Niccoló Machiavelli & The Power Game

Niccolò Machiavelli was a 16th-century Italian philosopher and political commentator, best known for his 1513 work, The Prince¹. In this infamous text, he outlined his guidance on suitable behaviour for royals and aristocrats of his time, which essentially extended to the premise “ends justify the means”. In other words, the immoral, cruel and criminal actions of kings were justified if they preserved their glory and honour. He proposed that leaders ruled with an iron fist and that mercy was a sign of weakness. Interestingly, some contemporary writers have referred to Machiavelli as the father of modern political philosophy and political science².

Machiavelli considered Italian political leaders' jostling for power as “a matter of fact” to be acknowledged, rather than a measure of their morality. As such, his writings ran counter to the teachings of love, mercy, and humanity promoted by the Christian Church. Which, it should be said, held a central position in European power. Rather than resorting to idealistic “imagined republics and principalities”, as he put it, Machiavelli seemed to base his philosophy on “effectual truth.” That is to say, he encouraged rulers to manage their fortunes “gloriously” and wield their power despite the upheaval and lawlessness that it might bring about.

Niccolò Machiavelli justified his position by asserting that it was better to be feared than loved, to become the personification of immorality than risk relinquishing one’s power and control over lands and people. He said that a ruler who, in establishing a kingdom, commits atrocities should be excused when their intention is honourable and the results are beneficial. It seems that the influence of Niccolò Machiavelli's ideology is alive and well today.

---

“And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.”

– Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

---

Robert Greene, in his book The 48 Rules of Power³, said Royal Courts of the time imagined themselves to be the epitome of cultural refinement, fairness, and morality. However, behind the veil of religious idealism, members flirted with deception, treachery and criminal activity. Overt moves to power were frowned upon, so courtiers devised new, elaborate and underhanded ways to satisfy their greed, envy, and lust. Greene writes that the successful courtier managed to outwit his opponents through seduction, charm and deception. Life in the Royal Court was a battle of wills and cunning and required constant vigilance. It was a psychological warzone where losing the political fight would usually bring about not only one’s political downfall, but also one's life.

Greene says that little has changed in today’s world of business and politics. In the pursuit of power and influence, our arrangements must take on the same superficial appearance. We must seem civilised, decent and fair, not to mention democratic. Democracy is, of course, is a farce in today's world because most elected officials act on behalf of their corporate funders, not the public. In the inverted world of the political system, where truth is lies and lies are truth, where good people are targeted as criminals and criminals are lauded as saviours, only the interests of a select few are served. If we play by the game's apparent rules, our opponents will take advantage of us and leave us for dead. On the contrary, if we can master the art of deception and seduction, manipulate and carefully outmanoeuvre our contemporaries, we can bend others and circumstances to our will and attain the fruits of power. And in the process, if others fail to realise our true intention, then all the better, right? We’ve got what we wanted and offended no one.

Is this the true face of human nature? Is everyone really out for their own personal gain at the expense of others, and are those who think differently merely setting themselves up like lambs for the slaughter? It seems that the more fair and honest you are, the greater the risk. Robert Greene says that for some, the notion of playing power games seems evil and runs counter to their ethical human values. He says that such people may choose to opt out of the game, but warns that these people are often the most adept players. They cleverly disguise their true intentions and display their weaknesses as a kind of moral virtue. However, they never openly display their real weakness or powerlessness, he suggests. And I can appreciate this view because if we feel less than adequate in any circumstance, then we most likely try to keep it hidden rather than be open about it. Who really wants to reveal their vulnerability? If you put your vulnerability on show, according to this idea, you are just as manipulative as any other Machiavellian in the room.

Consider the current dominant narrative in the online world towards sensitivity, humility and vulnerability. To be vulnerable is righteous, after all. Write a book, start a podcast, jump on social media and tell your sob story. Are we really to believe that these apologetic and remorseful celebrities and wannabes are sharing their experiences out of true moral virtue? Or have they utilised Niccoló Machiavelli’s cunning strategy, garnering our sympathy for the sake of acknowledgement and personal advancement? Greene seems to think they have, and they take pleasure in the flaunting of their apparent piety and higher moral standing. It seems it may be just another marketing tactic.

