Calidad de vida de las personas con discapacidad.

In dedicating the Discourses on the first ten books of Livy to Zanobi Buondelmonti and Cosimo Rucellai, two of Machiavelli‟s good republican friends from the Rucellai Gardens meetings who were both key motivators in his undertaking of the Discourses. Machiavelli departs from the “common practices” of those who devote their works to “princes,” and praise them when they should be condemned instead.³⁸⁰ Of course, this may also allude to the fact that Machiavelli himself had dedicated his Prince, first to Giuliano and then to Lorenzo de‟ Medici the de facto rulers of Florence, and consequently may be hinting at some form of self-reproach all of which may thus suggest that the Discourses could be read as Machiavelli‟s invitation to revisit the points he had made in The Prince.³⁸¹

The very fact that Machiavelli ends The Prince by claiming that Lorenzo de‟ Medici, the Florentine leader at the time of writing, is the only man who can quell the tumult in Italy is supportive of the claims made by Jean- Jacques Rousseau; “Being attached to the court of the Medici, he could not help veiling his love of liberty in the midst of his country‟s

96

oppression”³⁸². Rousseau believed that Machiavelli concealed his true political beliefs in The Prince, promoting the political system of the time and currying favour with the ruling class.

Much of the text would support this argument, with Machiavelli openly confessing (or perhaps eluding to confess) affection for the Medici; “And if your Magnificence will turn your eyes from the summit of your greatness…”³⁸³ Given that he was initially exiled for plotting against the Medici, it is perfectly feasible that he might have written The Prince with such a motivation, effectively validating the content of The Discourses as representative of his true views.

The Machiavellian agenda becomes evident when one compares Roman history as interpreted in the Discourses with the facts that one learns about Cesare Borgia as selected in The Prince.

In both cases there is an extremely cruel beginning in which the corresponding heroes violate widely shared norms of the „human race‟.

Concerning the status and evaluation of crimes in this agenda, Romulus, mythic founder of Rome, even killed his brother Remus in order not to share power. He also

“consented to the death of Titus Tatius, who had been elected to share the royal authority with him”³⁸⁴. In the interpretation of Machiavelli, these murders guaranteed that one (and only one) will define the common good.³⁸⁵ It is important to note that for Machiavelli Cesare Borgia‟s cruelties and Romulus‟s fratricide were violations of moral norms. However, as is notoriously quoted, Machiavelli accepted that the violation of moral norms can have its justification.³⁸⁶ The period of cruelties and “destructive purification” was meant to be followed, in the case of both Rome and the unified Italy, by peace and order that presupposed protection from external enemies. Thus, “destructive purification” was to the benefit of the people. In the Roman case, the giving of law by the prince was a major component to support peace and order. This princely phase was followed by the division of power together with the introduction of a republican order.

97

It could be argued that there is conflict between the progressive structures of the state in Machiavelli as outlined here, and the circular view which Machiavelli holds on history:

there is growth and prosperity followed by destruction, chaos and possible reconstruction;

princely government is followed by tyranny, revolution, oligarchy, again revolution, popular state, and finally the republic which in the end collapses into anarchy waiting for the prince or tyrant to reinstall order³⁸⁷. Also, in Machiavelli‟s History of Florence one can read:

The general course of changes that occur in states is from condition of order to one of disorder, and from the latter they pass again to one of order. For as it is not the fate of mundane affairs to remain stationary, so when they have attained their highest state of perfection, beyond which they cannot go, they of necessity decline. And thus again, when they have descended to the lowest, and by their disorders have reached the very depth of debasement, they must of necessity rise again, inasmuch as they cannot go lower.³⁸⁸

Machiavelli concludes:

Such is the circle which all republics are destined to run through. Seldom, however, do they come back to the original form of government, which results from the fact that their duration is not sufficiently long to be able to undergo these repeated changes and preserve their existence. But it may well happen that a republic lacking strength and good counsel in its difficulties becomes subject after a while to some neighbouring state, that is better organized than itself; and if such is not the case, then they will be apt to revolve indefinitely in the circle of revolutions³⁸⁹

However, despite his circular view of the world, Machiavelli considered political action and constitutional design highly relevant to the course of history and also to what happens today or tomorrow. However, the circular view allows us to learn from history and apply what we learned today in the future. Machiavelli repeatedly urges his contemporaries to study the Romans and to learn from them. In the case of Romulus and Rome, history went on to the evolution of the Roman Republic.

