Have you ever been intrigued by how an individual commands a battalion? Have you ever asked yourself if they possess this "whammy" ability to make their subjects abide by their rules? or have you ever wondered how these people simply take instructions from a person so powerful, insofar as he is admired by many whereas, cursed by some?
Social Science is like a swift and active rabbit, wandering around the field where children attempt to catch them, however, they keep on failing. It has discernable fluidity; it takes in every space and form. It blends so effortlessly into its environment, calm but sometimes berserk. With its nature, no one could claim something unless the verity of his argument is lucid. In this field, notions are always subject to be debated. It was like watching a movie to the extent that one might inebriate, but it will leave you with a cliffhanger. Its continuation might prove that patience is indeed a virtue. It is for this reason that arguments made by scholars in this field will take a marathon of time to be hailed as "plausible".
Since I have given a brief usher to the field of social science, the good news is you already have a "spoiler" on what to happen next. But the better news is, we will be delving into the fortress of politics. Politics is one of the main branches of social science, just like the latter, it is one of the formidable fields to grasp. The definition of this term is multifaceted because it does not align with a universal principle, unlike chemistry and physics. The most credible definition of politics would be actions or activities concerned with achieving and using power in a country or society. It also refers to one’s beliefs about how a country ought to be governed (Collins Dictionary). However, one of the notable thinkers and writers of the 16th century has provided a perspicuous point of view on how this discipline works. He has to elucidate strategies on how a prince (leader or politician), clutches principalities. This thinker and writer also extend his notion of what "qualities" a prince should possess to effectively helm a sovereign rather than squander it.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Niccolò Machiavelli is one of the greatest Renaissance political philosophers. Having been exposed to the destitute life of his late father, Niccolò did not see this as a deterrent. Instead, he thrived and exploited the privilege that his father gave to him, which was a library. He was a voracious reader and a poet. Being exposed to this type of environment made him studious. Eventually engaging himself in political discussions.
ABOUT HIS BOOK: The Prince
I have to be candid, one of the reasons why I bought and read this book was President Bong Bong Marcos. It was election season when he refused to shun debate, I would say his first and last appearance(no pun entailed). Exactly one year ago, the interviewer from SMNI asked him what 'machiavellian' means. He retorted by saying "Well, well.... it is a uh, study of prince machiavelli's concepts of politics and leadership" Since then, inquisitiveness emerged. Political scientists and leaders around the Philippines including Professor from UP Dimilan Clarita Carlos had given her take on his matter. Her interview on One News PH revealed that she was a 'Machiavellian' herself. Because she believes that a good leader will do the extra mile to get his aspirations, considering the legal bounds. She also emphasized the necessity to read the book in its entirety before arguing with her. With these heated discourses from well-known personalities and scholars from the Philippines, it compelled political enthusiasts like me to read niccolò's literary magnum opus.
WHAT DOES MACHIAVELLIANISM MEAN?
Machiavellianism refers to a political philosophy of manipulation, the art of war, virtue, and intelligence of a prince to fetter his power perpetually. In a simple sense, a Machiavellian leader is a person who believes that it is morally upright to do whatever it takes to attain his goal, as long as there is a balance. Considering the side of dictionaries, according to Oxford Languages, machiavellian describes a person who is contemptuous or devious, especially in politics. Dating back to the 16th century, Niccolo's work fueled incessant tirades and arguments trying to debunk his work. Until now, the term Machiavellianism paved its way to mainstream politics. Especially when BongBong Marcos assumed the presidency.
WHAT ARE THE CONCEPT IT CONTAINS?
Blatantly speaking, the book involves a passel of heavy jargon. It took me several times of re-reading one page just to fully comprehend it. The terms are heavy enough insofar, as the publisher added classical to the modern dictionary in the latter part of the book. But I took this one as an opportunity to shed light on those who are like me, not so good but the eagerness to understand concepts is kindling. Upon reading this book, I captured a few concepts that I believe are worthy to share. I also tried to expound on some of the brilliant ideas of Niccolo to the extent that I could. With that, here are key points.
PRINCIPALITIES ARE IMPERATIVE FOR A PRINCE TO CONTROL.
Throughout my reading, Niccolo emphasized the definition of principalities. Including its variations, functionalities, subjects, and different strategies to conquer it. First, what is principality according to him? Niccolo defined it as the domain or territory of a prince where he exercises an absolute sovereign. The necessity to possess such domains during his time was earnest, it symbolizes great influence, admiration, and power. It served as a standard as to whether a prince is to be treated as venerable or effeminate. If a prince is brilliant enough to effectively helm the state, and make his subjects docile, then he is deserving of grandeur. Otherwise, if he fails, his people might either conspire against him or be subjected to slavery. Dating back to the 16th century, one of the major agendas of people was wars. Conquering one place to another is why a prince should be dexterous enough about his territory. To either avoid being ousted or maimed.
PRINCES FAIL BECAUSE OF DEPENDENCY
Niccolo emphasized the extreme importance of self-efficacy. One of his notable quotations was "One less he became a man of extra courage and virtue, it is not reasonable to think that he could command other people". The faith and survival of the prince's dominion and authority lie within the bounds of this expertise to lead. If he failed to administer people with his might and wit, it will be the demise of his reign. An admirable prince would the one who believes in himself and does not listen to those who may cause him vice. On the contrary, if the prince relied on the opinions of others, the chances of his powers might be furtively claimed by those who despise him. That would put his life in danger.
