Machiavelli’s Silence on Legitimacy vs. Hobbes’ Focus
Why did Machiavelli, in his Prince, not discuss the question of legitimacy?
All the pages of history are a collection of tales on how to obtain, retain, and rule. Both Machiavelli and Hobbes have written about the concept of power, its transitory and elusive nature.
Machiavelli takes a cynical stand on who should rule and how they should rule. Machiavelli states, in one of his many works, that whosoever intends to rule must start by relying on the assumption that all men are evil and forever ready to display their vicious nature to accomplish their interests. Such a statement speaks volumes about Machiavelli’s view on the aspect of political governance and rule.
In his book ‘The Prince’, Machiavelli evades the subject of legitimacy simply because of his rather cynical stand on the issue of legitimate governance. Prince was a forecast of what was to happen later. Machiavelli was responding to the political unrest and the endless wars between the Ducal and Pupal states of Italy (Machiavelli 194).
Machiavelli was more of a realist than an idealist in his approach towards the issues of political leadership. According to Machiavelli, an ideal ruler is the one who draws legitimacy from the use of absolute force. He is the one who demands complete submission of their subjects. In his view, a leader should never collaborate with his subjects but should be dictatorial when enforcing rules. The citizens, according to the Machiavellian idea, should not have the voice to express an opinion. The ruler’s opinion forever overrules anybody else’s opinion. The subjects should also never have the freedom to speak against political ideologies that they are opposed to.
According to Machiavelli, a prince never lacks the legitimate reasons not to fulfill his promise and never owes an apology to his subjects in case of unfulfilled promises. A Machiavellian leader should practice limitless and absolute power.
Although most philosophers and political scientists agree that Machiavelli preferred a rather democratic and liberal form of leadership, he loved to consider his views as realistic as opposed to being idealistic. This is more so because he lived in a period that was marked by many political anarchies and bloody wars.
A state, in order to function appropriately, has to have a theoretical justification of its existence. The justification should be able to answer the simplest form of the question. The question seeks to find the reason why an individual should obey the law of the land. For effective political administration, a comprehensive account, which justifies a particular distribution of power and decision, is necessary.
It is obvious that a country can never function effectively in the absence of a well-presented framework. The framework is important for the establishment of well-balanced power distribution. Without a proper framework, a government would act with force – ‘obey or you get hurt’. Any political system operates upon this basis. Should this be the only basis of authority, then in some manner, the state lacks identity and it will only be functional as long as the existing power arrangement holds. A proper example of such a state is the Nazi state or Germany, a leadership structure that was legitimized on a particular leader’s ideology of race. Another example is North Korea, whose political leadership is founded on sham political elections.
Machiavelli’s sense is what is known as ‘Real Politics’ (Marx and Engels 492). The leadership types illustrated in the Prince were and are still viewed as shocking and its inappropriateness is, until today, a topic of serious discussion. The Prince advises the prince or rather the prince to be tyrannical. However, contemporaries agree that Machiavelli favored democratic forms of leadership.
In contrast, why was Hobbes so interested in this question?
Hobbes is another English philosopher whose work is closely related to that of Machiavelli. However, the two have differences in opinion but their contrast is much inclined on the surface. The question of legitimacy was of particular interest to Hobbes due to his rather divergent view on the whole issue. Machiavelli and Hobbes had different perspectives concerning the use of power. Machiavelli believed that it was used to maintain sovereignty. Hobbes, on the other hand, believed it was used for maintaining leadership.
Hobbes’ political theories were founded on psychological egoism. He argues that people are generally egoists. We live in fear of one another because of our inherent sense of insecurity and fear. Hobbes affirms that everyone should find it within themselves to keep to the morality of respecting human existence, to keep to agreements made, and to obey societal laws.
Hobbes speaks of the right of nature, which is normally referred to as jus natural writers. This implies that everyone is at liberty to use his own ability as he wills (Pojman 95). From this, we virtually learn that Hobbes was more attuned towards the idea of man’s freedom to do as he wills.
On matters of leadership, Hobbes believes in democracy rather than despotism or dictatorship for that matter. He stated that every individual had the right to liberty. Everyone could do whatever he or she wanted since the power has been accorded to him or her (Harrison 23).
