Machiavelli's Attack on Religion - Essay Example

NAME: STUDENT NUMBER: COURSE NAME: COURSE NUMBER: TITLE: MACHIAVELLI SUGGESTS THAT A GOOD POLITICAL ORDER REQUIRES PEOPLE WHO VALUE THEIR CITY MORE THAN THEIR SOULS. DISCUSS THIS IDEA WITH REGARDS TO 1) MACHIAVELLI'S ATTACK ON RELIGION, AND 2) TO HIS REPUBLICANISM VS LIBERALISM. DO YOU AGREE WITH MACHIAVELLI ON THIS POINT?  EXPLAIN WHY YOU AGREE/DISAGREE. INSTUCTOR: INSTITUTION: DATE: Niccolò Machiavelli is undoubtedly one of the most controversial political thinkers of all time and the analysis of his writings has captivated the imaginations of many a political thinker. His most famous work, The Prince, is at the centre of this controversy and was based loosely on the life of Prince Cesare Borgia of the Papal States. Prince Borgia was a cruel, cunning, leader akin to prince depicted in The Prince. He wrote it when he had lost political office in a desperate attempt to convince the Medici to give his job back- an attempt that nevertheless failed. Thereafter, the details contained within The Prince were made public and Machiavelli suffered a severe backlash that would last not just until his death but even centuries beyond his death (Study world, 2009). Aside from The Prince, one of Machiavelli’s most influential political philosophies is contained within The Discourses on Livy. Herein, Machiavelli delves into various topics, deftly interweaving his thoughts into what is now considered to be a classic historical discourse. Among the various issues Machiavelli concerned himself with was the concept of good political order and how to achieve and maintain it. According to him, a good man who wants to preserve the good political order of his city is one who is able to shape laws and institutions; a good orator capable of persuading his soldiers during battle; one who is able to fire his charges with courage, determination, passion and fill them with hopes. In short, his opinion of a good man capable of creating good political order was one who was able to find the right words when dealing with his subjects and also with foreign rulers as a representative of the city (Bock, 199: 168). This concept of the city is prevalent in all of Machiavelli’s writings, testament to the great importance he placed in the city. To him, the city is a universe of passions due the fact that is filled with real humans with love, fear, hopes, ambitions and desires (Bock, 1990: 168). As such, politics revolves around this universe of passions since these real human beings with their ambitions and desires are bound to seek domination of others; seek security for their loved ones and themselves; and likewise seek recognition and esteem from fellow men. The city is the centre of this tug- of- war of passions and a good man is thus one who is able to tame these passions to bring order to the city. Further to that, Machiavelli strongly held that in addition to these aforementioned qualities, a good man was one who valued their city more than their souls. This curious prerequisite to goodness by his definition is found within his work, The Histories of Florence III, 7 where he heaps praise on the Florentine patriots who had defied the Pope. He described such defiance as a testimony of how much higher these patriots placed their cities above their very own souls, a quality he felt was the most important attribute necessary for good order to prevail. He likewise expresses this idea in his letter to his friend Vettori where he writes: “I love my native city more than my own soul” (Gilbert, 1961). As such, Machiavelli strongly believed that the city was superior to the soul and a person who guarded the city was a good man concerned with preserving good political order even if it meant defying a religious figure like the Pope. With this statement, he effectively placed patriotism and nationalism above all else. This notion is widely regarded as being anti- religious particularly in relation to Christianity where guarding ones souls is seen as being the most important thing in life. Yet, despite such a seemingly anti- religious stance, I believe that the statement is a mere figure of speech not to be taken literally. Moreover, Machiavelli makes several references to God and religion in his various works pointing, not to a hate for virtue, but to a complex relationship with religion (Sullivan, 1996). His opinions can be mainly attributed to his childhood in Florence when Lorenzo de' Medici was in power. During his reign, Italy was attacked by Charles VIII of France in 1494 causing Medici and his family to escape. Thereafter, a republic was formed and shortly after, Girolamo Savonarola took control. He was a religious fanatic and formed a dictatorship causing the people to turn against and kill the monk in 1498. These events made a lasting impression on the young Machiavelli and set the stage for his later views on religion (Study world, 2009). His attacks on religion are outlined within The Prince, Florentine Histories, The Discourses, and The Mandrake Root in addition to the letters to his friends. In The Prince, Machiavelli separated politics from ethics and the inspiration for this stance is undoubtedly rooted in the rule of Savonarola whose political deeds were motivated by his faith in Christianity. Machiavelli strongly felt that meekness, humility and other Christian values were a poor basis of leadership. In The Discourses, he argues that working for the common good leads to a better society and in the fifteenth chapter of The