How to become a great prince

Louis XIV, alias the Sun King: King of France 1643-1715

In my blog about Machiavelli two weeks ago we have seen that basically anything is allowed for a prince to stay in power if not to increase his glory. Cunning and guile and actually also war, special military operations and murder – although Machiavelli doesn’t say it clearly in the passages discussed there – are allowed for these purposes. It is glory that is most important for a prince; not to take care for his subjects. Why should he, for all the people “want is to be free from oppression”. (The Prince, p. 40) Machiavelli says this for a prince who came to power with the support of the people, but I think it is so for every prince. Or rather it was so in Machiavelli’s days, when bringing prosperity for the people was not yet a requirement for a ruler, also not for one supported by the people. This doesn’t mean, of course, that caring for his subjects did not contribute to the glory of a prince. Anyway, for present-day autocrats, and also for some democratically elected leaders, glory and power are still more important than promoting prosperity. Just such a view on politics made that the word “Machiavellism” got such a bad reputation and is seen as synonymous with unscrupulous politics, and that politics in general has got a bad name.
I have nothing against a ruler, who does his job with pleasure and who takes care of maintaining a good reputation for himself, for how else would we find people who are prepared to rule? I think that no one is so altruistic to present himself only because the job must be done. However, for Machiavelli, glory and power are in fact the only criteria to judge the success of a prince, and not, for instance, as it would be today, the state of the economy and the prosperity of the people. So, “if a ruler wants to survive, he’ll have to learn to stop being good, at least when the occasion demands.” (p. 61) Hence Machiavelli discusses such questions as whether a prince should be generous or mean. Answer: Being generous may be better, but “since a ruler can’t be generous and show it without putting himself at risk, if he’s sensible he won’t mind getting a reputation for meanness.” (p. 62) Should a leader wish to be seen as compassionate rather than cruel? Or, which is almost the same, “is it better to be loved rather than feared, or vice versa? The answer is that one would prefer to be both but, since they don’t go together easily, … it’s much safer to be feared than loved.” Although “while a ruler can’t expect to inspire love when making himself feared, he must avoid arousing hatred. Actually, being feared is perfectly compatible with not being hated.” (p. 66) A prince is safe so long as he avoids being hated and held in contempt. (p. 72)
This is the negative side. But glory is not the same as not being hated and being held in contempt. It is a positive reputation. This is a theme that Machiavelli treats in chapter 21 of The Prince. We read the core of the answer how to be honoured already in the first sentence of this chapter: “Nothing wins a ruler respect like great military victories and a display of remarkable personal qualities.” (p. 87). Machiavelli thinks here of military operations but a leader can also “win acclaim by giving impressive demonstrations of character in his handling of domestic affairs… But above all a ruler must make sure that everything he does gives people the impression that he is a great man of remarkable abilities.” (p. 88)
Machiavelli’s book is about power and glory, not in the abstract but for a concrete person: The prince. In modern words we would say “Make the prince great again”, which would also have been a great title for the book. Or maybe better “Make your country great again”, in which, as you’ll have understood, “country” is a metaphor for “prince”.