Should Leaders be More Machiavellian?
A portrait of Niccolò Machiavelli by Santi de Tito.
In this day and age, the term ‘Machiavellian’ is associated with all sorts of atrocious attributes. Be it the grandiosely narcissistic characterisation or the ruthlessness towards people around them, leaders that display any semblance of forcefulness are often linked with the Machiavellian persona. While elements of Machiavellian political theory are consistent with a more flexible sense of ‘morality’, to completely acquaint the theory with pure evil and tyranny is a naïve angle of approach and actually neglects the core facets of Machiavelli’s work.
Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy in 1469. Having experienced decades of political turbulence and was largely unsuccessful as a politician , he developed a strong sense of what effective leadership should not be. These experiences paved the way for his philosophy, which eventually became the backbone of political philosophies such as Realpolitik and Republicanism. Although he published numerous works during his life, his ideas are well represented in two of his most famous manuscripts: ‘The Prince’ and ‘Discourses on Livy’.
‘The Prince’ (originally published ‘Il Principe’) discusses the strategies an effective leader (dubbed a ‘prince’) should utilize in order to build a robust political structure. The central tenet of the work was that “criminal virtue” (or political morality) and ‘private morality’ are distinct. Criminal virtue can be thought of as the ethical considerations of decisions made in the public’s interest, while the latter deals with one to one scenarios. Machiavelli asserted that a prince must push the limits of political morality to serve the best interests of the principality. Whether this is through deceit, fraud or violence, these means can and should be deployed if the principality’s long-term position is under threat. However, he maintained that they should be deployed as sparsely as possible to avoid a reputation for mindless brutality and they should be counterbalanced by some benevolence if required. Furthermore, he advised that it is better for a leader to be feared than loved because fear keeps the people in check, while asserting that leaders should also maintain a reputation with the public such that they are not thought of as too nice but are simultaneously not associated with terror. In Machiavelli’s view, a good politician is not one that is omnibenevolent, but one that does what is necessary to defend, enrich and bring honour to the state: one that views the world as how it truly is, and not how we feel it should be. As such, this work is aptly summarized by the phrase, “the ends justify the means”.
‘Discourses on Livy’ (commonly referred to as Discourses) is a more wide-ranging discussion from the founding and classical history of early Ancient Rome to maxims for how a state should be politically structured. It is argued that this work represents the true nature of Machiavelli’s philosophy and it is said to have laid the building blocks for the republican movement because many of the founding fathers of the United States studied it extensively and used it as part of their philosophical framework. However, due to its depth, we cannot possibly do it justice in this text. The Prince will be sufficient for our discussion.
There are various examples of leaders in the past and present who have embodied the bulk of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Notable individuals include Otto Von Bismarck (who orchestrated the unification of Germany) and Queen Elizabeth 1st. But to tend to recent times, we can examine the modern day wonderkid of Realpolitik: Vladimir Putin. His ruthlessness in extending his tenure as Russian Prime Minister and his employment of unscrupulous means to control the narrative of the Russian media can be likened to the attributes of The Prince. Furthermore, one can argue that under his leadership, Russia has regained its national dignity by recovering from the lows of the post Cold War era into the technological and political powerhouse it is today. He is also feared by the general Russian public, but the consensus is that he is not viewed as a tyrant and ultimately acts in the interest of the state. However, there are clear discrepancies. Putin’s reign has been smeared with corruption allegations such as accepting personal bribes from Russian oligarchs. Although Machiavelli allowed for moral flexibility, he was certainly against using this for personal gain. So, although Putin would rank quite highly on a Machiavellian scale, if these allegations are true, he falls short of the archetypal Machiavellian.
Therefore, to ask whether our politicians should be more Machiavellian is akin to asking whether they should be as ruthlessly effective as Putin but unabusive of their power for personal gain. I think one can see that this question is not a matter of whether leaders should be, but rather if they can be. I think that theoretically, a Machiavellian leader is the ideal type of persona to drive any organization forward, but in reality, leaders that display some Machiavellian traits often negate the effectiveness of their leadership through unnecessary greed. Hence, to be a truly Machiavellian leader, one must strike a fine balance between all these elements and I believe we are yet to see such an individual. To put it bluntly, a Machiavellian leadership style is not for everyone and most people should stay away (especially given the increased sensitivity of society) but if one improbably manages to find the right balance, then they have a good chance of going down in history.
In the United States, a Machiavellian politician could have most of these features:
a powerful presence in any room
most likely from the republican party due to their preference of practical, rather than the ideological politics
would likely have some military experience or experience in any industry that makes one tactically and organizationally astute (such as team sports)
would likely to have banking/finance/law experience as this makes them already accustomed to making hard ethical decisions that affect the public
powerful speaker
is interested in increasing the influence of the US by establishing more international military bases
pushes for more concretely defined laws and harsher penalties for breaking those laws
pushes for a fairer justice system
advocates for the organic economic growth of the US
will not tolerate social unrest
I urge the reader to draw their own conclusions as to which US politicians fit the bill. You might be surprised by your findings.
There are some who disagree with the tenets of Machiavellian theory. The main criticism is that there is an excessive emphasis on violence in the forming and maintaining of a republic. It is argued that while violence may be necessary in the most extreme situations, the first approach should be kindness and understanding. It is further argued that Machiavelli’s inclination towards violence is an indication of weakness in any leader. While these are fair comments, we should take into account the fact that in Machiavelli’s time, it could be empirically determined that brutal leaders were more likely to be effective. An example of this would be how in the Discourses he cites Cesare Borgia as a model prince. By all current metrics, Borgia would fall under the class of tyrant, but at the time, he was hailed as a great leader. Therefore, critics of Machiavelli should contextualize the text temporally in order to see through the excesses.
Ultimately, Machiavelli goes down as one of the most influential thinkers in history and although ironically, his emphasis on practical politics ends up being quite impractical in the modern day, leaders can still learn a vast amount from applying his principles of political realism in any profession where the lines of morality are blurred, and one must make ‘tough decisions’. An epitaph in Florence honours Machiavelli with the Latin words “TANTO NOMINI NULLUM PAR ELOGIUM”, which translates to “So great a name, no adequate praise.”.