DOMOGEN, Franz Willard L.

POS312: Introduction to International Relations

“Machiavelli: The Prince, Power Politics, Ethical Inquiry, and Contemporary Realism”
Debunking the Machiavellian impression and the perspectives to his narrative.
Machiavelli is a constructivist—this debunks the counted impression of him being a mere
idealist for power. He was once an authority in power before his exile, thus, he invests heavily on
experience in philosophizing. More so, he is literate without smother to account historical
recollectionsi in his attempt to assert the validity of his claims on premises of realist arguments
and power politics: how power relations exist and the manipulation essential for its princely
retention.
With his known publication, his narratives could be taken as vengeful. They are echoes of his
synthesis on experiential populist political psychology and acceptance, conflict relations,
principalities or „princes‟1, and ascending mechanisms for having and withholding power. But
what makes the book personal for Machiavelli is not just its timeline for writing, which was
some time after his banishment away from Florence, Italy. But because he gleans from his
familiarity on how he—a once labeled 'master of trade', diplomat, and advisor for political
authorities, allowed himself to fall from the 'power' that he yielded. Maxwell (2017) cites from
Machiavelli's correspondence addressed to Vettori that even with the matter of his experience,
there is still his “desire that these Medici princes should begin to engage my services” even at his
grave, and that shows of the intention, among many, of why Machiavelli wrote the book.
Thus, his perspectives—historical, scientific, pragmatic, and meritorious of classical
developments during his time, may be—is reckoned to be vengeful because it bears a fiercer
underlying strategic approach in power relations that recounts not only his experience but also of
those leaders that passed before and through him and the wars that he was involved (arbitrated)
with, and for such to be read, which demonstrates his effect; his immortalization. More so, it is
elucidatory; an arrogant yet not wrongly-placed exhibition of his wisdom and use, as a message
for the Medici or its cronies that threw him off.
Apart from the strife in the former paragraphs, some critics relate the exile "ill-feel" of
Machiavelli to how commanding his approach to counsel the behavior of 'princes'. Be that in the
interest to accumulate, achieve, retain, or expand power. They link observation on how
Machiavelli wanted to catch the Medici's attention, which lowered his literature to a mere
"commentary", "satire", and a "sarcastic political expose" (Chiu, 2017; Haddock, 2014). Two
significant ideas answer to this narrowly: to support the idea as linked with ethics, or to negate
with the appropriation of Machiavelli's thoughts to contemporary context. This shall be
explained further in a different segment of the paper.

Comparative critique on strategic narratives: Machiavelli and The Prince vs. Sun Tzu and
The Art of War.
Even as compared to his predecessor, Sun Tzu and his book entitled “The Art of War”ii,
Machiavelli is more direct and magnanimous on his approach in flavoring state-level strategies
not singlehanded with prescriptions utilizing and esteeming principalities, but also with strategies
for state protectionism and governance, while the former is focused on the military.

1
Machiavelli identifies leaders to be principalities or princes. The term-use might be cast interchangeably but they
are of the same meaning.

1
DOMOGEN, Franz Willard L.
POS312: Introduction to International Relations

Comparatively, Machiavelli, too, integrated tactical analysis for militaria in his book; however,
in essence, it limitedly revolves on how principalities should identify themselves with military
cum war forces and affairs as with how it should draw the line of its intervention2.
On the other hand, Sun Tzu similarly did not shy away from adding the state as his subject, but
his endorsements leaned on the relationship of the military and the state in the context of war
with strategies limiting the cost of resources, swift and less-violent victory, and sly crafts for
deceit to outsmart objects of conflicts. Alternatively, we can count Sun Tzu's "The Art of War"
to be of general application especially if we discount its focus on tactical military and connect it
with governance. Nevertheless, there is a plausible take for objectivity in the application of both
pieces of literature's content.
In terms of how both thinkers shaped the systems for ideological strategism, Machiavelli was not
a patron of ethics. This reveals how much of a realist Machiavelli was. His compilation of
thoughts gives no regard for ethical standards. Hence, among his tags for belief was for
purposive and beneficial state-benefit regardless of the instrumentalities of use. He is hard-
headed and pragmatic. He focuses on the actors and their use for the state, at the same time he
relates how the state is to be used by the princely actors. Thus, he suggests that a prince has the
qualities of both a lion and a fox (Jackson and Sorensen, 2013). In a way, as the state serves to be
the core of a principality‟s worth and service, the state is also the leverage to establish the
principality‟s identity. And to satisfy the service and worth of the principality, Machiavelli
suggests that the state be a controlled platform. That, too, is beneficial in ensuring that state
independence is achieved.
Sun Tzu on the other hand also contains specs of tyranny but in the context of war. In fact, he
factors-in moral law as an important element for security and command. Moral law is
fundamental on this basis as loyalty to the "rightness" of the emperor's rule. In their belief, the
emperor is heaven-sent or is the favor of the gods that they believe in; hence, the moral law is
customary to the edict of the supreme leader. Control, too, is essential in the art of war.

