Originally written for Lorenzo de’ Medici, Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, was one of the first modern political philosophy texts. Discussing the topic of realism through political power and strategy, The Prince was a manual for leaders of his time. By advising leaders to be cunning and pragmatic when strategizing, Machiavelli claims it will increase and maintain state security. This paper argues that Machiavelli was a realist and that the term realism has an important place when talking about international relations.
Realism in connection to international relations is a way of thinking that highlights the competitiveness and strategies. Similar thought patterns and behaviors can be found in realist literature. In their article, Introducing Realism in International Relations Theory, Sandrina Antunes and Isabel Camisão outline three basic assumptions of realism in the discipline of international relations. Assumption one of realism is that the principal actor in IR is the nation-state. Individuals and organizations also exist but do not act as the main power. Assumption two, the state acts unitarily. In times of crisis like war, the state should speak with one voice. Assumption three, nations need rational decision-makers that will lead to the safety and security of the nation. Taking action when not needed would increase the vulnerable and weaken the state. Leaders who practice realism will recognize this while managing state affairs in order to protect themselves in a competitive environment. Due the fact that there is no established hierarchy between international states, each state can only rely on themselves, therefore states are in constant “anarchy”. Another ideal of realism is that humans are in a constant pattern due to behavioral. This is because humans in nature are egoistical and prioritize their own self-interest which leads to predictable outcomes (Antunes & Camisão, 2018, pp. 1-4). Closely describing world politics, realism, is often used when creating policies. When following human patterns, realists encourage leaders to act in the self-interest of the state using power and force. At its core, realism, is a theory that argues that questionable acts such as war is a necessary tool of statecraft in order for leader to keep the security of their state (Wohlforth, 2008, p. 1). For a realist the survival of the state is before all else because of this ethics are judged on responsibility not moral principles. By using realism as an analytical tool of statecraft and policymakers, realism can teach leaders important insights about the world.
Best known for his book, The Prince, Machiavelli was the frontier when it came to unprincipled political strategy. Written as a handbook for leaders he focuses on not ideal utopias but rather the pragmatic truth of how a government should practice unbound by ethical concerns. When asked the question is it better to be feared or loved, he claims “It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with” (Machiavelli, 1998, chapter 17). This interpretation makes the statement that people will always put there self-interest first. You cannot control what people love because every loves at their own inclination. You cannot control what people love but you can control what they fear, therefore, it would be wiser to be feared. If fear is what it takes for a prince to create security and peace it is worth the cost. A prince must learn when is it appropriate for him to be a prince and when to be solider. If a prince acts as if it is always war, he will lose his supports, wealth, and himself. There is no formula or equation that tells when or how a prince should be a solider, which is why it important to have leaders who can discern between what is necessary and what is excessive. In regards of virtue in the state, Machiavelli points out that although an act may appear virtuous it may be ruinous to a ruler. He calls for leader to make judgment between the dynamics of politics and ethics. As a close observer of the political world dominated by leaders and personalities, he worked hard on what improvements could be done by smaller independent cities to increase security. Instead of generalizing to other places or times he looked at the direct needs of time place and time. His thoughts were rooted in his experiences and did want to generalize but wanted to bring generalization to highlight the context (Jackson, 2016, pp. 447-465). Uninterested in discovering the universal claim about how to secure power in politics his goal was to provide context about politics and the world he lived in hoping to create a stable society.
