Political Theory Papers S - Z

Rodney Smith

University of Sydney

Imagining Australian Republics and Other Institutional Alternatives: Executives and Parliaments in Recent Australian Literary Fiction

Abstract: Works of fiction provide particular opportunities to imagine how familiar political institutions might work if some of their key features were altered. The three Australian works of literary fiction under consideration here—Rodney Hall’s Kisses of the Enemy, Sandra Shotlander’s Angels of Power and Camilla Nelson’s Perverse Acts—focus heavily on the politics of Australian executives and parliaments. In Hall’s novel, an Australian republic is headed by an elected president whose power diminishes that of parliament. Nelson’s novel depicts an Australian republic with a ceremonial President and a government that must build coalitions of support among the many small parties represented in parliament. Shotlander’s play imagines the ways in which female MPs might subvert party discipline in an Australian parliament. These three works suggest different degrees of optimism about Australian political institutions and their reform. Hall portrays his republic as corrupted from birth by the power of international capital. Nelson and Shotlander, who both focus primarily on gender, sexuality and reproduction, ultimately suggest more positive possibilities from their imagined political institutions.

Australian debate on a possible republic in the late 1990s inspired an outpouring of writing from republicans and constitutional monarchists. Almost none of it took the form of novels, poetry, plays or short stories. None of the delegates to the 1998 Constitutional Convention was a writer of literary fiction. Although the republican and monarchist causes had supporters from the literary world like Tom Keneally and Clive James, such writers did not use their fictional talents for their causes.

This absence impoverished the republic debate, since works of fiction provide particular opportunities to imagine how familiar political institutions might work if some of their key features were altered. Contemporary Australian authors have not always shied away from such an imaginative exercises. The three works of literary fiction discussed in this paper—Rodney Hall’s Kisses of the Enemy (1987), Sandra Shotlander’s Angels of Power (1991) and Camilla Nelson’s Perverse Acts (1998)—focus heavily on the politics of Australian executives and parliaments. Viewing institutional politics from different perspectives, they suggest varying degrees of optimism about Australian political institutions and their reform.

Rodney Hall’s Kisses of the Enemy (1987) is a rich novel of many layers and stories. Its central political story begins with the success of the 1992 Republic Referendum and the election in 1993 of Bernard Buchanan, a real estate developer, as the Republic’s first President. Buchanan’s selection as candidate and his campaign are organised by the political minder Luigi Squarcia and business leader William Penhallurick. Both Squarcia and Penhallurick in turn work on behalf of IFID (Interim Freeholdings Incorporated of Delaware) a shadowy multinational corporation. IFID has worldwide strategic interests that include the Paringa military and communications base in Australia.

The Republic is marked by growing authoritarianism, military control and social squalor. It is punctuated by disasters, such as the tidal wave that smashes into Eden as a result of IFID experiments with gravitational weaponry. Buchanan grows hugely corpulent and fearful of real and imagined enemies. While he has opponents within the political elite, his position remains safe as long as he retains IFID’s support. Resistance to Buchanan and IFID comes from a guerrilla group led by Peter Taverner (‘the Wild Dog’).

Tensions between Buchanan and IFID grow. Buchanan attempts to govern alone, leaving the power to issue a licence required by IFID solely in his hands. Buchanan is eventually brought down from a different quarter, during nationally televised divorce proceedings initiated by his wife Dorina. At the novel’s close, new presidential elections are under way, with a new unsuspecting front candidate for IFID the likely winner.

The Executive President in Hall’s Republic

Kisses of the Enemy is part of a long line of Australian dystopian novels (see Sargent 1999). It depicts the development of Australian political institutions under a directly elected President in nightmarishly authoritarian terms. Hall’s novel anticipates many of the fears expressed by opponents of a direct election model in Australian republican debates during the 1990s. Prime Minister Paul Keating (1995, 10-11), for example, argued: ‘With a popularly elected President, potential would exist for the representative and democratically elected parliamentary chambers … to be gradually diminished, while the embodiment of the nation and great powers were vested in one person’. The President would have ‘… an authority unheard of in our political system and discordant with some of the basic principles on which that system rests’ (Keating 1995, 11). The President would be a party political figure elected only after a political campaign (Keating 1995, 11). Hall himself briefly makes similar points in his recent constitutional reform pamphlet Abolish the States! (1998, 64-5).

