Lessons from The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli

Disclaimer

Machiavelli's The Prince is an interesting book that should be read in its own merit, but contain views that are not suitable for use in today's world. His hyper-rational approach to the management of states unavoidably results in things like "don't be merciful to your enemies" or "don't keep your promises if it's not to your own benefit" being written.

With that being said, The Prince is a fascinating book that teaches rulers how to work with what cannot be controlled by changing what can be controlled. The chapters start with the circumstances that one inevitably finds themselves in, then progresses to talk about the strategies for navigating such circumstances, including what to aim for and what to avoid. At the very least, this rational mindset of navigating the circumstances of life is one that would do anyone well to learn from.

1. Always choose a side, never stay neutral from a fight

When two parties are in conflict with one another, as the third party, the wisest option is always to pick a side. If you win, you get to enjoy the benefits with the winner, who will naturally reward you for supporting them in times of need. If you lose, you and your ally would come to be allies that went through the worst together, which would increase the mutual trust between both parties.

However, if you were to remain neutral, no matter who claimed victory after the fight, you would not be treated well. The winner would not be merciful to you for you did nothing to support them when the fight was going on, they would not want half-hearted friends who will not support them in times of need. And the loser would harbour no pity for you for you did not help them when they needed it the most.

My thoughts:

This idea is certainly interesting in that it combats the intuitive idea that avoiding necessary conflict is always better than choosing a side, especially when you were not initially involved in said conflict. For one, I always had the preconceived notion that unless you had to, it was better not to pick a side in most things. This argument from The Prince provides a new way of thinking about the topic at hand.

While this argument is certainly thought provoking, it also simplifies the situation too much to the extent that it's not exactly the best advice to take in most circumstances, especially for us civilians in the modern world. For example, as long as you're not the only third party tied up in a conflict between two close neighbours, there is rarely a need to pick a side. There would be so many others not joining the fight that you would just be "another one". However, if you were caught up in a situation where two close friends were in a fight, it might be worth considering whether picking a side was better than trying to stay neutral. Just some food for thought.

2. Use cruelty wisely

Good cruelty is short lived and decisive.

Machiavelli talked about using cruelty in terms of getting the people of a newly conquered state to submit. In order to use cruelty wisely, the new ruler of a state should assess how much cruelty is required and get it over with at once. After the cruelty has ended, a ruler should shower their subjects with generosity in order to reassure them and move on from their past acts.

If a ruler fails to dish out the necessary cruelty all at once, they would be forced to constantly "wield[ing] the knife", which means that their would be no trust between the ruler and the subjects of a nation. This is bad cruelty: cruelty that is regular, habituated, and forced out of a ruler.

My thoughts:

This seems to be a widely repeated mantra amongst those that study strategies that people in power should use. I've come across this idea prior to reading The Prince, but it was here that I started to ponder about the frequency that this piece of advice has popped up in my field of vision over the years.

Of course, it is better to not be cruel than to be cruel at all, but Machiavelli seems to be of the position that in order to hold power, cruelty is inevitable. This is an argument that is worth debating over, though. In situations like the ones written in the book, it may very well be true, but in the circumstances of today's world, where the social hierarchy, although existent, is less pronounced, it may not be a necessary trait for all leaders. A leader in today's sense of the word is less of a "ruler" but more "coordinator", someone who manages others to work in the most efficient manner. Hence, there is less need to command others into obedience, and cruelty might not be a necessary trait unless one needed to hold on to power in its purest form.

3. To give or to not take?

The ideal situation for any ruler is to be seen as generous, loving and kind. However, in a world where most are not generous, loving or kind, being the good person will put one at a disadvantage. In order to remain in power, it is inevitable for a ruler to adopt one or two bad characteristics in order to avoid disaster. Therefore, one shouldn't be too concerned about having a poor reputation due to the bad characteristics that they must inevitably adopt.

For example, a ruler would not be seen as generous if they do not constantly lavish their subjects with gifts. However, a ruler that is generous in this manner would soon lose all their wealth, and be in no position to finance a war when conflict comes. When such a time does come, they would have no other choice but to collect special taxes and burden the people. Not only would this policy treat the people worse than they would have been by the not-as-generous ruler, the contrast between the ruler's generosity during peacetime and meanness during wartime would induce hatred by the people. Such a policy of generosity would only serve to benefit the minority and burden the majority.

In contrast, a ruler which takes nothing but gives nothing would be seen as generous by the people - the majority who are not specially burdened during wartime, while seen as mean to the few - the nobles who are not showered with gifts.

However, it is important to note that later in the book, Machiavelli states that it is important to seem virtuous even if that is not true, because people judge more by appearance than by truth.

