Introduction
Despite having been lauded as an innovator at the time when “the Prince” and “Discourses on Livy” were published, Machiavelli‘s ideas are regarded nowadays as rather dubious, and the author himself is often deemed as the advocate for evil. Although one must credit Niccolò Machiavelli for the creation of political science, or, at the very least, the premises for what nowadays is regarded as such, most of his speculations regarding handling political issues are deemed as inapplicable to the context of modern political environment. On the one hand, the specified phenomenon can be easily understood given the time lapse between the era of Machiavelli’s political influence and the contemporary political environment. However, some theorists argue that the nature of the specified assumptions is defined not by the alterations in the extrinsic factors but, instead, on a change in the intrinsic ones, i.e., the understanding of the role of a leader and the responsibilities thereof.
Some of the ideas that Machiavelli suggests, such as the significance of republics retaining the lively culture and the importance of the flux as the concept that allows addressing the contingency, may work in the realm of the contemporary political environment. However, the limitations to the role of anyone else outside of the leader in the environment of global politics and the propensity toward a rather aggressive approach in managing internal and foreign affairs is what makes Machiavelli’s ideas not quite applicable to the realm of the modern politics. Therefore, it could be argued that, while some of Machiavelli’s concepts and principles of managing political concerns may be used as the basis for decision-making in the specified area, most of his statements would have led to the outcomes of questionable value in the setting of modern politics.
Although Machiavelli’s opinions, which he expressed in “the Prince” and “The Discourses” are often maligned for their lack of moral ground, it is not the aspect of morality that makes them weak. It is important to keep in mind that the pursuit of global well-being, which should be the ultimate goal of a politician, requires taking responsibility and making complicated choices. Therefore, tarnished reputation should not be the primary issue of concern; instead, it is the problem of communication, political involvement, and dependency on a leader that makes Machiavelli’s principles unsuitable for the context of the modern political arena and especially the foreign affairs.
Because of the necessity to encourage cross-disciplinary cooperation and provide political experts with independence in their research of the existing issues affecting decision-making, one will need to reduce the power of “the Prince”, which is impossible according to Machiavelli’s postulates. Furthermore, the issue of flux, which Machiavelli sees as a threat to the successful development of a republic, is a crucial part of a state’s development, especially in the environment of the globalized politics and economy. Thus, the flux needs to be managed by responding to the changes in the natural course of events rather than stifling it and preventing any extrinsic factors from introducing change. Therefore, Because of the propensity toward cooperation and the need to embrace a wide array of factors that affect the realm of the political environment, most of the principle regarding the role of a leader in Machiavelli’s theory cannot be applied to the contemporary environment, although some of their aspects such as the need to build a strong system of state resources should be deemed as sensible.
Machiavelli and His Concept of Justice: A Contemporary Perspective
Justice should be seen as one of the foundational principles on which a state exists. Unless the principles of justice are outlined accordingly further progress becomes barely possible for any state. Quite the contrary, in case essential standards for justice are defined, an untimely demise becomes very likely due to internal conflicts. From Machiavelli’s perspective, the idea of justice should be geared toward managing the needs of the state and protecting its citizens. For instance, Machiavelli refers to the Spartan king as one of the prime examples of justice in politics: “And this was due to the Spartan kings, who, being appointed to that dignity for life, and placed in the midst of this nobility, had no stronger support to their authority than in defending the people against injustice.” Therefore, Machiavelli views injustice as one of the factors that could potentially tear the state asunder. Furthermore, the role of the state leader as the person that reinforces justice and protects vulnerable populations seems to be in line with the contemporary idea of meeting the needs of disadvantaged populations on a state level. The specified viewpoint can be regarded as compatible with the modern interpretation of justice and its role within the state.
Nonetheless, the fact that, according to Machiavelli, a leader must be responsible for instilling justice by resorting to any measures possible adds a significant amount of controversy to his ideas. The concept of attaining goals by any means necessary might sound innocent in theory, yet the ethical implications of the specified strategy would be dire. However, one must also keep in mind that the concept of justice is, perhaps, the most complex one of all addressed in both “The Prince” and “The Discourses,” which can be one of the reasons why the very word appears comparatively rarely in either of the works. As a result, the notion of justice as it is interpreted by Machiavelli is entirely open for debate: “Machiavelli’s idea of justice, which is often expressed somewhat ambiguously, is therefore open to different interpretations and also subject to various forms of misunderstanding.”