In Kisses of the Enemy, the first presidential election is indeed contested by candidates from the major political parties. Roscoe Plenty MP is the candidate of the Nationals, a successor party to the Liberals (36, 49). Darryl Robinson, the parliamentary leader of the ALP, also contests the presidency (35-6). Winning candidate Bernard Buchanan is an unknown whose slogan is ‘An Independent for Independence’ (13, 17-18, 74); however, he is only elected after a campaign backed by business and the media and slickly orchestrated by Luigi Squarcia (61-5, 80-9).

Although Hall nowhere systematically spells out the formal powers of the new President, he gives early hints of significant executive powers to supercede those of parliamentary Ministers. Judge Mack notes with trepidation that a President will represent a ‘change of government’, with power to appoint High Court Justices (92). On his election, Buchanan gives a triumphant two hour speech to the nation announcing policies on everything from education to migration to fertility (128-34). He immediately begins making government appointments (134).

Buchanan’s powers increase as his presidency progresses. While Parliament continues, Buchanan’s presidential power reduces it to the ineffectual rubber stamp routinely depicted in Australian political science texts (see, for example, Jaensch 1986). Buchanan can veto decisions of the Parliament (143), intervene via television in parliamentary debates and set the dates for parliamentary elections (161). He eventually abolishes Question Time (526) and moves to dismiss Parliament itself via his Emergency Special Powers Act (530). Parliament is not an institution capable of resisting Buchanan, in part because the parliamentary parties have splintered into thirteen warring groups and in part because of the extent of the powers apparently ceded to the President (161). Rather than a US-style balancing of powers between legislature and executive, in Hall’s republic the presidential powers simply overwhelm Parliament.

The President appoints ministers to his Executive Council. While some are Members of Parliament, Buchanan draws others from outside parliamentary ranks (162-3). In any case, ministers such as Roscoe Plenty who are also MPs rely for their positions on Buchanan rather than the support of the Parliament. Plenty becomes Buchanan’s Treasurer and then Chief Minister (162-3, 171). Buchanan makes Owen Powell his Minister for Internal Security, creates for him the positions of Personal Deputy and then Acting Vice President, before finally dispatching him to a psychiatric hospital for disloyalty (344, 379, 579).

Buchanan’s power initially rests largely on popular acclaim, albeit acclaim partly manufactured by a news media serving IFID’s agenda (97). After two election wins, however, he loses touch with the people and increasingly rules by force. Paramilitary ‘Watchdogs’ begin patrols across the country when the population begins ‘to have doubts’ and ‘become restless’ at the deteriorating economic situation (171). Buchanan’s broadcasts to the nation become defensive rather than ebullient (368-9). Facing defeat at a third election, Buchanan attempts to stave off the election ‘indefinitely’ and rule by emergency law, a plan backed by his Executive Council (462-67).

Hall symbolises and satirises the growth of Buchanan’s presidential power by having his body swell to grotesquely impossible proportions. Already ‘immoderately fat’ when chosen as a presidential candidate (18), Buchanan becomes progressively larger and heavier while President, eventually reaching 276 kilograms (90-1, 103, 128, 143, 461). Unable to walk, reach his stomach or bathe himself, he needs a growing crew of bearers to carry him around (165-6, 174, 422-5, 515). Acting Vice President Powell also grows fat after his appointment (379).

Buchanan identifies himself as the state (369, 480). He literally embodies the growth, corruption, immobilisation and decline of his regime. As challenges against his rule mount from IFID and the Wild Dog’s guerrillas, Buchanan begins to lose weight for the first time in eight years and starts to shed hair (461, 486, 490, 566). Mice gnaw at his body and make nests in it. Unable to remove the mice himself, he cannot risk the public humiliation of asking others to help him. He is forced to pretend that the mice, like the disasters and privations in Australia during his presidency, simply do not exist (515, 575).

Read for its depiction of institutional politics, Kisses of the Enemy specifically satirises and warns against the dangers of a powerful directly elected President. Squarcia orchestrates the ‘Yes’ campaign at the republican referendum, suggesting IFID may find it easier to manipulate a presidential system than a parliamentary one (3-8). On another level, however, the novel suggests that whatever formal political institutions are in place, the power of international capital will undermine democracy or use it as a facade for its power.

