Political Parties: Machiavelli

Political parties have a profound effect on our lives. Parties in government determine our taxes, wars, social programs and individual liberties. Yet I have found surprisingly little written about political parties as a social phenomenon. There are some scholars who argue that political parties are just harmful interest groups. Another scholar argues that political parties are helpful, because they promote compromise. In my view, the most insightful analysis of political parties was that of Niccolo Machiavelli.

Machiavelli’s name has long been associated with political manipulation, deception and trickery. But, in today’s world, he could be the “political advisor” to the President. ;) What impresses me are the following observations contained in his most famous works, The Prince and The Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius:

[from The Prince, CHAPTER IX]
But coming to the other point—where a leading citizen becomes the prince of his country, not by wickedness or any intolerable violence, but by the favour of his fellow citizens—this may be called a civil principality: nor is genius or fortune altogether necessary to attain to it, but rather a happy shrewdness. I say then that such a principality is obtained either by the favour of the people or by the favour of the nobles. Because in all cities these two distinct parties are found, and from this it arises that the people do not wish to be ruled nor oppressed by the nobles, and the nobles wish to rule and oppress the people; and from these two opposite desires there arises in cities one of three results, either a principality, self-government, or anarchy.

[from Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius, CHAPTER IV.]
I cannot indeed deny that the good fortune and the armies of Rome were the causes of her empire; yet it certainly seems to me that those holding this opinion fail to perceive, that in a State where there are good soldiers there must be good order, and, generally speaking, good fortune. And looking to the other circumstances of this city, I affirm that those who condemn these dissensions between the nobles and the commons, condemn what was the prime cause of Rome becoming free; and give more heed to the tumult and uproar wherewith these dissensions were attended, than to the good results which followed from them; not reflecting that while in every republic there are two conflicting factions, that of the people and that of the nobles, it is in this conflict that all laws favourable to freedom have their origin, as may readily be seen to have been the case in Rome. http://www.gutenberg.org

The parties which Machiavelli describes as “the faction of the nobles” and “the faction of the people” I would call “authoritarian “ and “democratic”. Looking around at the world’s democracies, it does appear that they each have two major parties, e.g., Republican and Democratic in the USA, LDP and DPJ in Japan, and CDU and SDP in Germany. In each case, one party represents authoritarian interests and the other represents democratic interests.

It’s true, therefore, that these political parties represent different interest groups. They represent the interests of citizens with conflicting worldviews, agendas, and objectives. The fact that they meet in a legislative setting does give them an opportunity to work out their differences. But even if they cannot work out their differences, it is far better that they clash in a legislature than clash on the streets.