Prince, Machiavelli outlines his list of bad and good characteristics that lead to this common good. He summed it thus: “it will be found that something which looks like virtue, if followed, would be his ruin; whilst something else, which looks like vice, yet followed brings him security and prosperity.” (Machiavelli, 1637: 85). He asserts that during good times, one can afford to be good and virtuous but during bad times, evil and cruelty are necessary political tools for building a sound society (Sullivan, 1996). To a certain extent, I agree with this viewpoint. The statement, though strongly worded, simply shows how passionate Machiavelli was about patriotism and nationalism. He was not a religious thinker but a political thinker and thus it goes without saying that his main focus was rightly on political and not religious matters. To defend ones city and by extension ones nation, passion and tenacity is necessary. The security of the city is the utmost importance and cowardice or the taking of moderate positions are hardly ever effective and only serve to strengthen the enemy. Indeed, desperate times call for desperate measures and oftentimes, the only way to maintain order in society is through an iron hand. In modern times, this has been evidenced in North African nations such as Libya and Egypt which have been under dictatorships for decades and despite what critics might say, they have been able to maintain an admirable and sustained level of peace and order for a long time. In addition, reliance on religion and its associated virtues to create political order has failed, even in several present day nations. Theocracies are much more dictatorial and oppressive than democracies and political disorder is a major characteristic in these societies. In Islamic nations for instance, the threat of terrorism looms constantly. Nations such as Pakistan, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan are far from being shining examples of political order, what with the constant political upheavals. In such nations, the use of force is unfortunately the only way of creating political order and Machiavelli’s advice of loving your city more than your soul is thus commendable and rulers should adopt it in moderation. Nevertheless, to a greater extent, I do feel that his idea to love ones city more than the soul often leads to the unbridled use of cruelty as a means to good political order and as such is too extreme. His political theory can easily be misconstrued to be a call to blind loyalty and patriotism, a loyalty that can be misused by the leaders against the citizenry in the form of emotional blackmail. In the worst dictatorships that the world has witnessed (such as Hitler’s Germany, Pol Pot’s Cambodia and Idi Amin’s Uganda), the opposite of political order was achieved yet each of these dictators adhered to Machiavellianism. Each was charismatic and popular, using great oratory to gain a large followership. In fact, all the aforementioned dictators encouraged nationalism and patriotism among their followers, an extension of Machiavelli’s theory of “loving ones city more than your soul”. Yet, in the end, no political order was attained. In addition to the hundreds of thousands of citizens who lost their lives in each of these countries, whatever semblance of order that had hitherto existed fast dissipated at the height of the dictatorship. In such instances, therefore, it would be imprudent to wholeheartedly follow Machiavelli’s advice. His advice would only be helpful in the sense that the love citizens had for their city inspired them to defending it against dictatorship as opposed to leaders using this love to blackmail their followers into sanctioning their cruel dictatorship. Apart from having a bearing on religion, Machiavelli’s idea of loving ones city more than ones soul is also closely interwoven with what is the foundation of one of Machiavelli’s most influential political ideas- republicanism. Probably one of the most understated contributions of Machiavelli’s thought is towards republicanism and in fact, Discourses on Livy is widely held to be the most significant work on republicanism in the early modern era. Machiavelli’s thoughts on republicanism are felt to have been inspired by his patriotism towards the town of his birth, Florence. During his childhood, Italy was the setting of a severe political clash that involved the four main city-states (Florence, Venice, Milan and Naples) and Spain, France, the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire (Colish, 1999). With regards to republicanism, Machiavelli’s political theory contends that a strong government (a republic) is needed for a secure but not free society. In essence, he strongly opposed modern- day liberalism, arguing that for political order to prevail, the citizens had to live securely (vivere sicuro) under the control of a strong government which carries the hopes and desires of the people and the nobility. According to him, vivere libero or the freedom of the community is the ultimate aim of the political order and this freedom can only be created in a republic (Skinner, 1988: 109). This viewpoint is thought to have come about during Machiavelli’s tenure as a diplomat in the Florentine republic where he learnt a lot about the French government and how it ran and functioned. He was so impressed by the French government that it became the model for his secure but not free polity (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2005). He discusses the