SOURCE:

Faculty: Arts
Department: Philosophy

CONTRIBUTORS:

Ezeaka, P. I.
Maduabuchi, D.

ABSTRACT:

The breadth of Machiavelli’s contribution to the history of political thought depicted in his major political work; The Discourses, which is dedicated to republics, is often overshadowed by his discussion on ruling in The Prince, which provides cruel governing tactics to autocrats seeking to maintain their power. In view of this, Machiavelli is often seen as a proponent of tyranny. The Prince has long associated Machiavelli’s name and work with the unscrupulous struggle for political power, giving rise to the term of ‘Machiavellianism’. However, Machiavelli’s heart was clearly vested in the spirit of liberty. He was intent on contributing to a republican work through the use of antiquity and yearned for the Discourses to have an inspiring influence on the conduct of leaders. Was he really a supporter of tyranny or a republican? How does The Prince fit within the context of Machiavelli’s republicanism? The study adopted the method of analysis with data collected from libraries, books, journals and internet. After reviewing traditionalist elements related to how Renaissance cosmology was found inherited in Machiavelli’s thought, the study’s analysis focused on Machiavelli’s republicanism, both in its dimensions of supporting the legacy of the Roman republic and that of anticipating modern pluralist ideas. The work reveals that the description ‘Machiavellian’ and the general concept of Machiavellianism misrepresents Machiavelli’s true political ideology. The measures he put forward in “The Prince” were only desirable in the interests of civil stability. He hated oppression that was not in the interests of the people. The study claims that while elements of ‘Machiavellianism’ do exist in all of his books (especially in The Prince), they do not define the core line and purpose of Machiavelli’s political philosophy. This study presents how Machiavelli followed the legacy of republican Rome and of the medieval and Renaissance city-republics of Italy (including Florence) in developing his republican conception. Machiavelli used the theory of umori (humours) as the basis of his interpretation of the republican tradition. The theory of the humours served Machiavelli as the core background he used in differentiating the main forms of political orders: monarchy/principality, republic and lizenzia (institutionally, a republic, but effectively, an imbalanced quasi-aristocratic rule). The criterion Machiavelli used was the quality of relations existing among these humours, in the sense that only the republic secured the satisfaction of the needs and interests of all humours, and insofar represented a well-balanced, healthy state. Thus, the conclusions that, the interpretation of Machiavelli’s political theory is to be prominently a republican one, escaping its commonly simplified and stereotypical interpretations, which reduce his theoretical legacy to so-called ‘Machiavellianism’. Furthermore, it is argued that his statements that conflicts of interests among different humours were not only unavoidable, but were also useful in enacting good laws, did anticipate modern pluralism.