The specified approach toward defining justice seems both aligning with the contemporary principles thereof and refuting them. Whereas maintaining justice requires having a good understanding of what constitutes justice in numerous cultures, it also demands following the set legal standards and reinforcing the law. Herein lies the reason for maintaining the principle of separation of powers in democratic states. The specified approach allows a leader to remain impartial and ensures the provision of the judgment that will be regarded as fair.
From the perspective of Machiavelli’s theory, a leader should act flexibly on behalf of the state. If adopting the specified principle injustice, one will position legal standards as not merely flexible but unstable, thus, possibly destroying the very essence of the legal system. Thus, the further execution of justice will be impossible since its very premises will be questioned. The specified outcome might be the reason for Machiavelli to abstain from discussion justice directly and, instead, made him allude to the ideas of fairness as the guiding principles for a true leader to follow.
“Good Law,” Its Nature, Machiavelli’s Reasoning, and the Modern Context
Machiavelli’s approach to the legal system, how it should be managed, and how it will affect people, is also somewhat alien to the contemporary ideas of law and its functions. When considering the problem of Machiavelli’s formula, one must mention the fact that he coins the term “good law” without even referencing the idea of natural law, which was regarded as very important by prominent thinkers of the time. The identified aspect of Machiavelli’s philosophy shows that he did not approve of any concept that restricted the power and decisions of a state leader.
Compared to other ideas pronounced in Machiavelli’s works, his representation of law portrays his concept of power and management of a state to the greatest extent. By refusing to incorporate the concept of the natural law, which implied following basic moral principles, Machiavelli openly stated that he intended to give an ostensible leader absolute power in decision-making. Without the principles that could serve as ethical or moral constraints, a leader would be enabled to make any decisions and justify them based on their idea of global well-being.
The specified aspect of Machiavelli’s idea of legal principles should be viewed as the detail that sets his viewpoints apart from the contemporary interpretation of the role of a political leader and the concept of law. To make the situation even more complicated, Machiavelli insists that civil law is entirely useless and, thus, should be viewed as a rudiment of the past that needs to be removed from the legal system. Particularly, he states:
For the civil law is no more than the opinions delivered by the ancient jurisconsults, which, being reduced to a system, teach the jurisconsults of our own times how to determine; while the healing art is simply the recorded experience of the old physicians, on which our modern physicians found their practice.
Thus, by rejecting the civil law as part and parcel of the legal system, Machiavelli implies that the issue of public safety is not going to be addressed at a legal level. The identified representation of the justice system is in discord with the current approach to managing public safety. It could be argued that in his idea to enhance the power of the leader, Machiavelli implied that civil cases have to be considered by the person at the helm of a state. However, the specified approach does not seem to be viable since it imposes a significant strain on a leader.
For this reason, Machiavelli’s concept of law would not have survived in the realm of modern politics. The proposed solution does not align with the principles of impartiality and unbiased judgment on which the modern justice system hinges. Furthermore, the specified approach conflicts with the idea of the separation of powers, i.e., creating three branches of government to ensure impartiality and fair trials. The focus on the natural virtues of leaders as the basis for decision-making and the execution of law seems to be erroneous in its nature since leaders will inevitably make mistakes when basing their judgments solely on their values. Furthermore, given the increasingly high levels of diversity within the contemporary global society and accordingly vast range of ideas of justice, developing a set of standards that will remain unaltered is impossible. Moreover, the specified approach is downright harmless for the modern social and political environment, where the consistent learning of new information and the ability to consider a problem from a different perspective may imply the necessity to introduce new amendments and legal standards.
Morality in the Context of the Political Environment: Machiavelli’s Perspective
When considering popular opinions on Machiavelli and the reasons for most contemporary people to view his political ideas with disdain, one must mention Machiavelli’s stance on morality – or, to be more specific, the lack thereof. According to the opinion of the political scientist, the ends must justify the means. Therefore, any action, no matter how harm or damage it might do to certain stakeholders, should be deemed as legitimate if it has a positive effect on the well-being of the state’s population, in the grand scheme. For instance, Machiavelli’s infamous statement concerning the authority of leaders to break their promises in case of necessity and prevent people from voicing their concerns by using the power of fear indicates that there are certain biases to Machiavelli’s opinion regarding ethics in power. In his work, Machiavelli provides the example of Alexander VI as the case that can be regarded as exemplary decision-making for a leader of a state: “It was thus necessary to upset those orders and to bring disorder to their states so as to be able to make himself lord securely of part of them.” Therefore, Machiavelli downright approves of the unethical behavior of a leader as long as it can be explained by the pursuit of security reasons, public well-being, etc. Because of the emphasis on ethical standards in the contemporary political environment, the specified stance is deemed as illegitimate in the realm of modern politics.
