by Levin Low
“Wanting to annex territory is indeed very natural and normal, and when capable men undertake it, they are always praised, or at least, not criticized.”
So goes a quote from Niccolò Machiavelli’s most seminal work, The Prince. A former diplomat of the state of Florence, he wrote The Prince after his fall from grace, as a gift for the new ruler of Florence, Lorenzo de Medici, hoping to be reinstated. It is not certain if he ever read it; Machiavelli’s gift did not achieve its intended effect, and he never regained his lost power. However, Machiavelli’s Prince lives on as perhaps the most infamous political treatise ever written. The scandalous nature of The Prince comes from the matter-of-fact manner in which Machiavelli pragmatically describes what must be done to grasp power and keep hold of it. He takes for granted that we already know that life (particularly political life) is routinely, and oftentimes unspeakably cruel; and that once enthroned in a position of power, a ruler must resort to any means necessary to stay there.
That Machiavelli quote, then, may perhaps be the best explanation of the colonial impulse to subjugate. Many reasons have been put forth in an attempt to explain how and why the colonizers colonized, but in the end, there isn’t but one answer. Machiavelli seems to have accepted the existence of this impulse; in The Prince, he puts before us, without any compunctions, many historical examples of things men have done in the process of conquering. This tradition was continued by the colonizers. In this essay, I aim to draw from The Prince lessons in statecraft, frame them with real-life colonial examples, and consider alternative interpretations of The Prince.
Machiavellianism in Real Life
“… there are three ways of holding them: the first, to destroy their political institutions; the second, to go live there yourself; the third, to let them continue to live under their own laws, exacting tribute and setting up an oligarchical government that will keep the state friendly towards you…” is what Machiavelli had to say on “How one should govern cities or principalities that, before being conquered, used to live under their own laws”. And the colonizers took note.
The first, destruction of political institutions. This is what Prince Leopold II did when he seized the Congo, making it his private colony. Leopold established the Congo Free State as his personal private property; he was essentially its supreme leader, and as such, was allowed to do as he pleased. He accomplished this via what Machiavelli might term “wicked means”; Leopold enlisted the explorer Henry Morton Stanley as his agent in Africa, and for five years Stanley travelled up and down the Congo River basin, persuading local chiefs to sign treaties with Leopold. Almost all of them were illiterate, so they didn’t know what exactly they were signing away – effectively agreeing to cede their land to the Belgian crown. Some of the treaties also appear to have been doctored according to Leopold’s specifications.
With proof on paper of his ownership of the Congo, Leopold was able to get the major power players of Europe to recognize that he, Prince Leopold II of Belgium, was the sole owner of the Congo. He called himself the “proprietor” of the Congo Free State, and thus began his efforts to make a fortune from it. In the beginning, ivory was the Congo’s most valuable resource. As they traversed the Congo killing elephants for their ivory, the hunters also severely ravaged the people. Societies fell into ruin because so many of them had been kidnapped to serve as servants and concubines, and to be sold as slaves. The destruction of the Congo was accelerated with the invention of the rubber tyre, creating an insatiable demand for rubber. Leopold’s colony, with its huge supply of rubber vines, was ripe for the picking. Thus began a system of terror in which the people of the Congo were forced into labour, or be executed by their Belgian overseers. Leopold would send dispatchments from his 19000-man private army, the Force Publique, to march into a village, take the women hostage, and send the men into the rainforests with a quota of rubber – or else (Hochschild 2023).
Leopold’s finances grew immensely. Meanwhile the population of the Congo was halved; around 10 million people lost their lives (Cox 1999). Causes of death ranged from famine, to being shot as they attempted escape, to torture. Leopold’s reign over the Congo was rock-solid because the Congo had been so completely destroyed. “Destroying cities is the only certain way of holding them,” observed Machiavelli.
The second, to go live there yourself. This is what the British did, to maintain their hold over India. And they were extremely successful: they held India as a colony for nearly 200 years. The period of British rule in India is termed the British Raj; “Raj” is derived from the Hindi word “raj” meaning “rule” or “reign”. They used the East India Company (EIC) as a means of establishing control. The EIC’s paramountcy became apparent when they overthrew the nawab of Bengal and installed a puppet ruler, gaining control of the Bengal region. From there onwards, the EIC’s power only grew, eventually leading to direct British rule over most of the Indian subcontinent.
The British were so successful in holding India for so long because they established a physical (and cultural) presence in India by living there. The British officials and administrators, along with their families, settled in India and created a British expatriate community that sought to replicate the British lifestyle in a foreign land. They built British-style homes, established clubs, schools, and churches, and adhered to British customs and social norms. This created a distinct social and cultural divide between the British and the Indian population, reinforcing the notion of British superiority and reinforcing their sense of entitlement to rule. During that period, the British assumed the attitude of (as Rudyard Kipling put it) “tak[ing] up the white man’s burden”. They utterly rejected any and all “native contamination” (Wolpert 2023).