French government in The Discourses in great length where he posits that any regime, irrespective of how virtuous or law-abiding it is, remains unsuited to the concept of vivere libero. Concerning the monarch’s ability to grant the people's desire for freedom and liberty, Machiavelli quipped that “as far as the … popular desire of recovering their liberty, the prince, not being able to satisfy them, must examine what the reasons are that make them desire being free” (Machiavelli 1963, 237). With his, he basically meant that this desire for liberty was based on individual selfishness, the desire for security and the desire to dominate others and was thus a desire that could not be granted. He felt that those clamouring for liberty could easily be done away with or controlled within the framework of a strong republic. In my opinion, his preference of republicanism as opposed to liberalism in relation to his assertion that one must love their city more than their soul has very little merit. It seems like a thinly veiled attempt at emotional blackmail whereby the subjects are encouraged to love their city more than their soul so as to accept a strong government. This situation is untenable as liberalism is one of the cornerstones of democracy and in fact leads to greater order that republicanism. When subjects are led through a strong hand, they ultimately rebel against the leadership and this is how many revolutions from time immemorial have begun. The French Revolution, the American Revolution and other less known revolutions were all rooted in a for of strong government of some sort. These revolutions were far from orderly and the citizens who staged these revolts were not any less patriotic than their leaders. They loved their “cities” just as they loved their souls and thus resorted to force so as to gain liberty from their oppressors. In a nutshell, therefore, my take on Machiavelli’s exhortation for people to love their cities more than they love their souls is mixed. On the one hand, I feel that to a certain extent it is an admirable stance particularly with regards to religion. Religion has the capacity to create political disorder and should thus never be a factor in political matters. As such, his idea is credible as long as it is not misused by political leaders to emotional blackmail their followers into supporting them. As pertaining to republicanism, however, the idea that one should love their city more than their souls is an exaggerated and misguided one since the potential for its abuse by political leaders is very high. Republicanism is a poor form of government as it often leads to the oppression of subjects unlike liberalism whereby equality and individual liberty are the most important political goals. In my view, the idea of valuing ones city more than ones soul is merely a figure of speech and should not be taken literally. It’s an exhortation to love ones country and patriotism and nationalism should always be encouraged as long as it is for the benefit of both the leaders and the followers. When patriotism is harmful to any one party, it will have lost its significance. Therefore, as long as people are not hurt in the process, all people should be encouraged to love their cities more than their souls for the betterment of all political orders; now and for future generations. REFERENCES All Empires Online History Community. 2008. Was Machiavelli's political thought truly Machiavellian? Accessed on the 8th of October, 2009 from http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=Was_Machiavellis_political_thought_truly_ Berlin, Isaiah. 1971. A Special Supplement: The Question of Machiavelli. The New York Review of Books. Volume 17, Number 7. Accessed on the 9th of October, 2009 from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/10391 Bock, Gisela et. al. 1990. Machiavelli and republicanism. New York: Cambridge University Press. Colish, Marcia L. 1999. Republicanism, Religion, and Machiavelli's Savonarolan Moment. Journal of the History of Ideas 60.4 597-616   Gilbert, Allan ed. 1961. The Letters of Machiavelli: A Selection of His Letters. New York: Capricorn Publishers. Machiavelli, Niccolò. 1637. Le Prince. Accessed on the 8th of October, 2009 from http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=VIAgG12gh_EC&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=it+will+be+found+that+something+which+looks+like+virtue,+if+followed,+would+be+his+ruin%3B+whilst+something+else,+which+looks+like+vice,+yet+followed+brings+him+security+and+prosperity&source=bl&ots=GGUJScWxKc&sig=SLMDTWqHoqm3MNC-BMJM7hDrQ6s&hl=en&ei=qy3XSoynD9yQtgf1jKCGBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=it%20will%20be%20found%20that%20something%20which%20looks%20like%20virtue%2C%20if%20followed%2C%20would%20be%20his%20ruin%3B%20whilst%20something%20else%2C%20which%20looks%20like%20vice%2C%20yet%20followed%20brings%20him%20security%20and%20prosperity&f=false Skinner, Quentin. et. al. 1988. Machiavelli: The Prince. Cambridge University Press: New York. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. 2005. Niccolò Machiavelli. Accessed on the 8th of October, 2009 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/#8 Study world. 2009. The Prince. Accessed on the 7th of October, 2009 from http://www.studyworld.com/Studyworld_Studynotes/jnotes/PrinceThe/HistoricalContext.html Sullivan, Vickie B.1996. Machiavelli's Three Rome’s: Religion, Liberty and Politics Reformed. Northern Illinois University Press: DeKalb. Read More