98

Machiavelli gave an (efficiency) argument why, in the end, the princely government is expected to transform into a republican system as the governmental regime stabilized. In book one of the Discourses one reads: “…although one man alone should organize a government, yet it will not endure long if the administration of it remains on the shoulders of a single individual; it is well, then, to confide this to the charge of many, for thus it will be sustained by the many.”³⁹⁰

Yet, there is another efficiency argument in favour of the republic: it offers a possibility to get the people involved in government. In Discourse 58 of Book I, Machiavelli gives a series of arguments why he thinks that “the people are wiser and more constant than princes”³⁹¹ if their behaviour is regulated by law. If his arguments hold, then a state that allows for the participation of the people is preferable to principalities which are dominated by a single despot, a king of divine right, or a small clique of nobles. However, the participation of the people does not exclude the possibility of the emergence of a despot and the transformation of a republic into tyranny. Machiavelli gives several examples for this possibility and the case of Rome is the most apropos. The latter demonstrates the importance of adequate laws and institutional rules to prevent individual citizens from capturing power.

These we carefully highlighted above. Machiavelli argues that if “we study carefully the conduct of the Roman republic,” we discover that “the prolongation of her military commands” was one of the two reasons “of her decadence”³⁹².

In Machiavelli‟s observation, well ordered republics, through the use of elections, enjoy a long succession of virtuous princes.³⁹³ An elective principality addresses this problem but is still defective for another reason: the same man is not suited to all circumstances, to every sort of times. Different times require men of different dispositions or humors. Fabius Maximus (the Delayer) was by nature cautious, and hence was suited to the war against Hannibal in its early phase, when caution was needed. Scipio, on the other hand, was suited

99

to that war in its later phase, when boldness was needed. “Because Rome was a republic, it could make use of each man as the times required; had Fabius been king, Rome might easily have lost that war. Thus a republic enjoys longer life and more good fortune than a principality”.³⁹⁴

Machiavelli warns that; “…the founders of new states should resist turning themselves into tyrants, for instead of winning fame, glory, security, tranquillity and peace of mind, they gain instead only infamy, scorn, abhorrence, danger and disquiet”.³⁹⁵ The wise ruler recognizes the importance of prudence and self-restraint. “It cannot be called prowess to kill fellow citizens, to betray friends, to be treacherous, pitiless, and irreligious. These ways can win a prince power but not glory.‟³⁹⁶ This is contradicted by the virtues that define rule which are noted in chapter fifteen of the Prince. Machiavelli takes a stern view of this. At the start of the chapter he details a list of good and bad traits that characterise rulers; “it will be found that something which looks like virtue, if followed, would be his ruin; whilst something else, which looks like vice, yet followed brings him security and prosperity.”³⁹⁷ Machiavelli makes the point that if a sound society can be built from conquest and cruelty, then it must not be evaded. Essentially, when times are good you can afford to be virtuous, when times are bad cruelty is a political necessity.

Despite the evident superiority of republics, a prince, however enlightened, cannot be counted upon to establish one. Romulus prepared the ground for a vivere libero by creating a senate, but still established a monarchy rather than a republic.³⁹⁸ It is not reasonable to expect that a prince would ever voluntarily relinquish authority for himself and his children, or, even if he should do so, that his children would accept his decision. A prince may be indispensable for reordering a corrupt city, for crushing the insolence of the grandi, for establishing the rule of law. But once these tasks have been accomplished, he is no longer necessary to the same degree and even becomes an obstacle to further progress. If one

100

wishes to establish a republic, the prince and his heirs will have to be removed, and in most cases they will have to be removed by force. This helps explain why by far the longest chapter of the Discourses is the one devoted to conspiracies, and chiefly to conspiracies against princes.³⁹⁹ Suffices that, while republics and princes are in some ways natural enemies, in other ways republics need princes. Those who know how to found and maintain a republic, or how to create new orders, may usefully be described as princes. Thus Machiavelli can speak of the princes of a republic (i principi d‟una republica)⁴⁰⁰. It seems that if we want to understand republics, we have to understand princes, too, which suggests that the Discourses should not be read in isolation from the Prince.