By virtue of their being in India and reinforcing “British superiority” among the people, the British were able to maintain their position as rulers. They propagated the concept of British as “better”, while denigrating Indian culture, custom, and tradition. This cultural imposition allowed the British to establish cultural hegemony in India, proving Machiavelli’s second precept of holding power in a conquered nation-state.
The third, to let them continue to live under their own laws, exacting tribute and setting up an oligarchical government that will keep the state friendly towards you. I consider Malaya (now known as Malaysia) a notable example of this. As with India, the British subjugation of Malaya began with the East India Company, whose occupation of Penang is now notorious as the dawn of British colonization in Malaya. Politically, it was easy for the British to seize control due to the growing discord, but their initial attempts were unsuccessful (Encyclopedia Britannica 2023). Their aim was a policy of indirect rule through the installation of British residents (advisers) in each state, but the very first one was assassinated by the people. He had been overly aggressive in his reforms; his was a mistake that the British learnt from. The next British residents were comparatively more tolerant, allowing them to be governed according to their own laws. Indirect rule was successful because the Malayan people, so fiercely proud of their customs and traditions, were led into believing that their Malay sultans still wielded authority and sovereignty and were only being “advised” by the British residents. In reality, the sultans had been coerced into signing agreements that contained terms extremely favourable towards the British. Yet those agreements recognized the traditional authority of the sultans, granting them a semblance of authority while keeping them on a leash.
The British might have avoided all that trouble if they had just read The Prince a lot more closely the first time. Centuries before the Age of Imperialism, Machiavelli had already noted that “if one wants to preserve a city that is accustomed to being independent and having free institutions, it is more easily held by using its citizens to govern it than in any other way.” By allowing the sultans to retain their ceremonial roles and status as the symbol of sovereign authority, the British thus gained the support of the Malay (the most populous race in Malaya) people, for they deeply revered their traditional rulers. Other local institutions were also allowed to continue, such as the village councils known as the Penghulu (headman) system: they were appointed by their sultan and were therefore friendly towards the British administration.
As for the Chinese (who were the second most populous race), their secret societies known as triads—gangster organizations—were likewise permitted to go on. The triads functioned like the Mafia: they maintained the social order, acted as mediators of conflict, and did what needed to be done to keep the peace. Even if it was illegal. The triads operated massive clandestine networks that spanned Malaya and other countries, engaging in lucrative criminal networks that flooded their coffers. Recognizing the delicate power balances to be navigated, the British pragmatically allowed the triads to continue their operations, but under British supervision. Colonial administration had learnt the hard way that in this particular state, it would be prudent to grant its citizens right of governance.
Which of Machiavelli’s three methods of governing conquered states was the surest way of holding on to them? Machiavelli favoured the most Machiavellian option: the first. Total destruction.
“Anyone who becomes master of a city accustomed to a free way of life, and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it himself, because when it rebels, it will always be able to appeal to the spirit of freedom and its ancient institutions, which are never forgotten… if [the new ruler] does not foment internal divisions or scatter the inhabitants, they will never forget their lost liberties and their ancient institutions, and will immediately attempt to recover them whenever they have an opportunity…”
Alternative Readings of the Prince
Machiavelli’s name has become synonymous with ruthlessness, realpolitik, political deceit, etc. Immoral acts committed in the name of power. To many, The Prince is a handbook of the evil one must do to in order to gain power. But to say that this is all The Prince is would be reductionist. As Rosseau saw it, The Prince itself was a Machiavellian ruse: while laying out examples for what must be done to rule, his real aim was to teach the people freedom, by showing them that power was no more than subterfuge. Gramsci shares this view. In his Prison Notebooks, Gramsci draws upon Machiavelli’s politics extensively in his analysis of the politics of rule, offering his own interpretation of The Prince: that Machiavelli’s intended audience was in fact the common people. I concur. I think that Gramsci’s interpretation of Machiavelli was written with the intention of freeing us from hegemony.
As Gramsci theorized, hegemony is a process of “moral and intellectual leadership” through which subordinate classes consent to their domination by the ruling classes. To have hegemony is to have dominion over the people (Gramsci 1891-1937). It is a totalizing system of power that seeks to completely draw in the people materially, culturally, politically, ideologically (Middleton 2023); it involves the manipulation and control of ideas, values, beliefs, and norms to shape the perceptions, behaviours, and identities of the subjugated population. To achieve hegemony is to achieve total control of your subjects. Hegemony, the concept of, is regarded as the “locus of innovation” in Gramsci’s writings; before its significance as his “philosophical linchpin”, it had been commonly employed by Italian political philosophers to propose the gradual building of consent across the nation for a new Italian state—”making Italians”—instead of joining via force. In his Prison Notebooks, Gramsci presents hegemony as a project the ruling class was working on: consensual domination granted by the people for its rule.
