Machiavelli's Analysis Of Religion In Politics example essay topic

Niccol'o Machiavelli thoroughly discusses the importance of religion in the formation and maintenance of political authority in his famous works, The Prince and The Discourses. In his writing on religion, he states that religion is beneficiary in the formation of political authority and political leaders must support and endorse religion in order to maintain power. However, Machiavelli also critiques corrupt religious institutions that become involved in politics and in turn, cause corruption in the citizenry and divisions among the state. In the following essay, I will examine Machiavelli's analysis of religion and discuss the relationship between religion and politics in Machiavelli's thought.

It is important to establish from the very beginning of the essay what Machiavelli's politics are and how he arrives at his beliefs in order to understand his views on religion in politics. Machiavelli is a realist thinker whose main arguments are about maintaining political authority over a state by using historical evidence, especially Roman, in order to support his theories. His main writings are an illustration of realpolitik, a government policy that emphasizes retaining power by using any means necessary including war and deceit. "Niccol'o Machiavelli... emphasized a political calculus based on interest, prudence, power, and expediency above all other considerations".

(Kelley pp 36) Therefore, one must remember when reading Machiavelli that he is attempting to use religion as an instrument to maintain political power rather than a mechanism for achieving ideals. Machiavelli's view on religion stems from his famous argument of whether it is better to be feared or loved as a leader of a state. Machiavelli feels that it is safer to be feared than loved, but a great leader would hope to be both even though it is rather difficult. His reasoning behind this is that he feels the nature of man is to be fickle and greedy and man will turn against the political leaders in difficult times despite his loyalty during prosperous times. Machiavelli writes, .".. that prince who bases his power entirely on their words, finding himself stripped of other preparations, comes to ruin; for friendships that are acquired by a price and not by greatness and nobility of character are purchased but are not owned, and at proper time cannot be spent". (The Prince Chapter XVII) He goes further by stating that a prince should hope that he is considered merciful by his people but should not rule based on mercy alone.

A political leader should not worry about being perceived as cruel if his actions are just and done in order to keep his people united because with these "very few" examples of cruelty, he will appear more merciful than the merciful leader who lets acts of cruelty go on without intervention. Machiavelli's argument also focuses on the topic of integrity and generosity and on how a political leader should keep his word. On one hand, he states that it is commendable for a political leader to live by integrity and to be considered generous; however the leaders who have accomplished great deeds throughout history hardly cared about keeping their word and were men that were known to be able to manipulate every situation by clever and shrewd means. Since it is impossible to always maintain all the qualities that man consider good and also maintain a state in his view, a great leader would know when to break those qualities when it is needed for the preservation of the state.

However, he warns of excess generosity and the burdens it brings because in order for a leader to maintain his reputation as generous, he has to continuously tax his people in order to raise his funds. This process in turn makes those who employ excessive generosity appear to be the most miserly of all since they tax everyone in order to appear generous to a few. Machiavelli uses the historical examples of Hannibal and Scipio as support for his argument. He cites that Hannibal was inhumanly cruel and because of this he was perpetually respected by his large army". Among the praiseworthy deeds of Hannibal is counted this: that, having a very large army, made up of all kinds of men, which he commanded in foreign lands, there never arose the slightest dissension, neither among themselves nor against their princes, both during his good and bad fortune". (The Prince Chapter XVII) On the other hand, he gives credit to Scipio for being an extraordinary man but states that Scipio gave his men more liberty than military discipline should allow and his own men rebelled against him.

His tolerant nature allowed the wrongdoing of the Locri ans to go uncorrected adding to his reputation as a leader who only knew how not to harm his people, but didn't know how to prevent them from harm either. This brings my analysis to the subject of religion and its relationship with political authority. Machiavelli feels religion is a double edged sword where an excess of it in government is harmful but the appearance that it is part of government is not only beneficiary, but necessary. Machiavelli writes that a political leader, .".. should appear, upon seeing and hearing him, to be all mercy, all faithfulness, all integrity, all religion. And there is nothing more necessary than to seem to possess this last quality".

(The Prince Chapter XV ) Machiavelli's argument centers around his assertion that having all these qualities and employing them at all times is harmful because a leader often has to resort to contradictory measures in order to maintain the loyalty and unity of his people. That is why Machiavelli argues that a political leader must only appear to rule in the name of mercy, faithfulness, integrity and religion because he must act on the contrary when he is obliged to do so. For a political leader will often have to act out against his promise of maintaining charity, humanity and religion in order to maintain his state. Machiavelli views religion as a fundamental organization necessary for the preservation of public authority, for religion instills the fear of God; a fear that keeps man disciplined and obedient.