Real Power in Kisses of the Enemy

International capital is represented in the novel by IFID. IFID’s power in Australian domestic politics is clandestine, detailed and overwhelming. It can sabotage the cars of Buchanan and Taverner in the desert and then organise their rescue when they are on the point of death (31-4, 36-49, 50-3). It can manipulate media coverage of events and organise election wins and losses (127-8). It builds up considerable ownership of Australian assets until it is poised for a 100 percent takeover (435, 590). It protects its international interests with military force, acting on parity with the superpower states (423). The Paringa base in Australian is to be central to its world security system (289).

Real power is exercised on and in Australia from elsewhere. Squarcia and Penhallurick are from Europe (58-61, 123-7), while IFID is nominally based in the USA (594). The novel occasionally draws explicit parallels between IFID’s manipulation and alleged CIA involvement in the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in 1975. These references have led some critics to treat IFID as a fictionalised arm of the CIA or as specifically American (see, for example, Edwards 1989). Hall’s novel does not, however, straightforwardly identify IFID with any particular international agency or power. While Squarcia and Penhallurick represent IFID in Australia, they are not powerful figures within the organisation as a whole. IFID is global. It is not bound to US state interests or policies and acts independently of them (423). The US state, like its Australian counterpart, has been largely sold off to private interests (441).

The centre of power within IFID is never revealed and, as a debate over the nature of power between Buchanan and Squarcia suggests, may not exist (480). Such a view of power seems to have confounded critics who want an ultimate power to be clearly personified in an Orwellian Big Brother or string pulling elite. Hall’s depiction of IFID suggests instead that even apparently powerful individuals like Penhallurick are constrained and that the strongest power is exercised by impersonal international economic structures.

Sources of Resistance

IFID relies on the legitimacy of apparently open and democratic institutions and processes to disguise its power and interests. It cannot openly flout United Nations decisions; nor can it be seen to override Australian democratic processes (505). This need for democratic appearances is what makes Buchanan’s plan to abolish elections so unacceptable for IFID (503, 529-30, 565-6).

IFID’s need for a democratically elected President gives Buchanan some capacity to resist its power. He is not, contrary to the views of some critics, IFID’s ‘helpless tool’ (Gelder and Salzman 1989, 258). Buchanan from the outset considers himself his own man and the presidency a natural extension of his talents (61-5). He attempts to drive to Paringa to find out more about IFID’s plans. He remains oblivious to IFID’s warning--the sabotaging of his car in the desert--that he has overstepped the mark. He cuts across Squarcia’s plans for his election campaign where he can. In office, he continues to resist elements of IFID’s plans. Buchanan can do this, and IFID must be ‘patient of his eccentricities’ (530), only while he is electorally successful. Buchanan’s exuberant populist nationalism buoys him along for some time. When his popularity wanes, however, he is unable to resist. He becomes expendable for IFID, while the democratic trappings of his office remain vital to them.

In Kisses of the Enemy, the strongest sources of resistance come from outside formal political institutions. Hall’s broadest political theme is that the struggle for power in Australia is between colonising forces that want to reinvent Australia for their purposes and the resistance that the land and its people can offer by remaining alien and unknown. The same theme runs through Hall’s Island in the Mind trilogy (1996), which deals with early European contact with Australia, as well as his Yandilli trilogy set in the colonial period (1994; see also Hall 2001).

Hall has an ambivalent approach to the political potential of the Australian people. On the one hand, they are unable to see the corruption in their political system and society. On the other, resistance emerges from a wide range of Australian people, including Taverner, Buchanan’s wife Dorina, the ghost of Sir George Gipps, Mama, an old Japanese prostitute and the imprisoned and ethnically diverse ‘Friends of Privilege’.

Finally, in a metafictional comment on his novel, Hall makes art archetypical Australian central to the undoing of President Buchanan (see Gelder and Salzman 1989, 259). Lavinia Manciewizc’s painting of Buchanan travesties the conventions of official portraiture, showing him scowling drunkenly, ‘… lying on his back naked as a newt, gross tummy doming almost to the upper edge of the frame, and broken glass all around him …’ (592). When it is revealed on national television during Dorina’s divorce proceedings against him, Buchanan is laughed out of office (593).

