 What is the ‘new order’ espoused in Machiavelli’s The Prince?

First what is order? Order is defined by Thomas Karako (2015) in his paper titled,
Understanding the Things of State: On Machiavelli’s Use of Modo, Ordine, and Via as some sort
of structure, whether spatial, temporal, or political, all of which is suggested with the example of
the orders or ranks of an army, or when Machiavelli claims to depart or return “to our order” as
established through writing. Orders sometimes appear to be equivalent to institutions, offices, or
arrangements; at other times, orders are customs and conventions.

Orders are what the many see best, but they are the most distant from the prince’s mind
or animating spirit. Their apparent firmness confirms the popular desire to believe in a single
unchanging natural order of things. Against this popular delusion, Machiavelli tries to teach

princes the fragility of orders, their tendency to crumble under the silent artillery of time. States
are always in danger of becoming disordered, requiring extraordinary modes to reorder them
anew. Law and order look firm—but their fixity is short-lived and dependent for constant

renewal upon the will and modes of princes. Orders degrade with changing times unless they are
accompanied by the right modes to manipulate them and make them function. This fixity of
orders can be a weakness, but it is also useful for the prince who must reorder the state to match
the times.

According to Machiavelli “there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous
to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new
order of things, because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the
old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness
arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the
incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long
experience of them.”

In this report, we will be discussing and reacting to the instructions set out for new princes and
royals by Nicholas Machiavelli in his book, The Prince for formers to successfully undertake in
this new order of things.
10.1057/9781137014450 - Executive Power in Theory and Practice, Edited by Hugh Liebert, Gary L. McDowell and Terry L. Price

 How relevant are Machiavelli’s

ideas today? Illustrate.
A school of thought in international relations, Realism, is very much influenced by
Machiavelli’s thinking. Realism maintains that states are not trying to be kind to one another, but
they fight in a full-fledged arena to hold onto power. It is unavoidable for politicians to take a
realist approach if they want to survive in a community where no rule applies.

Machiavelli was simply actually advocating for a strong, stable government. In the Italy
of his time, people were constantly fighting, invading, overthrowing their governments, and the
place was extremely chaotic. No one had a strong government, no one had a stable government.
Morally good leaders were operating under the assumption that everyone else was good and, as a
result, were easily and quickly killed. Whereas morally bad leaders were focusing solely on their
short term enrichment, and ignoring the long-term threats to their rule.
Niccolo was the first to say that we might want to have a government that could last fifty
years. Or maybe even a hundred. A government in which people can plan for the future, because
they have a reasonable expectation that it wouldn't collapse tomorrow. A government that could
unify Italy, and put an end to the constant invasions from Spain, France, Turkey, Austria, and all
the other countries.
In order to achieve this stability, he advocated being willing to do various evil acts, as a
means to achieve a potentially good end. People who read him stopped at the "evil acts can be
justified" part, and did not go on to actually do anything worthwhile. As a result, he is paired
with evil actions done for selfish reasons, or for no reason, rather than the idea that sometimes a
good end requires evil means.
The Prince asserted many shocking things as simple precepts: When you injure someone,
do it in a way so that he cannot take revenge; Cultivate an enemy so you can intimidate others by
crushing them publicly; It is natural and normal to take territories that do not belong to you. Does
Machiavelli, therefore, share some blame for the violence and brutality that has wracked the
globe since he first wrote? No. People don’t need The Prince to be inspired to commit every
atrocity the book named since even before the book was written there are already accounts of
such atrocities. The impact of the book has instead been to force countless readers over the past
500 years to confront, in the starkest terms possible, the most important questions about politics
and morality.

Machiavelli separated political morality from individual personal morality. Breaking

from the precedent left political decision-making to the politico's discretion, disregarding moral
considerations. In this view, politics takes precedence over philosophy, emphasizing "doing"
over "knowing." For Machiavelli, to be efficient in politics is analogous to virtue in morals or
religion, and inefficiency is equivalent to the concept of sin.
We agree that there must be a separation between one’s personal beliefs from the values
that as a leader you must uphold. A leader must transcend from their moral beliefs because
morality is not universal, it is non-encompassing, and it is restricted to certain societies,
religions, and races. To be an effective leader you ought to do what is necessary regardless if it is
in contrast to your philosophy. You must prioritize what is for the good of your state.
According to Machiavelli, a prince gains and keeps power through the art of war. A
prince must see to it that the state is capable of standing on its own. There must be an abundance
of men or money so that the state can put together a powerful, standing army and fight a battle in
the field against anyone who comes to attack them. On the reason why the prince must study and
train for war even in times of peace, in the context of Machiavelli's Italy, he observed that when
cities were continually besieged by neighboring principalities, the region is long riven by power
struggles. As a result, it is critical not only during times of war, but also during times of peace,
for the prince to involve himself in warfare because it is a way by which the prince might
achieve his goal of acquiring, retaining, and expanding his political power.
In a time when the country is continuously besieged by terrorists and the very faint and
remote chance of war with China, it is high time for us to build and invest in a respectable
standing army. The government must allocate more funds to AFP and prioritize the
modernization of our armed forces not to wage war, to red tag, or do extrajudicial killings but by
having a top-notch or even just a respectable armed force we will be able to protect our country,
preserve our national interests, and even intimidate our foes so that they don’t pursue war but
rather settle disputes through peaceful means. Machiavelli is correct in stating that we must
remain vigilant and continue studying our terrains, strengthening our armies, and choosing a
‘prince’ who is articulate on these matters since this is how we assert our sovereignty.

Machiavellians throughout History

Joseph Stalin displayed the perfect Machiavellian qualities. A prince

must always think of war first, even during peace he demonstrated his
use of military. He was also very feared by his people and made it look
like he was always doing what was right for Russia. Also when it came
time to choose a side he knew exactly which side to choose in order for
him to stay on top. He abided by three major Machiavellian methods
that were stated in the Prince: the ends justifies the means, crush any
opposition, and displaying a false character. Stalin had a plan for Russia and did everything
in his power to achieve that plan. He wanted to transform Russia into a industrial superpower, a
military superpower, and a political superpower. To achieve his goals he committed many
horrible crimes against humanity. To be more specific, Stalin killed more than sixty million
people during his reign. Stalin later passed a law that anyone going against the government
would be arrested and executed immediately after convicted. This made it extremely difficult
for the Russians to live and made Joseph Stalin even more powerful. For instance Kirvo began to
doubt Stalin's ways and ran against him for the Central committee. Kirvo was ahead by votes
and slotted to maybe win. Stalin had him assassinated

King Louis XI of France was the original Machiavellian

monarch, although ironically Niccolò Machiavelli stoutly
criticized Louis in Chapter 13 of The Prince, “calling him
shortsighted and imprudent for abolishing his own infantry in
favor of Swiss mercenaries”. Nonetheless, Louis had a gift for
turning situations to his advantage, duplicity, formulating
conspiracies, and laying false trails that earned him the moniker
Louis the Cunning (Louis le Rusé). The king’s preternatural
abilities to spin webs of intrigue to confound his enemies and
baffle his friends moreover led to the additional nickname of
Louis the Universal Spider (Louis l’universelle aragne).
However, he was also known as Louis the Prudent (Louis le Prudent) thanks to his fiscal wisdom
and clever ability to sidestep warfare with bargaining. Thus, this sneaky sovereign was able to
drag France out of dire straits by bringing all the crown’s disobedient vassals back under royal
control, making France a feared European power again, and facilitating a reemergence of
economic growth after decades of stagnation due to the damages caused by the English army’s
practice of chevauchée (atrocity-level “scorched earth” tactics that destroyed crops and killed
peasants)