Niccolò Machiavelli & John Locke

Niccolò Machiavelli and John Locke are vastly different philosophers. Machiavelli writes as an advisor to a ruler; whether that be a ruler of a principality, a republic, or any other form of government. He gives practical advice, based on historical evidence, on the best course of action in a variety of different situations. He states in Book I of Discourses on Livy that “all men are evil and will always act according to the wickedness of their nature” (28). This idea underpins a majority of his philosophy, leading him to extensively advise his readers on how to contain the public and their possible rebellions. Locke builds his philosophy on government from the ground up; explaining why and how nature worked before civil societies were created and using those principles to imagine a perfect, modern government. He comes from the perspective of a citizen, not a ruler, and therefore bases his ideal system on what civilians deserve instead of what they have historically gotten. Locke states in Two Treatises of Government that “naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another” (108). His idea that God made us so that we are all equal is the foundation of his philosophy. Both philosophers have entirely different rhetoric and base their ideas on almost opposite ideals, but they come to the same conclusions quite often. Machiavelli and Locke, while disagreeing on why, treat citizens similarly in their ideal forms of government.

Machiavelli and Locke both prioritize the happiness of citizens in government. Machiavelli emphasizes that internal instability is as much of a threat to a state as external. He claims in The Prince that a leader “who is highly esteemed is not easily conspired against; for, provided it is well known that he is an excellent man and revered by his people, he can only be attacked with difficulty” (96). Those who wish to conspire against a leader who is well loved will find it difficult to make allies, therefore a leader needs to avoid being hated in order to protect himself. Machiavelli outlines multiple ways to do this, stating that one should not lay claim to the possessions of his citizens because in a population where neither “property nor their honor is touched, the majority of men live content” (96). He also claims in Discourses on Livy that “no well organized republic ever cancels the demerits of its citizens with their merits” (78), advocating for a system of punishment that is indiscriminate. Locke has similar priorities in his ideal government. In Two Treatises of Government Locke writes that men autonomously agreed to be governed in return for security, and this idea of “consent of the commonwealth” (114) is the most important part of Locke’s philosophy. Laws exist to promote “the general good of those under that law” (128) because the government is meant to serve its citizens. Therefore if a ruler does not act civilly, unjustly infringing on their citizens’ autonomy in a way that violates the laws of Nature and civil society, then the citizens have the right to overthrow the ruler. Like Machiavelli, he believes that a ruling system should not infringe upon the property of its citizens. Locke derives our right to property from the fact that God created the world to serve mankind, so therefore everything in it begins as belonging to everyone, but once someone mixes labor with nature, it becomes property of the laborer. Therefore a ruler, who Locke emphasizes as being just a man, has no right to the property of his citizens. Locke, like Machiavelli, also advocates for an indiscriminate system of punishment. He claimed that in a civil government, one could not “by his own authority, avoid the force of the law, when once made, nor by any pretence of superiority plead exemption, thereby to license his own, or the miscarriages of any of his dependants” (145). He does not allow for things like political authority or social class to absolve an individual from punishment. While Machiavelli promotes the goodwill of citizens for the security of the state and Locke does so because he believes it is the citizens’ right, they both agree that keeping citizens happy is important and advocate for similar ways to do so.

Machiavelli and Locke both believe that citizens should have a way to make change within their government. In Discourses on Livy Machiavelli claims that “every city must possess its own methods for allowing the people to express their ambitions” (30). He brings up the Roman system of tribunes as an example, specifically mentioning the situation in which Coriolanus, “enemy of the popular faction” (39), wanted to start an uprising by nobles against plebeians. The citizens were in uproar after hearing this and according to Machiavelli “would have murdered him in a riot at the exit of the state if tribunes had not summoned him to appear and plead his case” (39). Citizens will always experience animosity when they feel they have been wronged, so it is essential to “provide through their laws a means of venting the anger that the multitude feels” (39) because if there is not then they will “resort to illegal” (39) means to do so. Locke, similarly, believes that citizens should have a role in government. Because Locke believes that governments are designed to serve their constituents, said constituents should have a say in laws and policies. In Two Treatises of Government he claims that a society cannot call itself civil “till the legislative was so placed in collective bodies of men, call them senate, parliament, or what you please, by which means every single person became subject equally with other the meanest men, to those laws, which he himself, as part of the legislative, had established” (145). He, like Machiavelli, believes that it is essential to include the people in the legislative process.

While Machiavelli strives to contain men and Locke strives to cater to them, both understand how important citizens are within a society. They both prioritize keeping them happy, by creating laws based on public needs, not infringing on their property or autonomy, and having a fair and just system of punishment. They both see the value in giving citizens legal or political agency

“But, it being my intention to write a thing which shall be useful to him who apprehends it, it appears to me more appropriate to follow up the real truth of the matter than the imagination of it; for many have pictured republics and principalities which in fact have never been known or seen, because how one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil.” (Machiavelli, The Prince 83)

One difference between their discussions about citizens is how they talk about social class. Machiavelli talks in length about the differences between nobility and commoners, treating them as if they were two entirely separate entities. Locke does not talk as much about those distinctions in Two Treatises on Government and talks more about the public in general.

“Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it” (Locke 145)

“It was possible for this system to arise and maintain itself without any disturbance, because when it was born, whoever then lived in Venice was made apart of the government, so that no one could complain” (Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy 34)

Locke and Machiavelli do believe that citizens should participate in government but to different degrees. Locke argues for a legislative branch in which citizens vote for or against all laws while Machiavelli uses examples of civic participation in government that typically give citizens less power than Locke does.