Literary Techniques and the Politics of Kisses of the Enemy

Hall combines a wide range of literary styles and techniques in Kisses of the Enemy. As other commentators have noted, these include realism, surrealism, magic realism, satire, parody and a constant profusion of poetic imagery.

Hall’s controlled use of these techniques underpin the politics of the novel, particularly in the way they help to establish attitudes to the characters. Taverner is present almost solely in realist passages, for example, while surreal elements are almost always present in the passages in which Buchanan and other members of the political elite appear. Taverner’s visceral opposition to the regime is sympathetically portrayed, while the machinations of Buchanan, Squarcia and others in the elite occur in a surreal, exaggerated world. This surreal quality does not suggest that elite politics has no effects on the wider population or is a game with no consequences for its players. The effects of politics on wider Australia are amply described, while the political elite themselves fall prey to dangerous traps. The surreal atmosphere does, however, mean that it is impossible to sympathise with these political figures or to see politics as anything but a nightmare world.

A similar distinction occurs in Hall’s use of satire. Taverner, Dorina and other resisters are drawn in largely naturalistic terms. Non-naturalistic elements in their depiction--such as Dorina’s ability to hear music in almost everything or Taverner’s apparently superhuman strength--are comparatively restrained and not presented satirically. The political elite, on the other hand, constantly bears the marks of satire. Buchanan is grossly fat, Penhallurick is dwarf-like, leering and scrofulous and Robinson is reptilian. It thus seems important that when ordinary Australians participate as a mass in politics in the novel—principally by voting—Hall shifts his tone to satirise their simple political enthusiasms. This shift in tone signals the inability of most Australians to see through authoritarianism disguised as presidential democracy.

Camilla Nelson’s comic novel Perverse Acts (1998) is set in the Australian Parliament and deals with political machinations in a future republic. The narrative is related in turn by Venus and M. M is a young male Member of the House of Representatives who quickly becomes a Parliamentary Secretary and then a Cabinet Minister. His plans to become Prime Minister are eventually thwarted by Lucretia, the only female MP in ‘the Party’ and a member of a rival faction. Venus is an ambitious ministerial staffer who works for several ministers, including M, with whom she has a sexual relationship. When Lucretia wins, Venus transfers to her staff.

Until Lucretia’s leadership bid, the government has steadily lost ground in the electorate. Part of the cause of this growing unpopularity is the government’s attempt to get its Freedom from Government Bill, an advanced privatisation measure, through the Senate. There it needs the support of the Reverend Warren Weedon’s Circle of Light Party. The price for Weedon’s support is a growing list of legal restrictions on sex and fertility, beginning with a debate on his Single Mothers Obliteration Bill, which would force unmarried pregnant women to have abortions, then support for an amendment to prevent single women and lesbians from accessing IVF, and finally a law to force ‘single women to become born-again virgins’ (243). Lucretia’s popularity as challenger for the prime ministership is boosted by her opposition to the deals between the Government and Weedon and is undiminished when she outs herself as a lesbian.

Nelson’s Minimalist Republic

In contrast to Hall’s republican Australia, Nelson’s Republic seems to be based on the minimalist model, particularly with regard to the powers of the President. Presidents have simply replaced Governors-General. The presidents have been ‘(a)ll small talk, lecherous looks and no substance’ (4). The incumbent President remains unnamed and hardly appears throughout the novel. He is ensconced in the old vice regal house at Yarralumla, where his official duties seem limited to swearing in new ministers.

Political power in Nelson’s republican Australia remains firmly centred on the Prime Minister and Cabinet and their ministerial and public service advisers. The major legislative challenge for governments is still to steer bills through Parliament, hence the importance of Weedon’s Circle of Light. The Republic (or later constitutional amendment) has changed some institutions--federalism has been done away with, and the High Court’s independence removed (14, 80-1, 86)--but these developments are only mentioned in passing. They have no bearing on the activities of governing, which take place almost entirely within Parliament House.

If the institutional shape of politics in Nelson’s future Republic is a recognisable extension of the current Australian pattern, so are the new Republic’s public policies (see Wark 1999). The Government’s ‘National Liquidation Program’ means the privatisation of almost every remaining public service and asset, including the justice system (13-14, 31, 149, 177). Its ‘Get Rich Quick’ taxation package is deliberately regressive, to reward productive citizens and punish the unproductive (17). Health policy favours wealthy patients (177). Companies self-assess their impact on the environment (109). All government spending is targeted on marginal electorates (34). Venus explains, ‘(Y)ou take the money away from the people who need it and you give it back to the people we need’ (110). In Perverse Acts, the diminishing of the Australian state stems from deliberately applied government policies, rather than unforeseen institutional results of the change to an Australian republic.