Contentions on the timeless relevance of the “The Prince” and Machiavellian principles.
Machiavelli was a diplomat, and it is interesting how he interpreted diplomacy and diplomatic
relations for state security. His views are put into probe under ethical and contemporary lenses:
The ethical inquiry. Machiavelli can be said to ride in the coattail of subtleness and
historical narratives by throwing proposition on how to program leaders or principalities.
But he positions himself to support tyranny. He recognizes populist view as a way of
achieving power through mass acceptance for princes3, but that‟s about it. Ultimately, for
him, how one gets to acquire power is not the only concern of a primed principality, but
how they use it. Gilbert (1954) paints the cold political feature covering the majority of
the book—of how Machiavelli posits that princes throw their souls away to eternal
damnation as they throw away ethics. He also suggests that Machiavelli induces
emotional appeal over his recommendation on how to address the struggle for state

2
Chapter 12 on Concerning Various Kinds of Troops Especially Mercenaries; Chapter 13 on Concerning Auxiliary,
Mixed, and Native Forces; Chapter 14 on A Prince’s Concern in Military Matters.
3
Chapter 1 on The Kinds of Principalities and the Means by Which they are Acquired; Chapter 3 on Mixed
Principalities.

2
DOMOGEN, Franz Willard L.
POS312: Introduction to International Relations

conflict in Italy at the end-chapter of his book to incline the validity and support for his
idea.
In his time, readers who fell for his "emotional ploy" might distinguish him as a liberator,
or his thoughts as a guide for future libertarians (Worthy and Quinn, 2017; Gilbert,
1954). But what truth do Machiavelli's ideas hold relevance to realist theories and ideas at
present context bridging ethics, or the alienation of it, to the contemporary?
Ethics and strategism. The lack of regard for ethics was not directly mentioned in the
publishing of Machiavelli. Reasonably, it is an implication that is repeatedly
contemplated by thinkers and readers. And evidently, there is truth in what they point out;
a shared conception. With ethics laid-off comes the demise of a universal ethical
prescription that follows with the benefits of diplomatic arrangements, and anarchic
assemblies and deliberations. Conjointly, Machiavelli‟s classical operation in power
politics and realism is an aged model of Schelling‟s strategic realism and a combination
of modern, defensive realism of Waltz and offensive realism of Mearsheimer (Jackson
and Sorensen, 2013). The branching of Machiavelli‟s thoughts served as an authority in
crafting modern appropriations to not only subject international relations and its
assemblies into scrutiny in threatening the domestic affairs and sovereignty of states but
also expands application beyond the country of origin of Machiavelli‟s philosophical
experiment.
The fear principle and self-interested debate with international relations. Woodrow
Wilson, who was international and foreign relations personified after World War I,
recognizes that „fear‟ is necessary to rest peace among conflicting states (Kennedy,
2001). In ethical normative, the investment over the psychological subjugation of
actors—states at the international level or citizens in domestic—questions the
acceptability of the ethics that international relations support. With the lack of context, it
might be biased to assume so, since in practice the "fear of consequences" for negating
over peace agreements is what Wilson could have been pointing out. But realism does not
propose to reach a moral high-ground in arguing what‟s substantially beneficial for states.
Realism, as with how Machiavelli perceives, is a brain-battle. A scuffle of wits; be it in
the conduct of foreign relations and policy-implementation. In an inner level, Machiavelli
also knows that leaders are self-interested, and it is not always true that their interest is
for the interest of the state. After all, tyranny is always hurtful to affected domestic actors
and is grounded on the principalities‟ agenda. Also, a state, whether its leader is self-
interested or state-interested, will always aim to satisfy their needs and demands—
however “selfish” it might be viewed. And as a thinker who locks his values on the
essential of possessing deceit and cunningness, for state-prioritization and whatnot,
Machiavelli seals the idea that international relations and its machinations are only
instrumental to forward interestiii.
Conclusively, in modern and contemporary timeline, how can we merit international relations as
ethical if it suggests that peace can be achieved with the employment of fear to make constituents
follow (Wilson as cited by Kennedy, 2001)? The enforcement of pressure and power of one in
authority through fear is the “unshelling” of an overcoat of “interest-dominated” politic or
political agenda.

3
DOMOGEN, Franz Willard L.
POS312: Introduction to International Relations

Machiavelli: The Prince, Power Politics, Ethical Inquiry, and Contemporary Realism

actors

focus of
strategies

context

ethics

4
DOMOGEN, Franz Willard L.
POS312: Introduction to International Relations

POINT 1 ETHICAL INQUIRY

• tyranical position;
• how power is acquired and the justice of its use;
• emotional-appeal.

POINT 2 ETHICS AND "STRATEGISM"

• criticized for lacking universal ethics;
• Machiavellism evolved to strategic, offensive, and defensive realism;
• generality to domestic and international applicability.

POINT 3 FEAR AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

• "fear is necessary to rest peace" claim in international relations;
• "fear of consequences" to negate on international agreements;
• self-interested states hinder objective support to international relations;
• "selfish" narrative.

