,
Italy. As it is not an academic treatise or value oriented philosophy; it is in real sense real politik. It
is a memorandum on the art of government, is pragmatic in character and provides technique of the
fundamental principles of states craft for a successful ruler. It deals with a machinery of government
which the successful ruler can make use of it.
Chapter XVIII of the ‘Prince’ gives Machiavelli’s ideas of the virtues which a successful ruler
must possess. Integrity may be theoretically better than collusion, but cunningness and subtlety are
often useful. The two basic means of success for a prince are the judicious use of law and physical
force. He must combine in himself rational as well as brutal characteristic, a combination of lion and
fox. The ruler must imitate the fox and lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from the traps and the
fox cannot defend himself from wolves”. A prudent ruler, according to Machiavelli, ought not to keep
faith when by doing so it would be against his interest and when the reasons which made him bind himself no longer exist.
Machiavelli takes a radically pessimistic view of human nature and his psychological outlook
is intimately related to his political philosophy. The individual according to Machiavelli was wicked,
selfish and egoistic. He was fundamentally weak, ungrateful, exhibitionist, artificial, anxious to avoid
danger and excessively desirous of gain. Lacking in honesty and justice, he was ready to act in a
manner that was detrimental to the community. Being essentially anti social , selfish and greedy,
the individual would readily forgive the murder of his father but never the seizure of property.; the
individual was generally timid, averse to new ideas and complaints Machiavelli conceived human
beings as being basically restless, ambitious, aggressive and acquisitive, in a state of constant trifle
and anarchy. Interestingly, Machiavelli presumed that human nature remained constant, for history
moved in a cyclical way, alternating between growth and decay.
According to Machiavelli, state actions were not to be judged by individual ethics. He
prescribes double standard of conduct for statesmen and the private citizens. The moral code of
conduct applicable to individuals cannot be applied to the actions of state. The ruler is the creator of
law as also of morality, for moral obligations must ultimately be sustained by law and the ruler is not
only outside the law, he is outside morality as well. There is no standard to judge his acts except
the success of his political expedience for enlarging and perpetuating the power of his state. It was
always working for an individual to commit crime, even to lie but sometimes good and necessary for
the ruler to do so in the interest of the state. Similarly, it is wrong for a private individual to kill but not
for the state to execute someone by way of punishment. Machiavelli strongly believes that a citizen
acts for himself and as such is also responsible for his action, whereas the state acts for all.
Like other realists after him, Machiavelli identifies “power politics with the whole of political
reality” and he thus fails to grasp that ideas and ideals can become potent facts in the struggle for political survival. In the wards of William Ebenstein, Machiavellian realists are usually realistic and
rational in the choice of means with which they carry out their schemes of aggrandisement and
expansion. Because Machiavelli was interested only in the means of acquiring, retaining, and
expanding power, and not in the end of the state, he remained unaware of the relations between
means and ends. Ends lead to existence apart from means but are continuously shaped by them.
As one examines the references to rulers in the Prince more closely, one finds that Machiavelli was
not interested in all forms of state or in all forms of power. What fascinated him above all was the
dynamics of illegitimate power; he was little interested in states whose authority was legitimate but
was primarily concerned with “new dominions both as to prince and state”. He realised that there is
nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than
to initiate a new order of things. His primary concern with founders of new governments and state
illuminates his attitude on the use of unethical means in politics. Thus, Machiavelli was little
interested in the institutional framework of politics.
AN ASSESSMENT
Machiavelli’s political theories were not developed in a systematic manner; they were mainly
in the form of remarks upon particular situations. According to Prof. Sabine, the ‘character of
Machiavelli and the true meaning of his philosophy have been one of the enigmas of modern history.
‘He has been represented as an utter cynic, and impassioned patriot, an ardent nationalist, a political
Jesuit, a convinced democrat, and unscrupulous seeker after the favour of despots. In each of their
views, incompatible as they are, there is probably an element of truth. Many political thinkers drew
their inspiration and further developed solid and most important political concepts such as the
concept of the state and its true meaning from Machiavelli. As Prof. Sabine has pointed out,
“Machiavelli more than any other political thinker created the meaning that has been attached to the
state in modern political usage”.
Machiavelli is regarded as the father of modern political theory and political science. Apart
from theorising about the state he also given meaning to the concept of sovereignty. Machiavelli’s
importance was in providing an outlook that accepted both secularisation and a moralisation of
politics. He took politics out of context of theology, and subordinated moral and subordinated moral
principles to the necessities of political existence and people’s welfare. The absence of religious
polemics in Machiavelli led the theorists who followed to confront issues like order and power in
strictly political terms. Thus Machiavelli was the first who gave the idea of secularism. The
Machiavellian state is to begin within a complete sense, and entirely secular state.
Machiavelli was the first pragmatist or realist in the history of political thought. His method
and approach to problems of politics were guided by common sense and history’ His ideas were
revolutionary in nature and substance and he brought politics in line with political practice. By
empathising the importance of the study of history, Machiavelli established a method that was
extremely useful. Gramsci praised the greatness of Machiavelli for separating politics from ethics.