Parliamentary and Executive Politics as a Game

Venus presents executive and parliamentary politics as an open-ended game. Her final words--the closing words of the novel--indicate that although M has been defeated, ‘I know he’ll be back. Because the game never ends. The game keeps going and going and going. And then the fun begins’ (252). Earlier in the novel, explaining the role of ministerial staffers, Venus confides to the reader, ‘I’m the one who sits outside the meeting rooms where the politicians play but without me they would have nothing to play at. Without me, there wouldn’t be a game’ (30-1).

Staffers like Venus may be powerful players in the political game; however, there are other players, including ministers, backbenchers, senior public servants and journalists. Perverse Acts depicts a political game taking place at several levels simultaneously. These include contests between the political parties over legislation, public support and control of the government benches, contests between factions within the Party over the same prizes as well as over internal party positions and funds, and contests over positions and power between individual politicians.

The contest between the parties over legislation foregrounds the arena of Parliament. Although Government Ministers like M can afford to treat the Opposition dismissively in the House of Representatives, where the Party holds a slim majority (2, 175-6), in the Senate the Government must deal with minor parties to get its legislation through. Which minor parties become central to these deals depends on the attitudes of each of the others. Weedon becomes a key player because the other minor parties--including the wonderfully named ‘Australia Lost’, ‘Australia Regained’ and ‘Women Against Women Against Australian Motherhood’ (15)--reject any compromise deal on the Freedom from Government Bill. These rejections leave the Circle of Light’s fundamentalist Christian agenda pivotal to the success of the Government’s bill in the Senate (19, 118-9, 231, 243).

The parties also compete in the electorate. Venus’s duties include overseeing ‘Private Polling’, which feeds back ‘enough information’ on individual voters ‘to identify marginal streets, let alone marginal electorates’ (33; see also 109, 221-2). She is also working on a redistribution that will allow the Party to retain office with as little as 42.5 percent of the vote (7, 20, 109). The Party will resort to any tactic to win elections. When its candidate looks like losing a by-election because the Party is unpopular, M suggests that the candidate be disendorsed and win the seat as an independent before rejoining the Party in Parliament. The plan works (221-7).

The game between the factions is, if anything, more important in the novel than the contest between the parties. The Party, in the traditions of the current Liberal Party, outwardly denies the existence of factions while internally engaging in often bitter faction fights (see Collins 2000, especially Ch. 6). Venus observes that the Circle of Light began as a Party faction: ‘Did I say faction? Excuse me, I meant forum’ (119). M works to hold and increase the power of ‘the Faction’ within the Party against the opposing faction, the ‘Arrangement’ (161). The Prime Minister for most of the novel is a compromise candidate agreed to by the factions. His decreasing hold on power opens up a covert factional war for the leadership (95).

The final, and perhaps most important level of politics as a game in Perverse Acts is the competition between individual politicians. This contest intersects with the others outlined above. M’s standing, for example, increases when his plan wins ‘the unwinnable by-election’ (227). Keeping the Faction strong is a means to securing its leadership and ipso facto the Party leadership. M leaks information about Keith’s paedophilia to the media after he believes that Keith has betrayed the Faction in a deal with the Arrangement. With Keith’s suicide, one of M’s rivals is removed and the Faction is stronger. The Party’s public standing is weakened by the scandal but M believes that this gives him the opportunity to rescue it by firm leadership (62, 161, 183, 186-3).

Gender and sex underlie the political games in Perverse Acts. Women are almost entirely excluded from parliamentary candidacy by preselection hurdles (39). Parliament’s facilities are designed for men (131). It is a ‘boys club’, a culture defined by the nuances of the word ‘mate’ (6, 63, 134-5, 249). Apart from Lucretia, the women who appear in the novel are advisers or journalists (115, 84). The male rules of the political game are to keep Parliament a male-dominated space and use this domination for sexual conquest.