However, it has to be admitted that the specified issue opens an entirely different set of ethical questions for modern leaders. For example, it would be reasonable to ask whether an unethical decision that causes a politician to tarnish their reputation for the sake of the greater good can redeem the said politician in the eyes of their population and, most importantly, in the context of political ethics. For instance, Cwalina and Falkowski state that “The results of many studies clearly suggest that two dimensions, namely morality or integrity and competence or ability are very important for the perception and evaluation of others.” Thus, there are strong identifications that morality is a critical quality for political leaders. The ability of a leader to make decisions based on their principles of morality is strongly linked with the preservation of their political and personal integrity, as the study suggests. Furthermore, it can be assumed that the propensity toward abusing basic moral principles by a leader may undermine the very fabric of contemporary politics, thus, causing a significant political divide.
The assumption that a leader may dismiss any concepts of morality and ethics if particular needs outweigh the consequences can also be tracked down in Machiavelli’s “The Discourses.” However, to his credit, Machiavelli does admit in this work of his that breaking promises of prosperity and victory is likely to lead to the rapid demise of a ruler. Thus, the political scientist stresses the need to ensure that the goals set for enhancing the greatness and power of a state should be met:
And as this occasions the ruin of States, it likewise, and even more frequently, occasions the private ruin of those to whom the execution of these proposals is committed; because the people anticipating victory, do not when there comes defeat ascribe it to the short means or ill fortune of the commander, but to his cowardice and incapacity.
Nevertheless, Machiavelli’s dismissal of morality as one of the principles by which the decisions of a monarch are usually defined has become notorious. It would be erroneous to discredit Machiavelli’s’ ideas as entirely irrelevant to the realm of modern politics. Adopting an idealistic approach toward managing foreign policy is fraught with numerous deleterious consequences.
Violence as a Tool for Maintaining Order: Modern Interpretation
Another issue worth discussing when it comes to addressing problematic issues of Machiavelli’s works is his idea of violence as a tool that leaders can use to handle certain conflicts within a state. One must also keep in mind that Machiavelli warns against the use of explicit violence in the course of ruling a country in “Discourses with Livy”: “For he who looks well to the results of these tumults will find that they did not lead to banishments, nor to violence hurtful to the common good, but to laws and ordinances beneficial to the public liberty.” The specified lack of consistency can be explained by the fact that Machiavelli draws a line between pointless cruelty and the use of violence for attaining a particular goal. However, giving violent actions a purpose does not excuse them, which is why the specified approach is unlikely to work in the realm of modern politics.
At this point, however, it is necessary to define the notion of violence. In a political context. If viewing harsh decisions and aggressive actions as violence against the participants involved in political dialogue, one could allow the existence of the specified phenomenon, even though its ethical foundation would be doubtful. The idea that Machiavelli refers to the specified manner of carrying out political arrangements may mean that his concept of utilizing violent tools for maintaining the position of a state consistent in the realm of the global political arena
The use of violence as a means to an end is an ethical concern in the contemporary political environment as well. For instance, the adoption of radical measures that could potentially be viewed as redeemable in the long term, yet will inevitably entail the use of violent actions against the people that insight violence in political relationships is one of the instances of the inevitable evil in the realm of modern politics. Therefore, it would be a mistake to claim that the contemporary political setting is fully devoid of violence and aggression. However, it should be noted that the specified actions are always a result of countries being pressured into providing a response that implies affecting others negatively. For example, in the situation that involves the possibility of a military confrontation, the use of rather radical measures to instill peace and manage the threat of warfare is deemed as essential.
Similarly, to handle threats to peace in the realm of a particular state, a leader may resort to quite an aggressive action involving the military to stifle a possible threat to the political, legal, and social integrity of a state, for instance, in case of separatism. However, the use of aggression as a tool to maintain order on a regular basis and encouraging the promotion of obedience in the state is next to the introduction of tyranny in a political setting of a country according to the modern interpretation of the idea. Therefore, the specified approach toward managing home and foreign politics should be seen as dubious at best and intrinsically flawed, at worst. The destructive nature of the specified tool is likely to cause drastic outcomes in the modern political setting due to the current focus on peace-making and the active promotion of peaceful negotiations as a means to manage misconceptions and misunderstandings on a global political arena. Therefore, the idea of a political leader using violent tools not as the last report for reinforcing law and order and protecting the citizens but as the means of controlling the latter is understandably deemed as violently inappropriate nowadays.
