This Word Means: Machiavellian
Why now?
Florentine philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli was born on May 3, 1469. Considered to be a father of modern political theory, he is one of the most influential philosophers of all time.
The word 'machiavellian' is used today to characterise the view that politics is amoral, that is, unscrupulous actions are permissible to acquire and maintain political power. It appears in all kinds of contexts and places, including in newspapers like The Indian Express.
Who was Machiavelli?
Niccolo Machiavelli was born in tumultuous times. The unification of Italy was still a few centuries away, and a number of Italian city-states, the Holy Roman Empire, France and Spain were in a constant tussle for power.
Between 1498 to 1512, Machiavelli served as a senior official in the Republic of Florence, with responsibilities in diplomatic and military affairs. As defence secretary, he distinguished himself by executing policies that strengthened Florence politically.
Machiavelli fell out of favour when the Medici family returned to power in 1512. To regain a post, he penned the Il Principe (The Prince) in 1513, his most famous work, dedicated to 'the Magnificent Lorenzo Di Piero De' Medici'. The ideas that are most associated with Machiavelli today can be found in The Prince.
What did Machiavelli say in The Prince?
The book strives to establish 'some universal principles relative to the business of taking and holding power in each kind of state', wrote British novelist Tim Parks in his introduction to The Prince (published in 2014 by Penguin).
Machiavelli's own experience and intellectual honesty lead him to arrive at a simple, but profound conclusion: 'that there are many times when winning and holding political power was possible only if a leader was ready to act outside the moral codes that applied to ordinary individuals', Parks wrote.
This is the essence of what in political theory is referred to as Machiavellianism.
According to historian David Wootton, Machiavelli fundamentally changed what the concern of political philosophers and politics, in general, should be. Wootton wrote: 'Since Plato… Politics was concerned with the definition of the good life and was inseparable from moral philosophy. Machiavelli had no interest in [this]… for him, success, not morality, was what counted.' (Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietszche, 1996).
How is the term 'machiavellian' used today?
Depending on one's personal politics, Machiavelli's ideas can have a variety of implications, which lie outside the scope of this basic explainer. What you need to know is that today, the word 'machiavellian' has almost become a synonym for someone who is amoral, that is, she is willing to utilise any means to reach her ultimate end.
A machiavellian politician is someone who is willing to use subterfuge to attain and maintain power. A machiavellian nation state is one whose policies are unconcerned with right or wrong, and only bothered about protecting and expanding its influence.
Even psychologists use 'machiavellian' to refer to a personality characterised by manipulativeness, indifference to morality, lack of empathy, and a calculated focus on self-interest.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Israeli forces intercept Gaza-bound aid boat carrying Greta Thunberg, diverts it
An aid boat carrying international activists, including Swedish climate campaigner Greta Thunberg and French Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Rima Hassan, was intercepted by Israeli forces in the early hours of Monday after it attempted to breach the naval blockade of Gaza. The vessel, a British-flagged yacht named Madleen, was part of a mission organised by the pro-Palestinian Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC). It had set sail from Sicily on June 6 and was aiming to reach the Gaza Strip by later today before being boarded by Israeli troops, the group said in a statement on Telegram. Taking to micro-blogging site X, Hassan claimed that all crew of the Freedom Flotilla boat was arrested by the Israeli Army in international waters around 2 am. The Israeli Foreign Ministry posted a video on X showing Israeli forces taking control of the boat and providing refreshments to the crew members who were donning life jackets. "The yacht, with its 12-person crew, was carrying a symbolic shipment of humanitarian aid, including rice and baby formula," the X post read. The interception is the latest in a series of efforts by international civil society groups to draw attention to the ongoing "humanitarian crisis" in Gaza, where an Israeli naval blockade has been in place for years. The FFC has long criticised the blockade as a form of collective punishment and called for unimpeded humanitarian access.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Israeli military diverts Gaza-bound aid ship carrying Greta Thunberg to Israel
The Israeli military has intercepted an aid ship which was attempting to reach the Gaza Strip defying Israeli naval blockade, and diverted the charity vessel carrying Greta Thunberg and other activists to Israel, Associated Press reported. The British-flagged yacht Madleen, operated by the pro-Palestinian FFC, had departed from Sicily on June 6 and had hoped to reach Gaza later in the day, when the interception occurred, the group said on its Telegram account.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
2034 earliest for simultaneous polls under existing Bills: One Nation, One Election panel chief
P P Chaudhary, BJP MP and chairman of the Joint Committee of Parliament on Bills relating to 'One Nation, One Election', has told The Indian Express that the earliest that simultaneous elections can be held under the existing Bills is 2034, and the committee may go beyond the draft law to suggest ways to keep polls aligned, including recommending a provision for a constructive or positive vote of no-confidence. In an interview with The Indian Express, Chaudhary, responding to a question on how long it would take the committee to finalise its recommendations, said members had unanimously decided to visit all states and Union Territories – a process that would take about two to two-and-a-half years. So far, the committee has visited two states: Uttarakhand and Maharashtra. The Bills were introduced in Lok Sabha in December last year and were almost immediately referred to the Chaudhary-led committee which has been holding consultations with stakeholders for feedback. Although the draft legislation provides for a one-time measure to bring Lok Sabha and Assembly elections in sync, Chaudhary felt that the committee could make additional recommendations to address how synchronisation should be maintained. One such suggestion could be a constructive vote of no-confidence which, as is the case in Germany, requires members of a legislature who bring a no-confidence motion against a government to have the numbers to form the government