Critics of Machiavelli will argue that he puts force and ethical behavior before the law and moral values. Focusing on the founding of America, writers, William Allen and Hadley Arkes are both anti-Machiavellian and view Machiavelli as a devious and cunning character. As an ideal candidate opposed to Machiavellian, Arkes cites Alexander Hamilton. Arkes states the difference between the two comes down to prudence when seeking power. The ability to be apply practical wisdom will lead to a much more flexible politician. Another factor the separates the two is the idea of honor. To Machiavelli honor was used when thinking about one’s reputation, credibility, and other contributes to power. But he cared little when it came to the honor that did not directly benefit one’s reputation. In comparison, Hamilton, “Connected Honor with what is naturally noble as tightly as they could…as unmodern, as anti-Machiavellian as could be”. Allen agrees and goes on to state that for a self-government to be successful a nation must maintain the integrity of the public. To maintain integrity leaders must take justice and have faith. The ideal of self-governing is a reflection of the change in governments throughout history. Rethinking Western traditions, American founders strengthened the notion that regular citizens were capable of leading, unlike past monarchies and aristocracies (Schaub, 2020, pp.1-3). Allen and Arkes both bring up valid points when critiquing Machiavelli. Although some may view his philosophy as extreme there is still many things that Machiavelli and his writings can teach is not just about politics but also how to live life in a more pragmatic and strategic way. Realists argue that leaders constantly must deal with endless constraints and little opportunities for cooperation and must face the reality of politics head on. Leader cannot hope for peaceful change because that type of change is scare, it would be too unwise for a leader to rely on such idealistic thinking (Wright, 2005, pp. 3-23).
If liberalism and idealism emphasize cooperation than realism emphasize self-security, competitiveness and strategic aspects of furthering’s one’s own nation, and an overall need to maintain and gain power. The constant need for power as lead to questionable ethical behavior among states. Unlike, national politics that lives in the realm of law and authority, international politics, lives in a realm of where rules and regulations have more discrepancies which can lead to unethical behavior, brought about but conflict among states (Harrison, 2011, pp.1-4). This is not to say that all realist disregard ethics in international relations. Distinctions should be seen between classical realism and radical realism. Classical realism focuses on national interest and does not glorify war while also accepting moral judgement when strategizing. They maintain critical moralism to make sure their politics are ethical. Thinking of possible political consequences from alternative views based of prudence also hold great value to classical realist (Korab, 2017, pp. 1-4). Radical realism on the other hand argues it may be necessary for questionable or extreme measures to take place in order to secure victory. This thinking leads to an increase in unethical behavior and future consequences. The term realism does offer a useful way when thinking about ethics and international relations, but this depends on how it is being used. Bombing a city in order to kill one target could be seen as the easiest, fastest, most efficient, and definitely a possible way to secure victory during a war but highly unethical. A much more realistic approach would be to go through the proper international protocols and terms of negotiations. Politicians should never exchange humans lives for an easier option even if it is more realistic. When using the term is important to remember that the world is not only black and white, but there is also a lot of grey in-between and it is necessary to look at the grey to create the most beneficial and safe outcome for nations.
As a realist, Machiavelli advises readers to use pragmatic tactics when trying to gain political power. Although a majority of people do not work in politics, the principles are still applicable regardless of one’s career. The principles can even go farther than one’s career and can be applied to personal relationships, hobbies, and lifestyle. Realism teaches people the most realistic approach when trying to accomplish their goals. Still read and taught today, The Prince, is a classic piece of text when discussing international relations and teaches us to look at the world “as it is, not as it ought to be”.
Bibliography
Camisão, S., & About The Author(s) Sandrina Antunes is an Assistant Professor at the Department of International Relations and Public Administration at the Universidade do Minho. (2018, August 05). Introducing realism in international Relations Theory. Retrieved April 20, 2021, from https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/27/introducing-realism-in-international-relations-theory/
Jackson, M. (2016, July). Machiavelli’s walls: The legacy of realism in international relations theory. Retrieved April 16, 2021, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304749985_Machiavelli%27s_walls_The_legacy_of_realism_in_international_relations_theory
Korab-Karpowicz, W. (2017, May 24). Political realism in international relations. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/
Machiavelli, N. (1998, March). The prince. Retrieved April 20, 2021, from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm
Schaub, D. (2020, September 27). Machiavelli's realism. Retrieved April 20, 2021, from https://nationalinterest.org/article/machiavellis-realism-604
Harrison, R. (2011, January 1). What can you learn From machiavelli? (2011, January 01). Retrieved April 20, 2021, from https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/what-can-you-learn-machiavelli
Wohlforth, W. (2008, August 14). Realism. Retrieved April 20, 2021, from https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199219322.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199219322-e-7
Wright, M. (2005). Chapter 1 Machiavelli. In Four Seminal Thinkers in International Theory (pp. 3-23). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.