Machiavelli’s Idea of Practicality: Foundation for the Modern Government?
Another concept that does not seem to be in line with the contemporary political views, the phenomenon of practicality needs to be discussed as one of the ideas that Machiavelli was attempting to promote. As stressed above, ethics in political leadership was not the source of concern for Machiavelli. However, the notion of ethics had to be substituted with another concept that would serve as the foundation for decision-making in the context of the home and foreign policy. Thus, the idea of practicality was born. The phenomenon of practicality implies the need to act based on the practical outcomes of the choices made by a leader. At first glance, the specified concept does not contain any controversial aspects; quite the contrary, it could be applied to the realm of modern politics, where every possible outcome needs to be considered in order to choose the one that will ostensibly lead to the best possible result. However, on a closer look, it will be revealed that the specified notion makes the idea of honesty in politics obsolete.
In his concept of practicality, Machiavelli implies a subjective definition of the subject matter, thus, leaving the state leader to decide what objectives should be viewed as requiring the adoption of a rigid set of measures. Therefore, the absolute power of a state leader remains the glue that will keep a state together when based on Machiavelli’s ideas. The approach in question denies a leader the right to make a mistake since every single decision that they make will be implemented without any further consideration and, thus, will entail an array of unexpected outcomes.
Defined as “realpolitik,” the identified approach is rather self-explanatory. Particularly, it implies the necessity to act outside of the context of morality and, instead, view all available options disregarding the ethical implications that thy may entail or imply. Although the concept of realpolitik was not coined by Machiavelli, he could as well have been defined as the precursor thereof since he provided the foundation for the specified notion to be invented. The phenomenon of practicality has its place in the setting of modern political strategies, yet it does not have the brutal and unapologetic angle that Machiavelli adds to it. In fact, there is an argument that, by incorporating the principles of realpolitik into his work, Machiavelli approached the idea of anarchism in his political philosophy:
In contrast to Realists, they argue, Machiavelli was ready and willing to make ethical judgments. In this sense, they conclude, theorists of international politics should exercise care in reaching for Machiavelli as the iconic thinker of Realpolitik and for making sense of anarchy in world politics.
The specified approach contrasts Machiavelli’s ideas regarding the role of the state leader to those of Realists with rather impressive outcomes. Specifically, when contrasted to the opinions that Realists hold, one will realize that Machiavelli’s opinions, in fact, approached the realm of anarchy, as Cerella and Gallo explain above. Even though the Machiavellian politics cannot be deemed as entirely anarchist one since it is based on the premise of giving absolute power to a leader, i.e., a monarch, it introduces a certain element of anarchy into the process of managing the state since it implied giving immense power to an individual.
The use of realpolitik as the device for managing relationships between the states could have been deemed as a possible choice in the era when Machiavelli suggested his work to the Medici family. However, in the setting that values humanism over other principles and is guided by ethical standards that promote the active focus on global well-being, deploying the postulates of realpolitik into the modern foreign and home policy setting would be a rather unwelcome change of pace. Therefore, Machiavellian views regarding the introduction of practicality into the environment of foreign and home politics take the notion of power in politics to their extreme and may lead to dire consequences.
Machiavelli’s Mercenary Armies and the Present-Day Force
In “The Prince,” Machiavelli drives a very distinct line between the state army and the mercenary forces. Particularly, the political scientist mentions the example of Cesare Borgia, who tried hiring mercenaries to accomplish his goal and seize Imola and Forli. In his example, Machiavelli points to the fact that the lack of control over mercenaries is what weakens a leader and, therefore, may lead to the untimely demise of their army, their state, and, eventually, themselves. It is quite remarkable that the specified aspect of Machiavelli’s work is one of the closest to the realm of the contemporary political environment and the arguments that are made in it. Particularly, the argument regarding the use of mercenary forces versus the state army is still taking place with varying outcomes. There are strong indications that the use of mercenary forces allow enhancing the overall efficacy of the state’s military actions and increases the chance to succeed in particular military operations. That being said, one must keep in mind that a range of politicians supports the Machiavellian idea regarding the lack of control over mercenaries’ actions. According to Machiavelli, the absence of managing the actions and motivations of mercenary soldiers is the primary threat to the power of a state leader:
I want to demonstrate better the failure of these arms. Mercenary captains are either excellent men of arms or not: if they are, you cannot trust them because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their patron, or by oppressing others contrary to your intention; but if the captain is not virtuous, he ruins you in an ordinary way.
