Machiavelli: A Political Scientist or Not?

This essay reflects on whether Machiavelli was a political scientist or not using relevant evidences and case materials. The arguments are done on the basis of the definition of political science and assessments are conducted to rely on the fact that can the prince be a work of political science or not. Lastly, the usage of prince is done to defend all the other arguments so made.

RENAISSANCE & REFORMATION
UNITED STATES
[DATE]
[Company name]
[Company address]

In this essay all the relevant information regarding Machiavelli would be reflected and the
question whether he was a political scientist or not will be answered using relevant evidences
and case materials. Next the arguments will be done on the basis of the so made definition of
political science and then the assessments would be conducted to rely on the fact that can the
prince be a work of political science or not. Lastly usage of prince will be done to defending all
the other arguments so made.
Political science is considered as that branch of social science which can study the state, politics
and also the government. It can extensively deal with the analysis of the political systems, the
theatrical as well as the examination of the political behaviors. Machiavelli was considered as the
first thinker who lend a helping hand to free up the political science or its other theories from the
clutches of religions and morality. His major concern was to attain the power and interest in the
policies of the State. It is the prince who would be primarily concerned for protecting the interest
of the State form the particular government in the general (Thomas).
R. N. Berki, was the one who was supporting Machiavelli’s definition or thought regarding the
political science. He exceptionally spoke and also wrote different clinical studies relating to the
similar issue i.e. the usage of violence and deception in politics. The other reasons which can
support the fact that Machiavelli was the true political scientist are as firstly that he supported the
nation and the state, he believed that both the parts i.e. nation and state must be united. Secondly
he also believed in the fact that laws are not divine, they are made by the humans so they may
armed its merits and demerits in accord with their needs (Carta).
Third reason behind it was that he wanted to attain a modern nature for all the states, where all
the individuals must perform their duties with adequate care and the state must protect their
rights. Fourth point focuses on the differentiation of the religion and the politics because

according to him the religions and politics cannot go along with each other. Further he was also a
strong supporter of sovereignty and lastly he also believed in power of the politics. According to
him it is very important to have power which may be of money or strength. Further he said that
the king must be fearless and must implement its power only at the time of urgency. The main
reason behind his being called up as the realistic thinker was that he believed in power as the
ultimate factor which cannot be ignored (Fuller).
But the answer to the question that whether Machiavelli was a political thinker can have two
possible meanings first one is that was Machiavelli known as contrasting to indefinite as a
political thinker and the second one could be that was Machiavelli known as a political thinker as
opposite to something else? (Scott). Then the best possible answer to the first question can be yes
he was a well-known political thinker but this was not during his lifetime because all the works
done by him and the theories implemented by him were published or came before the public after
his death. The second question seems to be a bit confusing one as here the politics was
distinguished from the domains which were made or formulated by Aristottle and according to
that it was determined that there could not be any individual who could be regarded as a
specialist in the stream of politics.
Thoughts and theories of Machiavelli was criticized by the politicians like Plato, Aristottle and
also Cicerio (Petrina). They had focused on the virtues that the rulers that are considered as
different from that of others. In the argument which emphasized upon the prince, Machiavelli
said that the prince must follow a virtue which has to be very creative and that to in a sense that
the prince could have that amount of power that he could maintain the State and fight with all its
enemies. It could therefore be held up in a way that the term virtue so used by Machiavelli
cannot be held up in controversies (Hulliung). The major reason behind this was that it is the

supreme duty of the prince to maintain the utility and peace in its state and bring it under the best
administration, where the demands of the people would not be oppressed or exploited. Looking
after its state is considered as the basic or the primary duty of the ruler i.e. the prince and if he
fails to comply with the same then he would be declared as unfit to be called up as a prince.
Neither a failure prince can demand for the obligations of objects from its subjects ( Joseph
Romance, Simon and Riemer).
But the view point of Machiavelli was rejected or completely ignored by Plato, Aristottle as
according to them there can be no end towards the services which could be provided to the State.
Machiavelli had completely ignored the facts relating to the justice, good lives, freedom or God.
He believed that all the powers of the State ends up within the prince and declared all the others
as his subjects. Having power was an end for him and all his duties were confined around it only.
But these facts were completely ignored by the other politicians ( Joseph Romance, Simon and
Riemer).
Machiavelli’s political ideas revolved around Absolutism i.e. separation conducted between
religion, morality and politics. Which were opposed by Sabine as he focused on free cities which
were largely depending upon the civilizations. Machiavelli was called as the child of
Renaissance by most of the western politicians. One of the most essential aspect of Renaissance
was that the man could judge everything and especially politics (Brenton)
Thus to conclude with the above it can be said that Machiavelli was considered as the political
scientist but it was not during his life time he got this position after his death.

Bibliography
Joseph Romance, Romance, Douglas W. Simon and Neal Riemer. The Challenge of Politics: An
Introduction to Political Science. Washington, DC: SAGE, 2018. Book.
Brenton, Tony. The greening of Machiavelli: the evolution of international environmental
politics. London: Routledge, 2019. Book.
Carta, Caterina. . "Gramsci and The Prince: Taking Machiavelli outside the realist courtyard?."
Review of International Studies (2017): 345-366. Journal.
Fuller, Timothy,. Machiavelli's Legacy:" The Prince" After Five Hundred Years. Pennsylvania:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016. Book.
Hulliung, Mark. Citizen Machiavelli. London: Routledge, 2017. Book.
Petrina, Alessandra. Machiavelli in the British isles: Two early modern translations of the
Prince. London: Routledge, 2016. Book.
Scott, John T. The Routledge Guidebook to Machiavelli's The Prince. London: Routledge, 2016.
Book.
Thomas, Peter D. "The Modern Prince: Gramsci's Reading of Machiavelli." History of Political
Thought (2017): 523-544. Journal.