Machiavelli: Right Problem, Wrong Solution

It may seem unusual that I could see anything positive in the political ideals of Machiavelli, whose political ideals have been enormously influential though frequently denigrated. In the brief space provided here in my blog, though, I will look a bit at the life and works of Machiavelli, and then look at how he saw the right problem in his society (a problem, incidentally, that I see in the society I grew up in), but, lamentably, chose the wrong solution to. In doing so, perhaps the good readers of my blog (however many you are, I do not know) may learn something in the process.

Machiavelli was, in his life, a politician of some repute, an aristocrat with superficially convential tastes in politics and literature. Coming to power with the republic that overthrew the theocracy of Savronela, Machiavelli was a very powerful figure in Florence (the city of Dante) during the period between the two rules of the Medici family. During this time he was intimately involved with the affairs of state, as well as diplomacy between Florence and other Italian states. He also found the time to write a couple of plays, which I will discuss later, as well as the Discourses on Livy, which demostrate his commitment to republican (i.e. non-monarchial) rule. He, and the republicans of whom he was a member, lost power after a seige in which a Florentine border city was taken by forces of the Medici and their allies. Machiavelli then went into internal exile, and, unhappy with this loss of power no doubt, wrote his most famous work, dedicated it to the Medici ruler of Florence, and died shortly thereafter.

The works of Machiavelli that I have read translations of are: The Prince, The Discources of Livy, Clizia, and Mandrangola. The latter two are his two "original" plays. He also wrote an Italian translation of a Latin play, but I have not read that, or his poetry. His political works are pretty explicitly political works, and while the Discources demonstrate a commitment to republican government, the Prince indicates his greater commitment was to power, by any means possible. His political works show a great cleverness in disguising their purpose and in the end demonstrating a ruthless and cynical commitment to gaining and using power without concern for any sort of morality, conventional or otherwise. This same problem is present in his plays. Patriarchy suffers heavily in his plays, as the men in charge are shown as invariably foolish, greedy, interested in women way too young for them, vulnerable to flattery, and seeking to oppress the young men while seducing the young women. Women are shown to be wise and clever, religious figures are shown to be corrupt, servants are shown to be scheming and only superficially obedient (unless their masters are wise and clever), and young men are shown to be passionate, but in need of some seasoning. Conventional morality and religion are denigraded, and eventually the young man gets the young woman, the old man is thwarted (and often humiliated as well, sometimes quite graphically), and the wisdom of Machiavellian conduct is seen to be wiser than the wisdom of the old men in charge.

What, then, is right about Machiavelli? Essentially, Machiavelli was correct in seeing patriarchy as the main problem and source of corruption in society. The same could be said of other societies that place old men in charge of everything, and do not make them accountable to the people. Such people and societies could be named, but it would not be very polite to do so. (Whoever hears, let him understand.) Why is patriarchy bad? Well, it places people in charge because of birth or age, rather than merit. That is its first problem. By placing old fools in charge of wise young men, it represents a society that is, at its core, unjust and dangerous. Furthermore, these old fools are constantly abusing their power. They cheat on their wives, seek to seduce young women to be their mistresses, or occasionally wives (if they are widowers or old bachelors, or divorcees), and in general do not treat women with respect. But then again, they do not treat anyone with respect who is not a part of their patriarchal clique, which is precisely why such societies are invariably corrupt. With no accountability, the behavior of the elites can proceed without any sort of checks (on the human plane at least), and hence there is no justice. There is, instead, a hypocritical commitment to virtue on the face of it (largely to keep the regular people, especially the young men, down) while on the inside there is all sorts of wickedness and vice. Machiavelli correctly diagnosed the hypocrisy of patriachal socities, something which existed then and exists now.

However, Machiavelli, like many others, promoted the wrong solution. Machiavelli (much like the feminists in the sexual revolution) pointed to the yawning gap between the ideal that was preached by the corrupt elites and the reality of their behavior and stated that the reality should be the ideal of all. If the leadership is permitted to act corruptly, then everyone else should be as well. Let there, therefore, be a free-for all where everyone is corrupt and where everyone behaves only with his (or her) best interests in mind. This is the easy way, and hence it is no surprise that Machiavelli and many others were led astray by it.

The right solution to the problem of patriarchy is a more difficult one, and that is forcing all (especially the corrupt elites) to meet the higher standard of virtue, through accountability and the proper setting up from society where leaders are the servants rather than the lords of the people, and stewards of the common good, rather than seeking to subvert the common good for their propserity and wealth. However, such a solution demands that the people who are being wronged act in a virtuous manner as well, even as they put the pressure (through protest and revolt) on the powers that be to change their act as well. In other words, the oppressed of society seeking to create a more just society must restrain themselves from acts of revenge against those who have wronged them. This is a difficult task, but it is what God requires. It is lamentable that Machiavelli failed to advocate the correct solution to the problem of corrupt, hierarchial elites, but he cannot be blamed for his pointing out of the corruption of unaccountable hierarchial elites (whether they consider themselves kings, aristocrats, or merely apostles and pastors and such). No, Machiavelli had the right target, he was just using the wrong ammo.