Sex and politics are interchangeable pursuits throughout the novel. This blurring of sex and politics is particularly marked in M (Best and Taylor 1998, 24-6). His belief in his sexual superiority, for example, is integral to his estimation of women’s political unsuitability: ‘Men are selected through ruthless and increasingly violent competition. The will to fertilise is the will to power. ... women are too emotional, too unreliable’ (239-40). M cannot take women seriously as sexual or political equals or superiors in the political game (see, for example, 99, 175), a failure that undoes his ambitions. Venus, far from seeing M as her sexual superior, finds him ‘no great catch’ and controls their sexual encounters (8-9). M’s belief in his political superiority blinds him to his reliance on Venus to write his speeches (9, 31, 77). His confidence that he can understand and therefore control women leaves him unable to counter Lucretia’s move for the leadership or Venus’s move to Lucretia. In the final twist to their relationship, an electoral redistribution designed by Venus costs M his seat (252).

Literary Techniques and the Politics of Perverse Acts

Perverse Acts is not as complex a work as Kisses of the Enemy; however, Nelson does employ a range of literary techniques. This section focuses on two of these, since they seem the most important to understanding the politics of the novel. The two techniques are allusions to Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince and the use of satire and parody.

There are several direct and indirect references to Machiavelli in Perverse Acts. Machiavelli’s Prince (1975) is a book of practical political advice with which Machiavelli hoped to regain government employment; Venus lives on the quality of the political advice she furnishes to the princes of Australia’s national government. The names of two central characters also allude to Machiavelli. M may stand for a number of things, including Mars, sexually linked to Venus in classical western mythology. The titles to the chapters written in M’s voice—‘The Life and Times of Machiavelli’ and ‘Il Magnifico’—suggest M first as Machiavelli and then as the Florentine ruler Lorenzo de Medici, to whom Machiavelli addressed The Prince (1975, 29). Lucretia recalls Lucrezia Borgia (see 64), sister of the Cesare Borgia whom Machiavelli often takes as an example in The Prince (see, for example, 1975, Ch VII).

One of the most famous passages from The Prince is reproduced at the beginning of Nelson’s novel: ‘The fact is that a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous. Therefore if a prince wants to maintain his rule he must learn how not to be virtuous, and to make use of this or not according to need’ (see Machiavelli 1975, 91). The characters in Perverse Acts mostly relish this apparently amoral approach to political life.

Before Perverse Acts is seen as celebrating politics as an amoral game, Nelson’s use of parody and satire should be considered. Nelson’s detailed depiction of parliamentary, ministerial and party processes allows her much more room for specific parodying of Australian political language and procedures than is possible in Hall’s broader and less institutionally focused satire. The words of Australian politicians like Paul Keating are transplanted to new contexts for comic effect (see, for example, 182, 226). The behaviour and body language of some recent Australian government ministers are also satirised (see, for example, 16-19). The formal language of parliamentary procedure is comically juxtaposed against M’s sexual fantasies (77-8).

The satire throughout the novel works on two broad levels. On the first, the targets of satire are all the trappings of Australian politics--formal parliamentary procedures, campaign promises, policy positions, statements of principle and the like--that obscure the fact that politics operates as a sexual cum power game for the pleasure of its players. On the second level, the idea that politics should be accepted as no more than this sort of game is also satirised. The joke on those who accept this idea is parliamentarians like M.

It is worth recalling in this context that for Machiavelli, politics was not a game. His advice to the prince was directed toward achieving a strong, stable Italian state. Almost none of the political players in Perverse Acts have this kind of end in mind. Under their rule, Australia is in rapid decline (246-7). The possible exception is Lucretia. Her ascent to the prime ministership at the close of the novel is not a victory of naively virtuous politics. The Party chooses her only after Venus has sabotaged M’s campaign (248). Among Lucretia’s first acts as leader is a new compromise deal with Weedon (252). Nonetheless, throughout the novel she is presented as a parliamentarian who has not lost sight of the ends that political manoeuvring should serve. In this sense, Perverse Acts suggests the positive as well as negative potential of parliamentary and executive politics (see Best and Taylor 1998, 29).

Sandra Shotlander’s play Angels of Power (1991) does not imagine an Australian Republic but imagines the political reforms that might occur were women parliamentarians to unite across party lines. The play focuses on three women: Mary Madres, an experienced backbench member of the governing left party; Thena, a counterpart in the right wing Opposition; and Diana Hunt, a new green independent MP. In the opening scenes, Diana is trying to use her pivotal vote on the parliamentary Environmental Impact Committee to prevent wood-chipping in Pennington Forest.

