The Case for the Devil's Literature

A while ago, I asked the Janetarium about Machiavelli, the oft-cited name linked to political machinations. I was curious: what did this man do to be so associated with the art of political expediency? Why did his name always seem to be invoked with a sense of distaste?

I was fortunate enough in one of my book fair expeditions to come across Machiavelli’s masterwork, the Prince. The was THE book, the book that had Machiavelli branded as being in league with Beelzebub when it was first published. This was the book for which he was infamous. This book held the key.

And it’s actually quite sad to note that, in the version I had anyway, Machiavelli is noted as never having intended his work to be so controversial. The idea of his text seems to be that he was trying to impress upon his political leader the keys to successful governance. Not how to make a good government (as “good” seems to imply adding morality to the mix), but rather how to successfully remain in power, by managing both internal and external relationships.

Of course, the fact that Machiavelli is so completely amoral in his assessment of what works and what doesn’t is what landed him in trouble. His advice was to be fluid with alliances and policies, though all the while still appearing to be trustworthy and dependable; to surround yourself with competents and even dissenters, but ensure their loyalty; to treat new territories as colonies to be populated by your own loyal people at the expense of the local populace, or to treat the established elite as equals and tie them to you that way.

All fairly sensible, logical… clinical and completely lacking in anything resembling a humanistic, ethical way of treating people. The book could also be called “How to win empires and influence people” – and the outrage came as this is exactly how it was done, and is done, and the elite weren’t quite to happy to have their politics exposed like this, and were probably unpleasantly surprised to realise what they were doing as well. But be it in China (and Tibet), Britain (and the Empire), the methods described by Machiavelli were and are still in use (and perhaps not-so much in Iraq, which may explain a few things), despite its diabolical association.

Verdict: Machiavelli had a real insight into social manipulation, a genius evidently recognised for what it was, though abhorred for the complete inhumanity such a view seems to endorse. Fascinating.

Two Asides:
1) I have now started The Lexus and the Olive Tree as my next non-fiction book. It may take me outside of my fairly left-wing comfort zone, but I will let you know one way or the other.
2) Total lack of comments on my blog the last few weeks, but I am taking this as a good sign of total agreement with my blatherings. Hoo-RAH. :)