The Machiavellian Ways

The Machiavellian Ways

To understand the current state of affairs and why leaders are self-centered, it is imperative to comprehend the political philosophy of one of the classical and renowned realists, Niccolo Machiavelli. Indubitably, some of the politicians, in the past, that are well known for their ruthlessness were staunch followers of this political scientist. Be it Napoleon Bonaparte, Benito Mussolini, or Hitler, all seemed to have sought guidance from his work in his famous book, “The Prince”. This book is no less than Bible for those who hail from the Realist school of thought. It is a small wonder that after the triumph of neo-liberalism in the aftermath of the cold war, realism still seems to be dominating world affairs, and it is Machiavelli who seems to be a guide to many. The politics over the Indian Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, and more precisely South China sea validates and keeps alive the Machiavellian thoughts. His political views greatly align with those of H.J Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz, and somewhat Thomas Hobbes. Some argue that his work is the extension of Chanakya, an Indian political philosopher of ancient times. Moreover, Machiavellian work is completely contrary to the liberal school of thought that includes the likes of John Locke. His opinions also run opposite to those of Muslim philosophers such as Ibn Khaldun and Mawardi. As a matter of fact, the influence of Machiavelli has marked so much that even immoral politics happening in any part of the world is being equated with his name. By and large, Machiavelli’s work is based on how to get power and preserve it. 

Also Read: Should Pakistan recognize Israel?

Machiavelli’s theory of politics is mostly based on a darkly negative model of a changeless human nature. In his opinion, humans are satiable, arrogant, selfish, crafty, and above all, violent and savage.  On this basis, he argues that political life is always characterized by inevitable strife, prompting political leaders to rule through the use of cunning, cruelty, and manipulation. Thomas Hobbes’ thinking is also based on a pessimistic view of human nature, to which he calls, “the state of nature”. The main contradiction between two philosophers in this respect is the means. For the former the means are simply the ends, meaning the leader can use brutal tactics to eliminate that Hobbes’ state of nature. While the latter propounds the idea of establishing a sovereign and unchallengeable power, that is, by the creation of a state. In this way, as per Hobbes’ view, people can be coordinated to a large extent without using force. There is also another political philosopher named John Locke who endorses the idea of “the state of nature”, but largely defies anarchy in that particular state, which also contradicts with the thought of Machiavelli. The only way to maintain peace is by building the institutions, maintains John Locke. This is also similar to the view of Ibn Khaldun. This idea sprouts from neo-liberalism. Drawing parallels among these three political scientists will tell us that they converge at some points and also diverge at other points.

-Thomas Hobbes (L) & John Locke (R)

One is often disgusted at the idea of how ruthless and dishonest many politicians are, but one should not be. In such a scenario, one needs to read the works of Niccolo Machiavelli. Who said, “the only certainty in the world is power, and the most reliable power is military power”.  If one pays attention to these words, one can easily conclude why the states like The United States of America, China, India, and Pakistan are building up their military strength. The United States of America, being the champion of human rights and the result of John Locke’s enlightenment idea, still following in the footprints of a hardcore realist, Machiavelli. This simply shows the world politics is still dominated by realism. Its other manifestation can be found in the South China Sea where the U.S.A and China are at hair-trigger, and suspicious of each other’s activities. This confrontation that has been lasting for some years has propelled both states to seek military power. Over the years, the substantial increase in their respective defense budget is also validation of supremacy of Machiavellian thought. Apparently, it looks like both have paid much heed to the words of Machiavelli. It is the sole reason why they are concentrating on piling up military build-up.  Nonetheless, this idea contradicts the theory of Muslim philosopher, Ibn Khaldun. In his book, Muqadimah, he says that the more military power, the more there are chances of collapse of a state. He presents examples of Greek city-states in this respect. Therefore, according to him, military power sooner or later will become for the recipe for destruction, and the only thing which can sustain a state is its economic well being. This is something that is massively advocated by the liberal school of thought.

- Ibn Khaldun (L) & Al Mawrdi (R)

If one takes stock from the Afghan and Iraq war, one can also say with certitude that it is Machiavelli who is still reigning supreme in the mind of Human rights champion, the U.S.A.  Afghanistan and Iraq have been ravaged at the expense of violation of human rights. The institutions like the United Nations which were founded on the principle of idealism, are seen spineless to avert destruction. This also tells us that optimism of Wilsonian and John Locke have been dashed in the face of Machiavellian pessimism.

Also Read: The confrontation between Muhammad Shahab ud din Ghori and Prithviraj Chauhan

Given this situation and elsewhere in the Middle East where the U.S.A troops have unleashed terror, it can be remarked that the U.S.A has been following two main instructions from Machiavelli’s book, The Prince. The first says that politics is more important than principles, one that is closely associated with one of the six principles of political realism by Morgenthau. While the other says that it is the end that justifies the mean. There are also many examples where it can be seen that the U.S.A has been sticking to these instructions. Its ruthlessness in Vietnam in the 1970s and its dirty games in South America, particularly in Venezuela are some of the evidences. However, such maneuvers are exceedingly opposite to the political philosophy of Mawardi, who says the head of the nation must be devout and morally correct. A state must confine itself within moral conduct. His views are largely centered on the Muslim caliphate who, according to his opinion, must be wise, compassionate, and generous. However, one can hardly find an example of such a leader that possessed the qualities according to Mawardi and had sustained its rule on account of such virtues. If one looks at the political background of Muslims during the medieval times, only confrontations and bloodletting will be known. To some extent, Machiavelli’s advice of using power and arbitration for sustaining power finds relevance not only in Modi’s democratic India but also in XI Jinping’s autocratic China.

-The Statue Of Machiavelli

As mentioned earlier, Machiavelli’s work is considered the supplement of Indian Realist, Chanakya. His book “Arthashastra” is a real guide for the realist leaders, which is also believed to be a ditto copy of “The Prince”. Therefore, unsurprisingly, Chanakya is labeled as Indian Machiavelli. In addition, it is also believed that Indian foreign policy is designed on the instructions of Chankya’s “Arthashastra”. Indian hegemonic designs in the region, its nuclear ambitions, its pursuit for ascendancy in the Indian Ocean region, and hostile attitude towards neighboring states validates the fact that India is also a follower of realism, and thereby Chankya’s “Arthashastra” and Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. But the ironic fact is that those states that are along the lines of Machiavelli are also pursuing the “Democratic Peace Theory” of Immanuel Kant at the same time in some ways. Such countries include the likes of the U.S.A, and India, as it is also proven here.

Also Read:  Accountability in Pakistan and the role of National Accountability Bureau (NAB)

On the whole, Machiavelli’s thought can be traced back to the time of Chanakya, that is, around B.C 300 and traced forward to 2020, if we look at contemporary politics. One might have thought that commercial liberalism- the product of neo-liberalism- would have replaced political realism. But the very contrary has happened. Be it the South China Sea, or ambitious CPEC project of China, it seems like the shadows of “Thucydides Trap” are hovering above the U.S.A and China. In the larger scheme of things, it is Machiavellian politics that is shaping the current state of affairs in world politics, and many states are falling into its line.