This is where Machiavelli’s Prince plays into the postcolonial development of the politics of recognition. The Prince exposes the “ideological power of the ruling class” (Townsend 2023) for what it truly is: a long, drawn-out conspiracy of pomp and pious circumstance. The French insisted on the notion that they were superior morally, politically, and intellectually; hence, they were duty-bound to civilize and educate the poor, primitive Algerians. Across the Americas, the Europeans enslaved and looted and slaughtered, all while preaching with a halo around their heads. They worked hard to appear religious and at all costs, uphold their faith, shrewdly discerning that religion would be the sword that strengthened their position and protected the mystery of their privileges.
The Prince was a threat. Perhaps it was so condemned by the authorities, like the church, who alleged that it was written by “Satan’s finger”, because it served as a reminder that there is no such thing as right to rule. Power is a farce, and can be won by anyone who is willing to resort to any means to take it. In fact, Machiavelli opined, “a shrewd ruler, therefore, must try to ensure that his citizens, whatever the situation may be, will always be dependent on the government and on him; and they will always be loyal to him.”
This is a prime example of Hegel’s master-slave dialectic. Like so many other philosophers in the Existentialist tradition, Hegel posited that self-consciousness only arises out of being seen as an object of another’s perception. “Self-consciousness exists in and for itself when, and by the fact that, it so exists for another; that is, it exists only in being acknowledged.”; through the gaze of another, we define our own shape and form (Hegel 1952). The way I understand it, the master-slave dialectic takes form when two selves meet. Upon meeting, they inevitably engage in a struggle, because the existence of an Other means they cannot see their Self as before. Their consciousness is now mediated by the Other’s perception, judgement and assessment, and now they must struggle to claim their identity. One Self emerges the victor, and thus, the master-slave dialectic is established. The master is seen as the dominant one, possessing control over the slave, who is reduced to a mere object. Interestingly enough, the master has mastery only insofar as the slave acknowledges them as the master: their Self-identity as the master rests upon the slave.
In his works “Black Skin, White Masks” and “The Wretched of the Earth”, Frantz Fanon reworked Hegel’s master-slave dialectic in the context of colonialism. Personally affected by his experiences as a black Algerian man living under French colonial rule, Fanon saw the colonizers as the master, and the colonized as the slaves, subject to systemic dehumanization, cultural erasure, and violence at the hands of the master. He argued that the colonizer’s identity is defined in opposition to the colonized people, and the colonized people are reduced to mere objects in the eyes of the colonizer. The colonizer maintains their power through violence and oppression, but this power is ultimately dependent on the colonized people’s acknowledgement of the colonizer’s authority. Therefore the colonized people must reject this power dynamic and assert their own identity and agency in order to shake off the yoke of oppression.
Conclusion
The true power, therefore, lies with the people. What Machiavelli teaches in The Prince is how to gain that power. He outlines clearly his doctrine of rule, but in doing so, Machiavelli exposes the fragile, farcical nature of power. The art of governance is nothing but the art of deception, and recognizing this grants us the people the knowledge of the absolute value of human freedom.
The French existentialist Simone de Beauvoir once remarked that “to will oneself free is to will others free.” Freedom is pointless unless we connect with others as free and equal human beings in fruitful interpersonal relationships; we find meaning in sharing connections with others whom we regard as free and equal. As I close The Prince, I find that I now think of it as a cautionary tale about the hollow nature of power; one whose purpose was to strip those who possess it of dignity and allure, and teach us how to fight it. With that knowledge in hand, think about where we are today. We say we live in the postcolonial era, but are we truly free? Are we being governed by the same Machiavellian principles that were enacted by the colonials?
“Wanting to annex territory is indeed very natural and normal, and when capable men undertake it, they are always praised, or at least, not criticized.”
I end this paper with the same quote I began it with. In the end, one must always remember that power is the ultimate goal of man, and that most are prepared to discard morals to acquire it. As we navigate this so-called postcolonial era, let Machiavelli’s Prince remind us of the nature of power, and that it lies with us.
References
Cox, Mary Lea. 1999. “Author Hochschild Recounts Lost History of Horror in the Belgian Congo.” Wilson Center. October 14, 1999. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/author-hochschild-recounts-lost-history-horror-the-belgian-congo.
Encyclopedia Britannica. 2023. “History of Malaysia.” Accessed April 25, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/place/Malaysia/History.
Fanon, Frantz. 1963. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press.
Fanon, Frantz. 2008. Black Skin, White Masks. Translated by Richard Philcox. New York: Grove Press.
Gramsci, Antonio. 1891-1937. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1952. Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by A.V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hochschild, A.. “Leopold II.” Encyclopedia Britannica, April 5, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Leopold-II-king-of-Belgium.
Machiavelli, Niccolò. 1988. The Prince. Edited by Quentin Skinner and Russel Price. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, James. 2023. “Antonio Gramsci.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, April 26, 2023.
Middleton, Townsend. 2023. “Class 7: Technologies of Rule.” PowerPoint presentation, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, January 31, 2023.
Wolpert, S. A.. “British raj.” Encyclopedia Britannica, March 31, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/event/British-raj.