Rulers, listen to Machiavelli. By Gary Furnell.
Niccolò Machiavelli’s name is mud. …
When I bought a copy of The Prince — Machiavelli’s most famous work — I braced myself, anticipating counsels of devilish sophistry on every page. But The Prince is far better than I imagined. … Published in Italy in 1532 after Machiavelli’s death, it was placed on Pope Paul IV’s Index of Prohibited Books in 1559. … The Prince was lambasted by Protestants as a prime example of Catholic degeneracy, Italian trickery. This polemic—lasting for centuries—cemented Machiavelli’s wretched reputation and secured his fame. …
He wrote a book during violent times for violent times. …
Better than modern western politicians:
First, he had fought wars and seen the terrible consequences of military and foreign policy blunders: people were slaughtered, the countryside and towns were devastated and occupying forces were callous. Machiavelli had skin in the game. Most state and federal politicians — and their bureaucrats — don’t have skin in the game. They don’t risk their lives; they don’t suffer painful consequences for destructive policy mistakes. They still get generous pensions and cosy appointments. There’s no compelling inducement to realism. If they err, they’re not imprisoned and their joints wrenched apart, as Machiavelli endured. We would get far more prudent policies if our leaders faced severe punishments for their dreadful decisions. …
Second … was his Augustinian rather than Pelagian anthropology. Machiavelli knew that human sinfulness had better be taken into account. Everywhere people were self-seeking, proud, anxious, impulsive, short-sighted, fearful, opportunistic, ambitious, envious and inconstant. No one person — even the most evil — displayed all of these characteristics all the time, but they were lurking in every human heart and no one wise dared to overlook them.
Pelagian anthropology acknowledges human sin but discounts its constant distorting power. Pelagians imagine that people and society are perfectible — able to be their best if given the right incentives by shrewd leaders. This is unrealistic.
For example, our welfare and health systems are broadly Pelagian and consequently have inadequate protections against clients’ rorting, laziness, entitlement and self-destructive folly. Machiavelli would not have made this mistake.
Some political advice from the 1500s:
Machiavelli condemns rulers seeking popularity through extravagant spending. It’s a short cut to sure ruin. The strategy appeals to rulers, but it’s a calamity for the nation and harms the lavish leadership. They’ll either have to raise taxes or withdraw their generosity or both. None of these actions will be popular; they risk being overthrown. …
This is germane to Australia, where every election features a cash-splash from aspiring rulers. They rarely address debt, the urgent need for frugality with public money or the government’s responsibility to allocate funds prudently. Parsimony is unmentionable. Every newsletter from my federal and state MPs highlights increased entitlements, a multitude of funding commitments and grants. There’s no mention of government debt or cost-cutting measures. Recently, my state MP proudly announced spending for companion dogs to console people stressed in court.
The ruler’s parsimony has the great benefit of saving money for adequate defence forces, since defending the country is any government’s first priority. …
A country burdened by reckless spending — and mounting debt — has already surrendered its capacity for self-reliance and independent action. It’s vulnerable, without ready cash to build defences and deter enemies. Alas, like Australia, they need alliances. …
A wise ruler looked after the interests of the common people rather than the nobles. It was simple mathematics: common people outnumber nobles. Plus, plots against the ruler come from the nobles.
The commoners aren’t much interested in politics or especially ambitious. They’re content with sensible laws and freedom from tyranny so they can get on with their lives. Given these minimums, they’ll respect the ruler and fight for the status quo when the country is attacked. When treated fairly, commoners formed the most stable basis for government….
In Australia the equivalent of nobles might be leaders of party factions, senior bureaucrats, big business operators, union bosses, strident activists and the agents of international bodies like the UN, WHO and the IMF. They want rulers to rule for them, not for the people: …
The ruler’s trust and favour towards the common people even extends to arming rather than disarming them. Machiavelli insisted this was good sense. In war, a large number of people across the country familiar with weapons is a great advantage. A ruler who disarmed the people signalled his distrust of them and left himself without the benefit of their prowess.
