Democracy and Machiavelli

In Machiavelli's The Prince, hints of future democratic theories can be pulled out of Machiavelli's plan for the success of a prince of a state. Within Machiavelli's concentration of plotting out successful achievement of a stabilized state within a principality, he often reveals the importance of the satisfaction the people within the governing walls of that principality. One of the themes to Machiavelli's plan included the dismissal of the affection of virtue of the nobility as well as the significance of an honest people. Even though Machiavelli may have had other motivation for the writing of "The Prince",

Machiavelli states that a prince would be praiseworthy by many if he could achieve the fifteen virtues and vices that Machiavelli lists off in chapter fifteen. After, however, he writes, "But because he cannot have them, nor wholly, observe them, since human, conditions do not permit it, it is necessary for him to be so prudent as to know how to avoid the infamy of those vices that would take his state from and to be on guard against those that do not, if that is possible; but if one cannot, one can let them go on with less hesitation."( pg. 62, lines 9-15) Machiavelli writes that it is important for a prince to recognize virtu and act virtuously but not attempt to carry all those qualities as it would be inhuman for one to do. Machiavelli makes a case to point out that as a prince, you cannot count on the virtue of people to get things done. A prince must rely on self interest, not on virtu and patriotism.

Democracy is a theory of a way to govern that is the summation of many different ideas. I view Machiavelli as a democratic thinker based off of ideas that stem away from his writings in the "The Prince". It is not that Machiavelli directly speaks words of democracy but that in his strategy for an established and secure state in a principality, he outlines several important thoughts that turn out to be recognized today as facets to democracy.

Machiavelli's Civil Principality invokes democratic ideas in Chapter IX, "Ð'...when a private citizen becomes prince of his fatherland, not through crime or other intolerable violence but with the support of his fellow citizens (which one could call a civil principality; neither all virtue nor all fortune is necessary to attain it, but rather a fortunate astutenessÐ'..." (pg 38-39, lines 1-6) In this chapter, Machiavelli hints at the idea of a representative coming to power as a result of a choice made by his fellow people and not that of the nobility. Machiavelli goes on to discuss the advantages of the ascension of a prince from the people rather than the nobility. "Ð'...for the end of the people is more decent than that of the great." (pg. 39, line 30-31)

Machiavelli states that there are two humors in the idea of "Decency of many and the Wickedness of few". One humor is the many (the people), and the other is the few (the nobility). The few, the elite, envy the prince and have a desire to be like the prince. The many, on the other hand, are honest and easy to deal with because they want to be left alone. Machiavelli believes that it is in the interest of the prince to surround himself with the many because an honest people will be successful. When power is given by the people to a representative in a democracy or a prince in a monarchy, that person will be successful because the people are decent, honest, and not virtuous as are the few elite.

When the founding fathers of the United States of America were writing the U.S. Constitution in 1787, they looked back to the writings of Machiavelli for assistance on certain theologies. In Chapter XVI, Machiavelli speaks of Ecclesiastical Principalities and acknowledges that they do exist. He also admits that Ecclesiastical Principalities are obtained through virtu or fortune, "Ð'...because they are acquired either by virtue or fortune and are maintained without one or the otherÐ'..." (pg. 45, lines 3-4) Machiavelli believes that leaders of Ecclesiastical Principalities blanket themselves with divine right and that no one is willing to challenge them because of this. A theological-political problem