Hobbes maintains that every person is entitled to a certain level of freedom and that one should pursue his or her own interests and should never be forced by a leader. Rulers should never force their subjects into submitting to their rule. He adds that rulers must earn power and maintain it through fairness. According to Hobbes, a ruler should ever be motivated to serve the interests of his subjects and that the citizens should be incorporated into the political process. He believed in ruling by conscience rather than ruling through forceful means.
Hobbes and Machiavelli, though differing in ideologies, concur at some level of the debate since their differences are quite superficial. Both of them agree on the use of force to maintain rule. Machiavelli states that wisdom does not make law but authority does. At the same time, Hobbes affirms that if one does not believe in force then it means the person does not believe in gravity (Dolgoff 199).
Conclusion
This work presents the not-so-divergent views of the two philosophers whose ideologies about legitimacy in governance are based on strong political backgrounds. Both concur on the issue that political leadership of any state needs some element of force to impress legitimacy on its people. The end here implies a secure, powerful, and stable state. Both Machiavelli and Hobbes believed in the selfishness of the king and their divine rights. The Two developed or rather adopted a strong central power as the only way to maintain stability and avoid social order disintegration. Machiavelli stresses an all-powerful leader who commands the respect and obedience of his subjects. A leader who impresses legitimacy on his subjects using sheer force practices what we would call ruling with an iron fist. According to Machiavelli, the only true state is the one whereby the voices of the citizens are too feeble and weak to be heard. Not only should they be weak to be heard but should also never be heard and if heard then they should be ignored.
Hobbes envisions a closer view on the use of force to acquire legitimacy. He points out that a law that impresses on its subject to do according to the will and ideology of an individual is no law at all. A ruler, according to Hobbes, should be at his subjects’ service. The legitimacy should not only be illustrated to the people but they should openly feel it. This is the feeling of liberty.
Marxist Critique of Modern State Legitimacy vs. Anarchist Perspective
Why Marx and his followers deny the legitimacy of the modern liberal state?
Marx and his followers argue that the modern state is a product of an established modern industry. An industry that has established the world market and this market has brought about advancement in commerce, which in effect has resulted in the expansion of the industry. In the same proportion to the industry, railways and commerce have also been extended. According to Marxists, this industrial revolution has pushed to the back all classes from the middle age.
This is a situation the Marxists term as the modern Bourgeoisie (Marx and Engel 502). They argue that each step in the advancement of the bourgeoisie was always followed by a political development or a political advancement of that particular class. Under this bourgeoisie, there exists an oppressed class under the cover of the feudal nobility. This was followed by the advent of self-governance, armament, and taxation. According to Marxists, the bourgeoisie legitimized itself under the disguise of political or even religious ideologies.
An executive heads the bourgeoisie, according to Marxists. This is the committee that runs the affairs in its entirety. The bourgeoisie has torn apart the feudal relationships that bound humans to their ‘natural superiors’. In an effort to legitimize itself on the people, the bourgeoisie has left nothing behind but a rift between men in the form of naked self-interests and callousness. Callousness is in the name of cash payment (Marx and Engel 490).
The political leadership has put asunder religious fervor, philistine sentimentalism, and other such heavenly ecstasies. The leadership has taken up every man’s freedom in the name of setting up a free trade for the sole purpose of exploitation under the disguise of politics and religion. Marxists argue that in an effort to make it legitimate, the modern states have only succeeded in turning family relations into sheer money relations.
Marxists argue that the modern state is an instrument of one class oppressing all the other classes. They add that any state is in the form of a dictatorship of one class over the other class.
How the Marxist view on the legitimacy of the modern state differs from an anarchist’s view?
Both anarchism and Marxism are similar political ideologies or philosophies that emerged in the 19th century. Their elementary intent has been the liberation of humans, which is to be achieved through political activism. Both philosophies including Marxism and anarchism are strongly opposed to wage labor and the industrial revolution. Both have argued and agreed that the working class is the mainstay of revolution.
The divisions, or rather the differences between the Marxists and the Anarchists have emerged in their divergent theoretical ideologies, practice, and immediate political achievements. The Marxists support the idea that socialist parties could participate in politics (in parliament). On the other hand, anarchists argue that politics are not democratic.