As Machiavelli writes, .".. these citizens were more afraid of breaking an oath than of breaking the laws, since they respected the power of God more than that of man". (The Discourses Book I Chapter XI) For when the citizens lose their love for their country and no longer find her laws just, they can be kept loyal to the state if they are religious and pious because they will be restrained by an oath they made to the religion of the state. For example, he cites that the people of Rome took an oath that forced their allegiance to their fatherland and despite the havoc caused by Hannibal after the battle of Cannae, the people were kept from abandoning Italy and fleeing to Sicily. He continues on to say that religion throughout history has helped command armies, encourage (or discourage) the lower classes, and keep man honorable by glorifying those who are good and shaming those who are immoral. Machiavelli also writes that religion helps those in power introduce laws to their citizens that they otherwise may find unusual or cruel even though the benefits are obvious to their sensible leaders.

Often times, leaders will not find their authority sufficient enough to instill these unfamiliar laws and institution and will show recourse to religion in order to avoid this great difficulty as laws are much easier to introduce when the people are pious and the laws seem to be based on religion than when they are not. He concludes that throughout history, religion is among the most important reasons for the foundation of successful cities because they, .".. brought forth good institutions, and good institutions led to good fortune, and from good fortune came the felicitous success of the city's undertakings". (The Discourses Book I Chapter XI) He writes that it is Numa, and not Romulus, that Rome owes her greatest debt to because Numa introduced religion. While it was easy for Romulus as the founder of Rome to introduce civil and military institutions without divine help; Numa, doubted his own power and pretended to get advice from a nymph which helped him introduce new and untried organizations in the city. Machiavelli then returns to his argument of whether it is better to be feared, loved or both by stating that religion will nullify this argument since people both fear and love God more than any man. He argues that great cities cannot be maintained without the observance of religious teachings because God instills fear in the people, which is one of the most important factors in marinating a successful state.

He argues that where a fear of God is lacking, a fear of the leader must be sustained. However, since leaders are mortal, the kingdom that depends on maintaining fear through a single man cannot last long and rarely does the ability to instill fear get passed down to a successor. Therefore, in order to maintain a well-run state, the best leader must organize the government in such a way that it can be maintained after his death. Machiavelli suggests that having well-run religious establishments keep the people pious and loyal to the religion of the state which in turn keeps them loyal to the state. He says this is easy to explain because every state religion at the time of his writing was found in, or near, the state it was practiced in. Therefore, if political leaders want to keep their people united and free of corruption, it is in their greatest interest to. ".. maintain the foundations of the religion that sustains them", (The Discourses Chapter XII) and endorse all things regarding religion, even if they know they are false.

This brings up Machiavelli's critique of corrupt religious organizations such as the Roman Catholic Church and how detrimental its corruption has been to maintaining a well run state and the overall happiness of the citizenry. In fact, The Prince was intended as a model for a great leader who would free Italy from the grips of the Catholic Church which was corrupt and dividing Italy at the time. Machiavelli basically argues that it is politics that should be able to use to religion to maintain control of the state and problems arise when religion is the one that is controlling politics. "If the rules of Christian republics had maintained this sort of religion according to the system set up by its founder, Christian states and republics would be more united and happier then they are at present. Nor can there be another, better explanation of its decline than to see how those people who are closer to the Roman Church, the head of our religion, are less religious".

(The Discourses Chapter XII) He first faults the Church for being corrupt and causing the Roman Catholics to lose devotion and their belief which in turn causes them to become corrupt and immoral rather than pious and ethical as the Church cannot stay religious when it becomes involved in politics. He also faults the Church for dividing Italy and writes that States cannot be kept happy and united without the rule of one republic or prince as in the example of France and Spain. He argues that is why Italy isn't as successful as these two countries because the country is divided and the reason for the division is the Roman Catholic Church. For the Church held political power at the time, but was neither powerful enough to defend Italy from attacks and rebellions nor was it willing to give up its power and allow anyone else to do so. The Church was in a vicious circle of alliances at the time that was causing disunity and weakness and an inability to defend Italy against attacks. For when Italy drove the Lombards out with the Charlamagne's aid, they put the Venetians in charge.

Then, the church helped drive out the Venetians with the aid of the French and then they drove out the French with the aid of the Swiss. This has kept Italy under the rule of many different governments and has not allowed adequate rulers to grasp power. He cites that the Swiss are the only people living worse off than the Italians as the Swiss are the only government corrupt enough to be living under ancient religious and military practices. .".. and he would see that in a short time the wicked customs of that court would create more disorder in that land than any other event occurring at any time could possibly cause there". (The Discourses Book I Chapter XII) In conclusion, Machiavelli's realpolitik approach to religion authorizes the government the power to control religion. While the government must stay secular without the influence of religious organizations, it must appear to be quite the opposite in the view of the citizenry. Religious organizations must be used to keep the people pious in order to instill the fear of God rather then a fear of the state for the leader to avoid being despised, in turn causing him to be both feared and loved.

Unusual laws and organizations are introduced easier into the city when they are based on religion and morals and often times only divine authority would instill them. Religious institutions must be kept from getting too large and must be kept from gaining political power or else they will turn corrupt and cause divisions among the people as in the case of the Roman Catholic Church in Italy since religious organizations are neither powerful enough to defend the state nor are they willing to submit their power to those who can.