Party discipline initially pits the three women against each other. Thena discovers that Diana’s father has put shares in the wood-chipping company Jove Industries in Diana’s name. Thena uses this information to attack her integrity in Parliament. Diana’s spirited defence and refusal to resign from the committee make her a national hero.

Meanwhile, Mary discovers that Thomas, one of her twin sons and a reproductive technology experimenter, has tricked his wife Marta into carrying an embryo engineered from his dead twin Jesus’ sperm and his dead mistress Helen’s egg. Mary begins a campaign to legislate against such experimentation, which draws together Diana and Thena. They build a national movement outside Parliament and a cross-party coalition among parliamentarians behind their legislation. Despite the opposition of the male leaders of the parties and reproductive technology laboratories, the legislation passes. At the end of the play, Mary is assassinated but Thena and Diana pledge to continue their newfound unity.

Parliament as Male Space

Like Perverse Acts, Angels of Power emphasises Parliament as a male space. There are more women in Shotlander’s Parliament. In fact, numerically there are enough to affect the outcome of legislation (51). Nonetheless, they encounter similar barriers to meaningful participation to those faced by Lucretia. The building and its dress codes work against women. Diana’s office is small and continually changes location, forcing her to work in the corridors. She falls over walking around the building in high heels (3). The language of male MPs defines women as childish or sexually available (5-6, 25). Formal procedures are used against women, as when Diana is shut out of a room for a crucial vote (6).

The limited roles for women parliamentarians are defined by the needs of male-led parties. Mary and Thena are both overlooked for frontbench posts in favour of men (46, 56). Davies instructs Thena to befriend Diana to get compromising information on her past (16-17). Mary says she ‘sit(s) demurely on the back bench …. Occasionally I’m asked to intercede. "Mary get through to the man at the top. Mary put in a word’ (9). In the Prime Minister’s view, Mary has been ‘an excellent backbencher’, in that he has ‘forgotten her existence’ (56). Within the logic of the disciplined male-led party competition in Parliament, female MPs can respond only either with resigned disengagement (Mary) or by actively conforming to their party’s strategies (Thena).

Angels of Power suggests that these party strategies are organised around male competition for power. In this, parliamentary politics parallels the activities of the male reproductive technology researchers. For all their rhetoric of helping infertile people, the researchers’ real aim is competition for ‘fame’ and ‘power’ (22, 42). Just as Fennel topples Treddle for the leadership of Thena’s party (5, 38), so Thomas is banished to Bangladesh and his research stolen and published by Professor Bodie (36-7, 59). These competitions are ultimately meaningless—‘… (W)hat does it matter whether we have a man with a weak heart and lack of charisma replaced by another with a huge belly and hideous ego’ (38)—because the men engaged in them do not question the directions in which their science and politics are leading

Disrupting the Male Space

From the start of the play, women disrupt the male parliamentary space in a range of ways (Shotlander 1995, 238). Mary subverts the parliamentary dress codes that disable women by wearing sneakers (3; see Curb 1995, 92). Thena challenges her male colleague’s sexist language (5). Diana brings the wildness of protest action into the cool procedures of parliament (6). Much larger disruption occurs when the women unite around an anti-reproductive technology bill and party discipline collapses.

This collapse is not immediate. At the start of the play, Diana suggests to Mary that they should form a women’s party, without success (4, 9). Cooperation between Thena and Diana seems thwarted by Thena’s attack on Diana in the Parliament. Moreover, as Rosemary Curb (1995) points out, the three women have somewhat different feminist perspectives, with Mary a rights-oriented liberal feminist, Thena an ‘essentialist feminist’ and Diana a radical ecofeminist. To work together, the three women have to discover the common ground between their views and put past partisan-based oppositions behind them (38-9, 53). The latter task seems hardest for Thena and Diana. They are able to see beyond their previous conflict only after Mary schemes to bring them together and they find themselves talking through their past antagonisms while cooperating to ease the discomfort of the heavily pregnant Marta (45-51).