instead. Asked when the first simultaneous elections would be held, he said: 'The committee will deliberate; Parliament will decide. We can't say when, but the Bill says the first session of Parliament, if it happens with the appointed date, then it would be from 2034.' The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment Bill), 2024 provide for simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and Assemblies. If passed, the Bills provide for the President notifying the appointed date on the first sitting of a newly-elected Lok Sabha and every state or UT Assembly elected after that appointed date would have its term curtailed to align with the Lok Sabha. This would provide for simultaneous elections to be held when the five-year term of the Lok Sabha ends. The Bills also provide for elections to be held for the remainder term in case a government falls before the five-year term. Asked what would happen if a Lok Sabha or Assembly election returns a hung verdict or if a Union or state government falls, Chaudhary said: 'The Constitution does not mention no-confidence motion even now; it is governed by Rule 198 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha. We can bring in some provisions for stability. We can recommend new provisions in the Constitution.' He said the committee could deliberate on the issue and it was for Parliament to decide. 'If some impediments are there in the Constitution, those impediments may be redressed after discussion with all the members. Constructive no-confidence motion, like the German model, can be discussed. Once you bring a no-confidence motion, then at the same time, you should bring a confidence motion. In the rarest of rare situations, the Leader of the House can be elected on the floor of the House like the Speaker is. But, this situation will not arise. We have seen that the electorate does not support those who bring a no-confidence motion,' he said. 'All members will discuss and if there is a requirement to incorporate something or make additions to the Bill in the national interest, I believe the committee will recommend. If our end goal is to achieve 'One Nation, One Election', then definitely we will recommend amendments to enable that,' he said. The Bills had been introduced by Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal on December 17, 2024 and were based on the recommendations of the High-Level Committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind. Responding to criticism from some in the Opposition that the move would be anti-democratic and against federalism, Chaudhary, who is BJP MP from Pali in Rajasthan, said simultaneous elections would further the cause of democracy. 'In our experience, the states where elections are held simultaneously, the voter turnout is 10-20% more. Is that in the interest of or against democracy? If there is only 40% polling and the PM or CM is elected with 21% of the votes, is that democracy? I believe polling will cross 80% if we have simultaneous elections. The expression of the will of the people will be more robust and it will strengthen democracy. Not holding simultaneous elections is anti-democratic,' he said. He maintained that the Bills only 'fixed the time schedule' of elections and did not affect the basic structure of the Constitution, federalism and free and fair elections. He said Article 327 of the Constitution gives Parliament the power to make provision with respect to elections to legislatures. When it comes to federalism, he said the Supreme Court, in the SR Bommai case in 1994, had reinforced that federalism is a basic feature and that the Bills before the committee do not infringe upon this as the powers of the Union and states remain the same. 'The first three elections were held simultaneously until 1967. Were those elections against federalism? Some Assembly elections are still held with Lok Sabha, is that against federalism? Has any regional party in those states demanded separate elections? Look at the example of TDP in Andhra Pradesh or BJD in Odisha. This argument is untenable. We welcome anyone who wants to come before the committee with such an argument, with foundations. We will deal with it. If there is no basis, we cannot deal with such an argument properly,' he said. The Bills, he said, did not alter the accountability of the government to Parliament and that holding frequent elections did not mean that the government would be more accountable. 'We have a parliamentary form of democracy. The executive is accountable 24×7 to Parliament,' he said. Asked about the concerns of regional parties that holding simultaneous elections would lead to regional issues being sidelined, he said voters were capable of electing different parties at the Centre and state. 'The voters today are very intelligent and politically educated. We can't underestimate the Indian voters. Underestimating them will tantamount to undermining them. The voters, particularly in rural areas like where I come from, know who to vote for in national elections based on national issues, and in local elections, based on local issues,' he said. Chaudhary said the cost of frequent elections was borne by the education system, particularly government schools where teachers are sent on election duty for months, and the economy. On how much it would cost to hold simultaneous elections, he said it would be 'maximum Rs15,000 crore'. But this, he said, would be a small amount when compared to the benefit to the economy in terms of fewer disruptions to governance, policy-making and investments. On the other hand, he said the practice of announcing freebies and caste-based politics around elections would also be reduced if all elections were held once in five years. As a part of the committee's hearings, he said all states and UTs had been asked to prepare reports on the impact of frequent elections to their economy and society. Stakeholders like the Indian Bank Association were also asked to study the impact of simultaneous elections. The Committee has so far met former Chief Justice of India U U Lalit and several former Supreme Court and High Court judges as a part of its consultations. He said the committee plans on meeting more legal luminaries, apart from political leaders and other stakeholders in states. Asked how the BJP would be able to have the Constitutional amendment passed as it required two-thirds majority, which the NDA does not have, he said he believed the parties who think of the national interest would support the Bills. 'It is not in the party's interest, it is in the national interest. It will not take time to be passed if they think in national interest. I have full faith that the parties that think of national interest will support. If Congress or any other party thinks of national interest first, then not just 2/3, but we will get 3/4 majority,' he said. The committee, comprising 39 members and two co-opted members, had been given an extension until the Monsoon session during the last session.