In the ‘Prison Notebooks’ there were a number of references to Machiavelli, and Gramsci pointed
out that the protagonist of the new prince in modern times could not be an individual hero, but a
political party whose objective was to establish a new kind of state. Though critical of the church
and Christianity Machiavelli was born and died a Christian. His attack on the church was due to his
anti clericalism, rather than being anti - religion.
So this is all about it and thanks for reading.
Modern secular nation state
One of the major contributions of Machiavelli is that he separated religion from politics and set the
tone for one of the main themes of modern times, namely secularisation of thought and life.
Machiavelli criticised the church of his day precisely for political and not religious reasons. He
recognised that the existence of the papal state and its ceaseless struggle to dominate political
affairs was a primary cause of Italy’s inability to unite into one political unit.
Though culturally vibrant and creative, Italy remained politically divided, weak, and a prey to
the imperial ambitions of the French, German and Spanish. All of them were unable to unite the
entire peninsula. The Florentine Republic reflected severe factional conflicts and institutional
breakdown Italians could not reconcile to the fact that an age of heightened cultural creativity and
scientific discoveries coincided with loss of political liberty leading to foreign domination. As Prof.
Sabine has rightly pointed out, Italian society, intellectually brilliant and artistically creative more emancipated than many in Europe……. was a prey to the worst political corruption and moral
degradation’. It produced some great minds and intellectuals of that period like Leonardo da Vinci,
Michelangelo and Santi Raphael. Its galaxy of artists made Renaissance Italy compared to Athens
of the 5th century B.C. However, While Athens flourished politically with a vibrant participatory
democracy, in Italy there was a political vacuum.
Writing at a time of political chaos and moral confusion, Italian unification became the chief
objective for Machiavelli, who could see clearly the direction that political evolution was taking
throughout Europe. He desired to redeem Italy form servitude and misery. Like Dante he dreamt of
a united regenerated and glorious Italy. In order to achieve this, any means, were justified, for the
purpose was the defense and preservation of the state and its people. Thus freedom of the country
and the common good remained the core themes of Machiavelli’s writings. A perfect state,
according to Machiavelli, was one promoted the common good, namely the observance of laws,
honouring women , keeping public offices open to all citizens on grounds of virtue, maintaining a
moderate degree of social equality, and protecting industry, wealth and property.
Machiavelli is perhaps the first political thinker who used the words state in the
sense in which it is used nowadays, that is something having a definite territory, population,
government and sovereignty of its own. It was on Machiavelli’s concept of a sovereign, territorial
and secular state that Bodin and Grotius built up a theory of legal sovereignty which was given a
proper formulation by John Austin. In other words, Machiavelli gave the state its modern
connotation. His state is the nation free from religious control. He has freed the state from the
medieval bondage of religion. Machiavelli almost identifies the state with the ruler. The state being
the highest forms of human association has supreme claim over men’s obligations.
In both ‘Prince and Discourses’ Machiavelli insists on the necessity of extending the territory
of the state. According to him, either a state must expand or perish. His idea of the extension of the
dominion of state did not mean the blending of two or more social or political organisations, but the
subjection of a number of states under the rule of a single Prince or common wealth. Roman state
and its policy of expansion perhaps set and ideal before Machiavelli. Force of arms was necessary
for both for political aggrandisement as well as for the preservation of states but force must be
applied judiciously combined with craft.
POLITICAL REALISM
Machiavelli is regarded as the father of modern political science and the first realist in western
political thought. He was a student of practical and speculative politics. A realist in politics he cared
little for political philosophy as such. His writings expound a theory of the art of government rather
than a theory of the state. He was more concerned with the actual working of the machinery of
government than the abstract principles of the state and its constitution. As Prof. C.C Maxey has
rightly pointed out ‘his passion for the practical as against the theoretical undoubtedly did much to
rescue political thought from the scholastic obscuratism of the middle ages.’
Machiavelli was the first to state and systematically expose the power view of politics, laying down
the foundations of a new science in the same way as Galileo’s Dynamics became the basis of the
modern science of nature. Machiavaelli identified politics as the struggle for the acquisition,
maintenance and consolidation of political power, an analysis developed by Thomas Hobbes and
Harrington in the 17th century, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the 18th century Pareto Mosca and Robert Michels in the 19th century, and Robert A Dhal, David Easton, Hans J.
Morgenthau Morton A Kaplan etc in the 20th century.
Machiavelli’s writings do not belong to the domain of political theory, He wrote mainly of the
mechanics of government, of the means by which the states may be made strong, of the policies by
which they can expand their power and of the errors that lead to their decay and destruction. Prof.
Dunning called Machiavellian philosophy as “the study of the art of government rather than a theory
of state”.
The Prince of Machiavelli is the product of the prevailing conditions of his time in his country,
Italy. As it is not an academic treatise or value oriented philosophy; it is in real sense real politik. It
is a memorandum on the art of government, is pragmatic in character and provides technique of the
fundamental principles of states craft for a successful ruler. It deals with a machinery of government
which the successful ruler can make use of it.
