“The Prince” is one of the most important books of all the modern political thought. The authors who, after Machiavelli, undertook to reflect on the power are turned towards this work, so, in particular, criticizing the conclusions of them. The Prince states indeed on the policy of the judgments so morally inadmissible that the termof “Machiavellism” was forged in order to qualify them and to denounce them.
The political philosophy, which was given for task to think the principles of the well managed city, yields the place to the political thought which deciphers the objectives and the methods of the effective policy. Machiavelli stigmatizes the “humanistic” philosophers and writers for whom the policy concerns thefiction.1 The political effectiveness arises from the fundamental motivation that carries the realistic policy. Machiavelli in its capacity as political writer of its time, sought a realistic and salutary effective solution with the disastrous situation which his country crossed, Italy of the Renaissance.
This is why, it is interesting to study initially, the Machiavellism and the Machiavellianthought, in a logical prequel of the political realism evoked by the philosopher. To approach thereafter, how this political realism is conducted by Machiavelli.
The Machiavellism thought is not reducible with a simple “Machiavellian” vision. The political doctrine of Machiavelli, which denies the relevance of morality in political affairs and holds that craft and deceit are justified in pursuingand maintaining political powers2. The circumstances of the composition of the book, inform us on the recommendations given by Machiavelli3. Machiavelli in his book “The Prince”, wonders “what a principality is, what kinds there are, how they can be acquired, how they can be kept, why they are lost: and if any of my fancies ever pleased you, this ought not to displease you: and to a prince,especially to a new one, it should be welcome …”4 to answer these questions, he studied the facts and concluded at the independence of the policy compared to the morals values. The important thing in policy is to obtain the power and to preserve it, and for that reason, all the means are good5.
Within this framework, the policy is always considered by the author like the place of the conflict, becauseit is the field where divergent interests clash unceasingly6. By there, Machiavelli breaks with the traditional political philosophy, inherited by the Classical antiquity thanks to authors like Plato, Aristotle and Cicerone)7 and transmitted to Modern by the humanism of the Renaissance. Machiavelli proceeds differently: by a preoccupation with a realism, he undertakes to see the man such as he is,impassioned and avid when its about policy.
What counts, is, to give The Prince, the means of being politically effective8. The Prince thus has to be realistic in his reports and pragmatic in his recommendations; he is defined by there as strictly amoral9.
However, the political success requires the use of violence and tricks, in a combined way: it is impossible to seize and preservethe power if The Prince is not at the same time “fox and lion "10. The historical examples that Machiavelli takes to illustrate is matter are at the same time famous and terrible; in particular, the case of Cesar Borgia, which had become “prince of Romagna "11, how indicates the use of the force and of the fraud is recommended to conclude the political society. In this respect, it is impossible toentirely clear Machiavelli of the “Machiavellism”. But it is a question for him neither of recommending bloody repression systematically, nor to prescribe cheating in an absolute way. The skillful prince, can proportion one and the other in a right measurement, according to what the situation orders, the requirement being for him to remain with the power and by preserving its State there, if...