A PRINCE DOES NOT NEED TO POSSESS ALL THE GOOD QUALITIES.
In chapter 15, he explained the different good qualities and their opposites. Niccolo affirmed that the prince especially those who are in a noble position, must claim pleasant dispositions. For him to maintain his good image to his subjects, in that case. His people will betake to admire him. Good qualities as he pertains are munificent, precise, cautious, courageous, and modest. Given these good qualities, he also stressed that it is impossible to master these traits at once. So for the prince to appear admirable to his people, he needs to at least cast himself away from frivolous scandals.
A PRINCE MUST BE CORDIAL TO HIS SOLDIERS
"I conclude, therefore, that without having proper and peculiar forces, no prince is secured".
A wise prince knows where his power lies. Being cordial and maintaining good relationships with his militias are strong indications of harmony. We all know that military forces are imperative when it comes to colonizing and dominating one state one by one. So, if the prince would have the ability to let his soldiers feel secure under his administration, the immense chance of extending principalities and annexations will take place.
THE PRINCE SHOULD ANTICIPATE THE FUTURE
"he who is raised to any sovereignty foresees not a mischief until it falls upon his head, he is not to be reckoned a wise prince".
Yes, no one throughout history has proven that a precise prediction or at least an infinitesimal anomaly took place. Well, it is impossible because it is forbidden to have a glimpse of what the future holds. However, we could trace the future through anticipating. Ideas from the present and actions being made are conspiring for a promising end. But, if disturbance takes place. How can the prince handle it?
Niccolò used one of the impeccable examples of possible anomalies. He referred to this as 'fever'. This illness would never give you a sign about when it will strike, rather it will just be felt suddenly. Likewise, as ominous events, the day might appear serene and tranquility might just be around. However, if one person is not aware of his state and surroundings, without him paying attention, a disaster might occur. That is why Niccolò highlighted the ability to anticipate, it is about expecting that the worst could happen anytime soon; so the prince and his principalities will be prepared.
A PRINCE SHOULD BE ADEPT IN HIS ASPECTS
Integrating one of the remarkable philosophies of Rene Descartes; the 'thinking being'. His famous maxim is "Cogito ergo sum", or "I think, therefore, I am". Though Rene Descartes emphasizes that our intellect is what governs our actions or mobilities. Niccolò Machiavelli emphasizes the balance of mastering both. He asserted that a prince should be physically engaged enough to war so that he knew what it takes to be on a battlefield. He also needs to sharpen his intellect to execute plans, command his auxiliaries, and make good decisions. For instance, a leader in a certain region must intellectually master the advantageous places in his domain. So that if, in case, there is a potential threat; he already knows how to act.
A PRINCE IS NOT NEUTRAL
Everyone might agree with an idea wherein if you remain neutral, you help the oppressor win. Being indifferent to things happening around makes you a passive citizen; a disgrace to this nation.
Niccolò Machiavelli encapsulates neutrality. In chapter 21 he quotes " A prince is likewise much esteemed when he shows himself a sincere friend, or generous enemy—that is when without any hesitation he declares himself in favor of and against another". Here, he loathed those princes who play safe. He is steadfast in the belief that two parties might conflict. A prince who neglects to give favor is either afraid of victory or being proclaimed as abhorrent. Nonetheless, if the conqueror proclaims victory, he would be ecstatic that the prince did not interfere, for the latter will be forced to suffer under the conqueror's stint.
A FOX OR A LION?
This is personally my favorite part of the book. Niccolò Machiavelli gave us a dilemma, he compared an ideal prince to the lion and a fox. He asked, what would be the better quality that the prince should adopt? I will explain this more lucidly.
Lions are the king of the jungle, known for their strict territorial trait. When it roars, its clamors are like thunder, it gives an effect of sudden tremors. That even the feistiest wolf wouldn't dare to stand. On the other hand, the foxes are in danger of wolves but it has an incredible ability to notice toils and snare which the lion can't. Niccolò Machiavelli infers that an admirable prince should master these animals' dispositions. Fearless like a lion to frighten away the wolves, but tactical as a fox to discern traps and impediments. In a way, a prince should be an embodiment of balance and expertise of control.
“A prince, therefore, is not to regard the scandal of being cruel, if thereby he keeps his subjects in their allegiance and united..”
CONCLUSION
This book gave us clear insights into how classical politics worked way back medieval and Renaissance periods. It explains the different strategies of the prince to stay in power and possibly perpetuate himself for a long period. The book tells us to be aware of the political happenings so that we will never be passive citizens. We should remember that whatever the desire of a politician, we have the right to be engaged in discussions. It is one integral way of practicing our civil and political rights. The challenge in our contemporary world, especially those democratic states, our opinions and ideologies will never align. Conflicts, dissent, and even wars are contingent. But we should always remember that in politics, either a socialist, liberal, republican, nationalist, egalitarian, or machiavellian. A true leader only desires the welfare of his subjects. Progress and prosperity lie upon the confident head of the state and competent people.
Comments