My thoughts:

Again, this is one of Machiavelli's many controversial ideas that sound ugly, but are actually worth considering. The premises of his argument brings to the surface the difference between appearance and reality. On one hand, he states that being "stingy" actually means being generous in the long term. On the other, he mentions that it is important to keep up the appearances, no matter how different reality might be. Is there any meaning then, to try to be generous in the truest sense of the word? It might put you at a disadvantage, especially compared to those who are not generous at all but are very good at pretending.

However, most people are generous not to look generous but simply because they are that type of person. Because they are naturally generous, there is no conflict between being generous and being stingy but appearing to be generous, it never occurred to most to even consider the latter as an option. And in most normal circumstances, where there is no benefit to be gained or politics to be considered, that is the way things should be - it is best for both the individual and the society.

But when benefits and costs come into play, when one needs to play the role of a ruler, that is when this advice from Machiavelli might come in handy.

In my humble opinion, the main takeaway from this idea is that what looks like the most socially acceptable thing to do at the time - the best short term action - might not actually lead to the best results over the long term. Just because something sounds good on paper, doesn't mean that it's actually good in reality. Just as there is no need to be generous just for the sake of being generous, there is no need to do anything simply for the sake of appearances. Unless there's some concrete benefit you can gain for doing so, which happens more than I'd like to admit.

4. Don't change your mind too often

It is important that a ruler knows how to strike a fair balance between listening to advice and being firm in their decisions.

One must listen to advice in order to make wise and informed decisions, but once the decision is made no one should be able to persuade them otherwise. If a ruler were to falter under another's words, they would be seen as weak and manipulatable, and soon all respect for them would be lost.

My thoughts:

Short but sweet.

This point is one of the rare ones where I fully agree with and think that it would be applicable to most situations in real life. As a leader, it is necessary to make wise and informed decisions, but it is equally important to be firm in your decisions such that once you made them, no one else can alter that decision. This is both to maintain your authority as a leader and to keep the trust of others.

One handy piece of advice that I read from Ray Dalio's book, Principles, is to weigh the value of additional information with the cost of not deciding. If waiting for more information is worth it, then wait until it no longer is, then make a final decision that cannot be altered. If it is better to make that decision immediately, then make a decision and never look back.

5. Prepare for the storm while the weather is fair

One of the biggest mistakes rulers make is being complacent in peacetime and not expecting that times would change.

Even in peacetime, a ruler must remain physically and mentally prepared for war, and turn the time spent in peacetime into their advantage when conflict comes along. As such, when circumstances change, they would be ready and maximise their chances of victory.

My thoughts:

This certainly isn't one of the core ideas in the book, and was only mentioned briefly in a few of the chapters, but it's still worth the time to go through and reflect about.

This advice might seem quite trivial and indeed very obvious, but it is a common shortcoming to extrapolate based on trends from the recent past, and expect that things would continue as they were, even though that might not be the case. However, I wouldn't blame anyone for failing to carry out this piece of advice: it's easier said than done.

There are many things that we don't notice until they are suddenly taken away. More than once, I have been surprised at the background noise of air conditioning suddenly disappearing, it is only after it is gone that I notice it was ever there. We are unable to notice things that don't change until they do, and that is what makes preparing for such change so difficult. In the context of The Prince, it might be as simple as preparing for war during peacetime, but for people whose motives are less clear, what we are meant to prepare for are just as ambiguous.

All I can really say about this is to think about what you are unable to live without. If something is of such importance to you, then surely it would be wise to prepare for a situation where that thing might one day disappear. This is doubly true if you are unable to control that thing from disappearing. If you can't keep it, then at least be prepared for a time where it's no longer there when you need it.

Conclusion

The Prince is an interesting book indeed, and as such a culturally and historically significant book, it definitely deserves a place on the list of "books everyone needs to read before they die".

I haven't pointed out much of the criticisms towards the book (such as Machiavelli's seeming lack of morality), because I wanted to talk about my personal thoughts towards some of the ideas mentioned in a more rational manner. The morality of the book, and indeed, the ethics of his ideas, are another conversation altogether. This post is simply meant as a discussion of his ideas, and whether it would be applicable to the modern world that we live in today.

For the same reason, I haven't mentioned much of his ideas with regards to the specifics of ruling a nation. There are many ideas, especially in the earlier part of the book, where Machiavelli talks about the different types of states and the best way to govern each of them, but my interest was more to take the abstract ideas, the broad principles, out of the book. For more of the details on politics and strategy, I would recommend reading the book itself.

References

1. The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli (1532)
2. Philosophy: The Classics, Nigel Warburton (2014)