Although it would be an overstatement to claim that mercenaries may jeopardize the well-being of a state and lead to its destruction, their lack of subordination to the state leader clearly is a troubling tendency for the successful management of a country. Therefore, a Machiavellian theory concerning the use of mercenary armies seems to be legitimate in the environment of modern politics, yet for different reasons than the ones that he suggested. Instead of posing a threat to the security of a leader’s power and ability to control the state, the lack of power over changing the course of mercenary soldiers’ actions may imply significant challenges in attaining the desired effects in the context of both a particular state and the needs of the key stakeholders. For instance, the adoption of the services of mercenary troops may entail a significant rise in the number of casualties and a possible loss of a range of important partners as a result of the specified choices. When considering the roots of the specified problem, one must keep in mind that a significant portion of it owes its existence to the “model of the interaction between the government and its military force that is starkly reduced to the barest essentials.”
Therefore, the problem outlined by Machiavelli in his works can be resolved in the context of the modern political environment through a change in the management of communication processes between the state government and the military. The associated outcomes are likely to be regarded as positive, which means that Machiavelli’s idea of mercenary as a foundation for apolitical failure have not survived the test of time, either. Because of the rise in the number of opportunities for encouraging the communication between the state and the mercenary armies, one can coordinate the actions of the latter efficiently and, thus, reach the expected results as planned.
Machiavelli as the Prince: Why He Never Considered This Role
Even though some of Machiavelli’s ideas range from old-fashioned to wildly inappropriate when adopted in the realm of modern politics, there is no doubt that his work had a massive effect on the political situation in Italy at the time of the Medici’s reign. Machiavelli clearly had the makings of a strong political leader who was capable of embracing a wide array of factors affecting the choices to be made in the context of both home and foreign policies. The specified observation begs the question why Machiavelli himself never considered the idea of becoming the Prince, i.e., the political leader that would alter the political landscape entirely.
However, when considering the way in which the book is paced, arranged, and worded, one will realize that Machiavelli never viewed himself as the person that would hold the entire state together. The very fact that the book was intended to be a present for the Medici family indicates that Machiavelli was willing to remain an active participant of the political environment yet never wanted to assume the role that would imply such a huge responsibility as the one that he described in his books.
Therefore, it was a deep understanding of the weight and [pressure that the specified role would place on him that made Machiavelli refuse from considering being the Prince. In the context of the complicated political situation in which Italy could be found at the time, being torn asunder between several states, taking the place of a leader and arranging every single set of issues properly would have required too much of an effort that Machiavelli could not produce.
Modern States and Their Strength: Through Machiavelli’s Lens
Finally, the stipulations provided by the political scientist on the issue of modern states needs to be explored as the means of understanding his theories and why they seem to fail in the context of contemporary political settings in all their diversity. In both of his papers, i.e., “the Prince” and “Discourses on Livy,” Machiavelli keeps comparing the Italy of his time with ancient states, particularly, Ancient Rome, although other political entities such as Sparta also appear in some of his arguments. Thus, Machiavelli strives to stress the progress that has been made from the ancient times to the Italy of the 15th-16th century. As a result, the strengths and benefits of modern states are outlined. According to the author, the freedom with which the residents of the specified ancient states were provided could be defined as unhinged and jeopardized the security of the state and its denizens:
Weighing all which circumstances, we see that to have kept Rome in the same tranquility wherein these republics were kept, one of two courses must have been followed by her legislators; for either, like the Venetians, they must have refrained from employing the commons in war, or else, like the Spartans, they must have closed their country to foreigners. Whereas, in both particulars, they did the opposite, arming the commons and increasing their number, and thus affording endless occasions for disorder.
Therefore, Machiavelli continues of insist that the lack of total control over every possible aspect of a state is likely of lead to turmoil, possible revolts, and the ultimate demise thereof. It should be noted that public anarchy as the opposite of what Machiavelli suggests is another extreme that will most likely lead to the destruction of a state. However, introducing the totalitarian principles based on which the freedoms and basic rights of its citizens will be continuously infringed upon is the solution for which there is no place in the modern environment. As brilliant as Machiavelli’s ideas might have been in his era, they can only partially be used in the modern environment.