Chapter XVIII of the ‘Prince’ gives Machiavelli’s ideas of the virtues which a successful ruler
must possess. Integrity may be theoretically better than collusion, but cunningness and subtlety are
often useful. The two basic means of success for a prince are the judicious use of law and physical
force. He must combine in himself rational as well as brutal characteristic, a combination of lion and
fox. The ruler must imitate the fox and lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from the traps and the
fox cannot defend himself from wolves”. A prudent ruler, according to Machiavelli, ought not to keep
faith when by doing so it would be against his interest and when the reasons which made him bind himself no longer exist.
Machiavelli takes a radically pessimistic view of human nature and his psychological outlook
is intimately related to his political philosophy. The individual according to Machiavelli was wicked,
selfish and egoistic. He was fundamentally weak, ungrateful, exhibitionist, artificial, anxious to avoid
danger and excessively desirous of gain. Lacking in honesty and justice, he was ready to act in a
manner that was detrimental to the community. Being essentially anti social , selfish and greedy,
the individual would readily forgive the murder of his father but never the seizure of property.; the
individual was generally timid, averse to new ideas and complaints Machiavelli conceived human
beings as being basically restless, ambitious, aggressive and acquisitive, in a state of constant trifle
and anarchy. Interestingly, Machiavelli presumed that human nature remained constant, for history
moved in a cyclical way, alternating between growth and decay.
According to Machiavelli, state actions were not to be judged by individual ethics. He
prescribes double standard of conduct for statesmen and the private citizens. The moral code of
conduct applicable to individuals cannot be applied to the actions of state. The ruler is the creator of
law as also of morality, for moral obligations must ultimately be sustained by law and the ruler is not
only outside the law, he is outside morality as well. There is no standard to judge his acts except
the success of his political expedience for enlarging and perpetuating the power of his state. It was
always working for an individual to commit crime, even to lie but sometimes good and necessary for
the ruler to do so in the interest of the state. Similarly, it is wrong for a private individual to kill but not
for the state to execute someone by way of punishment. Machiavelli strongly believes that a citizen
acts for himself and as such is also responsible for his action, whereas the state acts for all.
Like other realists after him, Machiavelli identifies “power politics with the whole of political
reality” and he thus fails to grasp that ideas and ideals can become potent facts in the struggle for political survival. In the wards of William Ebenstein, Machiavellian realists are usually realistic and
rational in the choice of means with which they carry out their schemes of aggrandisement and
expansion. Because Machiavelli was interested only in the means of acquiring, retaining, and
expanding power, and not in the end of the state, he remained unaware of the relations between
means and ends. Ends lead to existence apart from means but are continuously shaped by them.
As one examines the references to rulers in the Prince more closely, one finds that Machiavelli was
not interested in all forms of state or in all forms of power. What fascinated him above all was the
dynamics of illegitimate power; he was little interested in states whose authority was legitimate but
was primarily concerned with “new dominions both as to prince and state”. He realised that there is
nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than
to initiate a new order of things. His primary concern with founders of new governments and state
illuminates his attitude on the use of unethical means in politics. Thus, Machiavelli was little
interested in the institutional framework of politics.
AN ASSESSMENT
Machiavelli’s political theories were not developed in a systematic manner; they were mainly
in the form of remarks upon particular situations. According to Prof. Sabine, the ‘character of
Machiavelli and the true meaning of his philosophy have been one of the enigmas of modern history.
‘He has been represented as an utter cynic, and impassioned patriot, an ardent nationalist, a political
Jesuit, a convinced democrat, and unscrupulous seeker after the favour of despots. In each of their
views, incompatible as they are, there is probably an element of truth. Many political thinkers drew
their inspiration and further developed solid and most important political concepts such as the
concept of the state and its true meaning from Machiavelli. As Prof. Sabine has pointed out,
“Machiavelli more than any other political thinker created the meaning that has been attached to the
state in modern political usage”.
Machiavelli is regarded as the father of modern political theory and political science. Apart
from theorising about the state he also given meaning to the concept of sovereignty. Machiavelli’s
importance was in providing an outlook that accepted both secularisation and a moralisation of
politics. He took politics out of context of theology, and subordinated moral and subordinated moral
principles to the necessities of political existence and people’s welfare. The absence of religious
polemics in Machiavelli led the theorists who followed to confront issues like order and power in
strictly political terms. Thus Machiavelli was the first who gave the idea of secularism. The
Machiavellian state is to begin within a complete sense, and entirely secular state.
Machiavelli was the first pragmatist or realist in the history of political thought. His method
and approach to problems of politics were guided by common sense and history’ His ideas were
revolutionary in nature and substance and he brought politics in line with political practice. By
empathising the importance of the study of history, Machiavelli established a method that was
extremely useful. Gramsci praised the greatness of Machiavelli for separating politics from ethics.
In the ‘Prison Notebooks’ there were a number of references to Machiavelli, and Gramsci pointed
out that the protagonist of the new prince in modern times could not be an individual hero, but a
political party whose objective was to establish a new kind of state. Though critical of the church
and Christianity Machiavelli was born and died a Christian. His attack on the church was due to his
anti clericalism, rather than being anti - religion.
So this is all about it and thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment