Like many seminal works on the subjects of power and success, excerpts of the “The Prince” have been abducted, only to be relentlessly pounded into the molds of hundreds of political and business philosophies, as a sort of a perennial stamp of historical justification.
Yet, there is an issue in the selective borrowing of the theories without the consideration of the full context within which they be applied.
Surely Machiavelli promoted morally questionable tactics, reinforced with absolution for the perpetrator, yet his ultimate justification was the preservation of stability for the state, not the accumulation of wealth.
While often attributed to him, Machiavelli did not originate the quote “The end justifies the means,” yet he did reinforce that premise throughout “the Prince.” This was not a new concept, even in the Renaissance period when Machiavelli wrote.
The Greek playwright Sophocles wrote in Electra (c 409 B.C.), “The end excuses any evil,” a thought later rendered by the Roman poet Ovid as, “The result justifies the deed” in “Heroides” (c. 10 B.C.).” [1]
Considering how Machiavelli’s thinking is applied as an almost ethereal justification for corporate raiding and pillaging, there is an undercurrent of potential irony that lies within the widely held suspicion that “The Prince” may actually have been intended as satire.
Some historians note Machiavelli’s undeniable patriotic allegiance to the Florentine Republic (one of four Italian city-states constantly at odds with surrounding principalities and European governments), and that the absurdity of the moral obfuscations of “The Prince” were actually meant to mock tyrannical rule and thereby promote a republican ideal.
Did Machiavelli pen “The Prince” as a diabolical ploy to lure his patron, the powerful robber-baron Lorenzo de Medici, to commit atrocities to ignite a pent-up backlash from the Florentine people?
Unfortunately, we will never know what his true intentions were. In the dedication, he seems to be auditioning for a position within the Medici government, but that aim itself conflicts with many of the recommendations he makes, again the justification of the immoral actions to attain the moral objective of the unification of Italy.
This mystery is at the heart of the tragic usurping of “The Prince” which now serves as a vehicle of endless justification guiding business doctrine: promoting callous disregard of a moral compass to win at all costs.