THE GLORY OF REPUBLICAN LIBERTY:

Discourses is so named because it is Machiavelli's commentary on Titus Livius's monumental History of Rome. Machiavelli uses the Discourses and Rome's ancient history to derive enduring lessons for the practice of politics. The book is consistent with the Renaissance method in that it looks to the ancient world to recover lost wisdom and inspire new truths.

Machiavelli's motivation for writing the book is clear. He wanted to understand how Rome rose from a small city-state on the Tiber River to dominate the entire Mediterranean basin. The Italian city-states of his time were weak and preyed upon by larger powers. There was a time, however, when an Italian state was great. What was the secret to its success?

Machiavelli's answer is straightforward. Rome achieved glory due to its republican form of government. His review of history leads him to conclude that democracies are better able than autocracies to harness the energy of a broad cross-section of society toward national greatness. He explains (in a 2007 edition of his writings translated by Peter Constantine): "We have seen from experience that states have grown in land and wealth only if they are free: the greatness that Athens achieved within a century of liberating itself from the tyranny of Pisistratus is astonishing and even more astonishing the greatness that Rome achieved after it freed itself from its kings."

For Machiavelli, it comes down to the "pursuit of the public interest, not private interest. ... The opposite occurs when there is a prince because more often than not what he does in his own interest will harm the city and what he does for the city will harm his interests."

Machiavelli was not making an argument about the morality or wisdom of democratic or autocratic leaders--he knew better than anyone that humans are not angels--but of institutional constraints. Democratic leaders often want to exploit their position, but they will be constrained by laws, institutions, and other branches of government. Dictators may want to be magnanimous, but since there is little standing in their way, they will always be tempted to maximize their own well-being at the expense of the nation.

Despite Machiavelli's claims, and democracies' stellar performances over the ages, some still argue that China's model is superior. They argue that the Chinese Communist Party has an advantage because it can pursue steady, long-term strategies, whereas the United States cannot look past the next election and zigzags with each new administration.

Machiavelli would disagree, again pointing to institutional differences. He argues that the checks and balances in a democracy keep a country on a stable course, whereas unconstrained dictators take countries in an extreme direction and, when they change their minds, back again. He writes, "I therefore disagree with the common opinion that a populace in power is unstable and changeable." On the contrary, he argued, "The prince ... unchecked by laws will be more unstable and imprudent than a populace."

Tweet   @brothersjudd