Anarchists state that parliamentary politics does not provide any liberal and democratic control over the workplace. While Marxists believe that only dictatorship can create the will of the people, the anarchists dispute this by stating that dictatorship has no proper intention other than self-perpetuation and the enslavement of its subjects. Moreover, freedom is only-begotten through freedom. Anarchists state that there is no legitimacy in the dictatorship. They claim that dictatorial rule can only be overcome through a universal rebellion.
Bakunin reiterates that anarchy is the aim and dictatorship is the means. Anarchism here refers to freedom. For Marxists, for a people to be liberated, they have to be first enslaved or dictated upon.
Marxists reiterate that a legitimate modern state requires a successful transition to communism. According to the Marxists, this will need the repression of the capitalists for them not to revive their control over the state. According to them, this will require the presence of a state governed by workers. The anarchists argue against the formation of a state of any form stressing the fact that once the said party gains power, the persons involved with time turn to become the oppressors.
Marx and his followers’ arguments support communism. Mikhail Bakunin who is an anarchist is against anything that is similar or even resembles communism or even state socialism. According to Bakunin, a modern state such as the United States of Europe has no legitimacy, is malicious, and has no beneficial intentions. He puts a big question mark on the legitimacy of the objectives of the league. Bakunin argues against the sovereignty of a state. Sovereignty according to the anarchists means state socialism. Bakunin states that state sovereignty is an attempt of a social organization to deliberate individuals as well as associations (Quentin 46).
Anarchists postulate ideas on the nature of man and the ties of a man to his society, which – according to them – are only touched on in catechism. Majorly, the Marxists argue that a legitimate state should comprise of political leaders who through transition gain leadership. The leadership is gained through a revolution of the working class against the capitalists. Marxists aim at replacing the existing state with a workers’ state. Anarchists contradict this view saying that the recreation of a state of any form and structure would hand over power to a minority. Most anarchists including Bakunin himself point out on the case of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union collapsed because of its failed ideology of creating a workers’ state (Pagden 121).
The Soviet leaders kept the dictatorship and did away with the socialistic nature of their governance. This to the anarchists illustrates how the transition from capitalism to freedom would never result in actual freedom. Marxists view political parties as an essential proponent of capturing state power they argue that this would be very effective in abolishing the political class. Anarchists generally disagree on the institution of governments through the establishment of political parties.
Anarchists in contrast do not believe that after founding a legitimate state, the capitalist class will simply disappear. Rather they believe that after a revolution, the political parties take up leadership and in effect assume superiority. This would obviously be followed by repressions on the other classes of individuals.
Conclusion
Marxists and the anarchist present convergent views on political leadership through their ideologies differ in some way of reasoning. The Marxists believe in the institution of parliamentary political elects who should form a state. In addition, this state should be ruled by workers and not the capitalists. Marxists talk of a revolution that paves the way for a transition of rule and order. According to the Marxists, a state is only legitimate when ruled by non-capitalists.
The anarchists do not share in this. They believe that the anarchists just like the capitalists once they gain power will always exhibit the type of leadership shown by the capitalists. Bakunin does not believe in communism or state socialism as the way to go. He points out the Soviet Union as an example of a failed state, which was based on the wrong ideology of a political transition.
Marxists affirm that the modern state is an instrument of one class oppressing all the other classes. They add that any state is always in the form of a dictatorship of one class over the other class. They argue that each step in the advancement of the bourgeoisie was always followed by a political development or rather a political advancement of the political class in position.
Works Cited
Dolgoff, Sam. Bakunin on Anarchy: Federalism, Socialism, Anti-Theologian. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1867. Print.
Harrison, Ross. Hobbes, Locke, and Confusion’s Masterpiece: An Examination of Century Political Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The prince and the discourses. New York: The Modern Library, 1950. Print.
Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. Manifesto of the communist party. NJ: John Wiley & sons, 1975. Print.
Pagden, Anthony. The Languages of Political Theory in Early-Modern Europe. U.K.: Cambridge, 1987. Print.
Pojman, Louis. Ethical Theory: Classical and contemporary readings. Mississippi: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995. Print.
Quentin, Skinner. The foundations of Modern political thought. U.K.: Cambridge, 1978. Print.