5
DOMOGEN, Franz Willard L.
POS312: Introduction to International Relations

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Online Article and Book (Published) References:
Maxwell, R. (2017). Which is the better guide to strategy, Machiavelli's The Prince or Sun Tzu's
The Art of War? Quora. Retrieved from: https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-better-guide-to-
strategy-Machiavellis-The-Prince-or-Sun-Tzus-The-Art-of-War
Haddock, S. (2014). Which is the better guide to strategy, Machiavelli's The Prince or Sun Tzu's
The Art of War? Quora. Retrieved from: https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-better-guide-to-
strategy-Machiavellis-The-Prince-or-Sun-Tzus-The-Art-of-War
Chiu, R. (2017). Which is the better guide to strategy, Machiavelli's The Prince or Sun Tzu's The
Art of War? Quora. Retrieved from: https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-better-guide-to-
strategy-Machiavellis-The-Prince-or-Sun-Tzus-The-Art-of-War
Machiavelli, N. (1521). Dell'arte della Guerra (The Art of War). Translated into English text by
Ellis Farneworth and revised by Neil Wood for Da Capo Press. ISBN13: 9780306810763
Allandale Online Publishing (2000). Sun Tzu on The Art of War: The Oldest Military Treatise in
the World. Translated from Chinese by Liones Giles. England. Allandale Online Publishing.
ISBN 1-903328-03-9. Retrieved from:
https://sites.ualberta.ca/~enoch/Readings/The_Art_Of_War.pdf
Kennedy, R. (2001). Woodrow Wilson, World War I, and an American Conception of National
Security. Diplomatic History, 25(1), 1-31. Retrieved October 25, 2020, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24913819
Paperback and Book (Published) References:
Machiavelli, N. (1513). The Prince. Publishing history cited from Bantam Dell, Random House.
Inc. Publishing.
Bantam Classic (2003). The Prince and Selected Discourses. Translated and edited with
introduction by Daniel Donno. January 2003 reissue copy. New York. Bantam Books. ISBN: 0-
553-21278-8
Gilbert, F. (1954). The Conception of Nationalism in Machiavelli‟s Prince. Studies in the
Renaissance 1: 38-48. Cited by Worthy and Quinn (2017) in “A Macat Analysis: Niccolo
Machiavelli‟s The Prince by Macat International Ltd.
Wothy, B. & Quinn, R. (2017). An Analysis of Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince. London. Macat
International Ltd. ISBN: 978-912127-61-0
Jackson, R. & Sorensen, G. (2013). Realism. Introduction to International Relations. 5th Edition.
Oxford University Press.

6
DOMOGEN, Franz Willard L.
POS312: Introduction to International Relations

ADDITIONAL NOTES OF THE STUDENT

i
The lengthened exposition of Machiavelli is often dragged by his injection of historical and experiential
developments. As a claim, it concretizes the author to be both historical and pragmatic before throwing
political recommendations. And seemingly, when it comes to classical politics, history holds significant
truth because their timeline and narratives prove that "history repeats itself", especially on wars.
ii
, Machiavelli himself does not recall that he wrote the book in reference to the content from the East—
Sun Tzu's "The Art of War". Confusion might arise from readers to inquire if Machiavelli's "The Prince"
is separate from his "The Art of War" as to how some publications descriptively extend the label of his
literature; or how different it is to Sun Tzu's for the matter. To rectify any ambiguous assumptions,
Machiavelli indeed has a separate discourse-dialogue book entitled "The Art of War". It notes
Machiavelli's take on war, military strategies, and theories as with how he elaborated in his former books
like "The Prince" (Machiavelli, 1521). Sun Tzu's book is considered as the author's own and the Chinese
counterpart of "The Art of War", integrating dominant values of the Asian power. There have been efforts
to corroborate both thinkers' brain-children from authors and commentators alike separately or
simultaneously which generated doubt in the part of the student, hence, leading to the comparison of
semblance between the three works of literature.
iii
Although indeed international relations proves itself to be “applicable” in the contemporary, and
international organizations as anarchic assemblies could be utilized for “regulation”, they remain to be
traditionally-grounded with the belief that its political and economic custom is merely for post-war
bridging and war prevention (early modern realist theories). And although their economic and deliberative
all-knowingness is advancing its omnipotence (late modern and contemporary realist theories), their
power to maintain to enforce stability of states in the economic turning loose with the problem of the
political separation of many states from both regional and global assemblies (i.e. Brexit, Philippines on
the Amnesty International issue, among others). The problem of world decline is also a faced issue.
Concurrent to global awareness, the United Nations have established the Sustainable Development Goals
and its predecessor, the Global Goals. But the lack of enriching of these long-term goals is proving how
much trust is being lost from the efforts of international and global assemblies. If international
arrangements and these international actors can no longer satisfy the needs of in-states and prove its
relevance to participating states, then the slow-looming and delayed inter-state political power play will
unveil to happen.