Machiavelli’s The Prince develops an account of the way power is acquired and retained. Through a careful examination of distinct historical cases, the book presents key tactics for leaders to manage populations and keep control. In particular, Machiavelli focuses on Principalities, sovereign states run by monarchs, as opposed to Republics. Even though this form of government is now relatively rare, it is almost impossible not to think of the contemporary cases that continue to reflect these dynamics today.
In Chapter 3, titled “On Mixed Princedoms”, Machiavelli discusses the significant difference between the conquest by States “of the same Province and tongue as the people of these dominions” and the conquering of areas by more foreign States. He argues that it is easy to retain dominion over populations that share the same language and customs, while it is much more difficult to dominate culturally distinct populations. The continuity in the cultural life of those conquered means that people may “live peaceably with one another” still. This recognition of the need for cultural considerations in governance might help us understand the rise of anti-immigrant discourses within Western democratic states and the right-wing anxiety that surrounds migration discourse. The threat to the dominance of particular cultural practices is given significant political force.
I was also struck by the significance that Machiavelli assigns to affect in monarchic governance. He discusses the “love” that subjects must feel for their ruler – a love that should not be distributed among a multitude of nobles but that should instead be concentrated in the singular figure of the Prince. “Hate” is also theorized as a powerful force that threatens the rule of a monarch. I wonder how these emotions are reorganized in a democratic model – do modern institutions and procedures for governance redistribute (or diffuse) affect? How can these observations be applied to contemporary cases of populism?