That being said, viewing Machiavelli’s teachings as the guide to dictatorship would be wrong, either. It is crucial to take the work in the context of its era, when Italy was torn asunder between other states. In addition, one must bear in mind that the intent, which was the well-being of a state, is currently the basis for all solutions in foreign and home policy. Thus, Machiavelli’s work is a product of its time that needs to be recognized for its uniqueness and that still echoes in modern political environment.
Conclusion
One must give Machiavelli credit for producing the seeds of the concepts that would be relevant even for the contemporary political environment. For example, the idea of reinforcing the state resources and use them to the full extent can be deemed as valuable when shifting the perspective from physical to informational ones. Similarly, the dichotomy between virtue and fortune remains a complex issue even for modern political realm.
However, for the contemporary political setting and especially the management of foreign affairs, following Machiavelli’s principles directly would most likely entail serious problems within a state and even more drastic conflicts with foreign partners. The unwillingness to respond to flux and the propensity to shield a state from it seems not only undesirable but also impossible in the present-day political setting, where flux is regarded as an inevitable element of progress. The idea of using a flexible political approach and an efficient risk management technique instead to respond to flux in kind seems a much more legitimate way of handling rapid political changes.
Therefore, when considering the role of Machiavelli in political science, one must admit that his works have had a massive effect on the development thereof. Furthermore, it is necessary to give Machiavelli credit for inventing what would alter on become the political science. Nonetheless, while his ideas could be seen as legitimate at the time, they can be used nowadays only as concepts that should be woven into a grander framework of managing political interactions. It would be wrong to dismiss Machiavelli’s ideas entirely solely on the basis of his vision of political leadership. It is important to keep in mind that the standards for leaders and leadership have changed significantly with the rise in the levels of political and social involvement among state citizens worldwide. Thus, what might seem as a legitimate step for a leader 500 years ago would be deemed as inappropriate and undemocratic nowadays.
The issue of ethics seems to be one of the primary problematic areas around which most arguments are centered when discussing the significance of Machiavelli’s work. Because of the shift in values and priorities, most audiences would see Machiavelli’s postulates as cynical and not work taking into account as a political practice. However, what makes Machiavelli’s argument about the way in which conflicts and the management of the state must be handled illegitimate for most modern states is not the lack of morality but the unwillingness to address the “flux”, i.e., external factors of change. Fostering development and promoting the necessity to change, the specified element contributes to the reinforcement of the state’s performance and resilience levels. Therefore, for modern political leaders, it is crucial to use the flux as the tool for prompting change in the context of a state and encourage its further development.
Thus, although Machiavelli has literally created political science, most of his views would be regarded as inappropriate for the realm of the modern political environment because of the persistent nature thereof. When used with moderation and caution, Machiavelli’s ideas could help shape a strong state with an efficient leader. However, if followed exactly, these rules would lead to a massive political failure since they stifle the opportunity for other participants to act on the political arena and avoid external factors instead of addressing them. Machiavelli may have been a great political theorist, yet the contemporary environment requires a different set of measures. It could be argued that, had Machiavelli lived to see the modern political arena, he would have structured a different set of political standards and created a vision that would imply less rigid principles and a more progressive approach toward external factors. Thus, Machiavelli’s work remains an important contribution to the overall understanding of politics, interactions in a political setting, and the forces that shape the efficacy of a state.
Bibliography
Biscop, Sven. “The EU Global Strategy: Realpolitik with European Characteristics.” Might and Right in World Politics 1, no. 75, 2016, pp. 91-100.
Cerella, Antonio and Ernesto Gallo. “Machiavelli Reloaded: Perceptions and Misperceptions of the ‘Prince of Realism’.” International Politics 53, no. 4, 2016, p. 435-446.
Cwalina, Wojciech, and Andrzej Falkowski. “Morality and competence in shaping the images of political leaders.” Journal of Political Marketing 15, no. 2-3 (2016): 220-239.
Machiavelli, Niccolò. “Discourses on Livy.” The Federalist Papers, n.d. Web.
Machiavelli, Niccolò. “The Prince.” Monoscop.org. Web.
McMahon, R. Blake, and Branislav L. Slantchev. “The Guardianship Dilemma: Regime Security through and from the Armed Forces.” American Political Science Review 109, no. 2 (2015): 297-313.
Tuplin, Christopher. War, Warlords, and Interstate Relations in the Ancient Mediterranean. New York, NY: BRILL, 2017.
Quaglioni, Diego. “Machiavelli, the Prince and the Idea of Justice.” Italian Culture 32, no. 2 (2014): 110-121.