The Pursuit of Wealth & Power

I want to believe that we human beings are inherently good, but the more I examine the evidence of our behaviour, it seems that many of us are simply evil bastards in disguise. I want to think I am a decent human being; after all, I’ve never killed anyone. That said, I could be accused of committing a few dastardly deeds in my time, despite my best intentions. It seems that in spite of values, people who ordinarily hold themselves to high levels of personal integrity can, under certain difficult conditions, fall foul of these behaviours. Call it a kind of temporary environment-induced pathology. Machiavellianism as a trait of personality exists regardless. That is to say, there are those of us who possess cunning and deceit as an inherent aspect of our everyday behaviour and personality

In his book, Greene outlines the 48 laws of the power game, and it is a sobering read. But is this not the world of corporate business in a nutshell? Personal experience tells me that it is. Others I have spoken to anecdotally regarding their business experience have offered a similar view to my own; it is cut-throat, dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest. If you’re not on your guard, if you are not a “cute hoor”, as they say where I’m from, the business world will eat you alive. This is how the business world operates,

Business relationships play out as Richard Buckminster Fuller suggested, as “the folly of the selfish and fearfully contrived wealth games humanity plays under a misinformed survival-of-the-fittest ideology.” You might disagree, insisting that good relationships are indeed prevalent in the business world. But I would argue that this is merely a facade, and if circumstances required it, we'd sacrifice those good relationships for survival. IF the market collapsed and your business fell off a cliff, would you pay all your suppliers, the banks, and the taxman everything you owed before paying yourself? Would you risk losing your home and your ability to feed your children for the sake of meeting those commitments? I doubt it. It's just business, after all, and everyone understands the risk. In that, Machiavellianism is a necessary attitude.

Have Things Changed?

Corporations are the new aristocracies. The boardroom is the new court, and their board members are the modern courtiers. They are at war with one another and with all that stands in their way, yet on the surface, they play the role of a concerned and upstanding organisation. They appear to be all for diversity and inclusion, environmental awareness, and social good. Yet they play the game, which is, as Joel Bakan wrote in 2004, “a pathological pursuit of profit and power”⁴. Bakan points out that the modern corporation is a legal institution whose mandate is to pursue, relentlessly and without exception, its own self-interest, regardless of the harmful consequences to people and the planet. Globalisation and the political, financial, and military machine of imperialism are part of a single ideological movement.

As such, Bakan suggested that the modern corporation is a pathological institution. And in his recent publication, The New Corporation, he suggests that rather than the situation improving since the collapse of 2008, it has become worse⁵. The JP Morgan-led Business Roundtable, comprising CEOs of some of the world’s largest and most influential corporations, Bakan says, has put in place a smokescreen, enacted a marketing exercise by which they may disguise the true extent of their pursuits. Central to his argument is that these same companies, despite their best efforts, are the major cause of the world’s social ills and not, as the Business Roundtable would suggest, a solution. Such vomit and bullshit.

Are We Better Than That?

I want to believe that human behaviour can be different, not so self-centred and narcissistic, but there is so much evidence to the contrary. Despite any individual’s honest intent to never harm other people or the planet, the competitive nature of a business lends itself to deceit and unethical behaviour. After all, the purpose of a company is to generate a profit, and if it fails to do so, it ceases to be a viable entity. The relentless competitive pursuit of power and profit drives otherwise caring human beings to do reprehensible things. The business environment demands it. If you lay down with dogs, as the saying goes, you’ll get fleas.

What can I tell you? If you are in business for yourself or are a corporate executive, the imperative will always to be profitable, and often you will forgo your sense of ethics and morals to make that happen. Call it moral disengagement. I have faced that question also, and I honestly can sympathise with others who find themselves in these situations. I can’t offer you a satisfactory solution other than try not to put yourself in that situation in the first place. There are ways to make money and do well in life without being a bad bastard and sacrificing your own sense of integrity. Life is too short and too precious for that.

Know your values, visit them daily, make them public and be accountable for their upkeep. When you are unyielding in your personal values and have set boundaries on your own behaviour, it’s harder to break them. As a leader, your job is to reinforce these values with your team and ensure everyone is on board. It is the foundation upon which you’ll build your house. Machiavellianism is alive and well in the 21st Century have no doubt about that, and when it has space to operate, then there will be casualties. I believe that Machiavelli and his ideas belong in the past, and that’s where we should leave them. Unfortunately, however, I don't think we are sufficiently developed as a species just yet.

1. Machiavelli, N. (1993). The prince (1513). Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions.
2. Strauss, L., & Cropsey, J. (Eds.). (2012). History of political philosophy. University of Chicago Press.
3. Greene, R. (2000). The 48 laws of power. Penguin.
4. Bakan, J. (2004). The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. Hachette UK.
5. Bakan, J. (2020). The New Corporation: How” good” Corporations are Bad for Democracy. Vintage