The women’s ‘truce’ and cooperation across party lines is mirrored in a more sinister way by the male leaders of the party. In the play’s final scene, the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader Fennel discuss whether to act against the women’s bill immediately after Mary’s assassination or wait ‘until the storm blows over’ (60). Their assumption that the unity between the female MPs is only temporary and that parliamentary politics will soon revert to its former pattern is contradicted by the closing words of the play, spoken by Diana: ‘Now we can begin’ (61). While Shotlander gives no indication of exactly how the new politics will work, the play concludes positively that the old male parliamentary and party politics have been fundamentally disrupted.

Literary Techniques and the Politics of Angels of Power

Shotlander’s use of literary techniques in Angels of Power derives partly from its form as a play. First, Shotlander is able to ‘disrupt’ the normal order of theatre and the expectations of audiences by having women characters fill he stage. While their are male characters in Angels of Power, unlike Mary, Diana, Thena and to a lesser extent Marta, they do not ‘propel the action’ (Shotlander in McKinnon 1992, 54). Second, Shotlander uses organ music for Mary, pipes for Diana and bouzouki for Thena throughout the play to reinforce their archetypical qualities (2). Music sometimes helps define male characters also, if in a more satirical way (7). Third, Shotlander makes use of the capacity of theatre to present multiple actions and voices simultaneously, creating quick juxtapositions and connections between different public and private arenas. Thus, for example, the calls for Diana to explain herself and resign come simultaneously from Thena in Parliament and reporters outside (27-9). In the final scenes of the play, public speeches and protest sounds are interspersed with discussions between the women protagonists in Mary’s living room. These later juxtapositions repeatedly disrupt the idea of a division between a public male world and a private female one (see Curb 1995, 97).

The other technique that seems important to the politics of the play is Shotlander’s use of archetypes to define the stances, motivations and styles of her central characters. These are, of course, the Christian virgin mother Mary, Diana the Roman virgin hunter god and the Greek virgin god of wisdom and war Athena. Apart from providing Shortlander with opportunity for a large number of intertextual jokes, these archetypes suggest a deep-rooted mythical basis for understanding the complementarity and eventual unity achieved by the three women MPs. All three are virgin gods and all can be seen as variants or parts of an ancient earth mother (Shotlander 1995, 239; Curb 1995).

Conclusion

The three works under consideration in this paper suggest different degrees of optimism about Australian political institutions and their reform. Hall and Nelson both see the republics they depict negatively. Hall portrays his republic as corrupted from birth by the power of international capital. Nelson depicts her republic as a cosmetic change to a corrupted game of politics. Shotlander does not address the issue of republican institutions; however, her negative depiction of male dominated parliaments in many ways anticipates Nelson’s.

Kisses of the Enemy offers little hope for institutional reform. Buchanan’s fall does not bring down or reform the political system. The novel might thus be seen as antipolitical in its themes and structure, in that it depicts an Australia in which political action cannot achieve genuine institutional or policy change against international economic forces (see Schedler 1997). Nelson and Shotlander, who both see power primarily in terms of gender rather than economic structures, suggest more open-ended possibilities for their imagined political institutions. Nelson indicates at least the chance that a new type of political leadership will emerge, while Shotlander presents the possibility that, once disrupted, the male-dominated patterns of party conflict will not be re-established.

References

Batchelor, J. 1988. ‘Under and Out. Australia’s Rodney Hall Writes a Wild, Futuristic Satire.’ Chicago Tribune. 27 November: 7.

Best, P. and Taylor, R. 1998. ‘Sex, Drugs and Electoral Roll.’ Australian Quarterly September-October: 24-29.

Collins, P. 2000. The Bear Pit. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Curb, R. 1995. ‘Amazon Intertextuality and Sinuousity in Sandra Shotlander’s Angels of Power.’ Hypatia 10(4): 90-99.

Edwards, T. 1989. ‘Kisses of the Enemy.’ The New Republic 200(5): 38-41.

Gelder, K. and Salzman, P. 1989. The New Diversity. Melbourne: McPhee Gribble.

Hall, R. 1987. Kisses of the Enemy. Ringwood: Penguin.

Hall, R. 1994. A Dream More Luminous Than Love: The Yandilli Trilogy. Sydney: Picador.

Hall, R. 1996. The Island in the Mind. Sydney: Pan Macmillan.

Hall, R. 1998. Abolish the States! Sydney: Pan Macmillan.

Hall, R. 2001. ‘Being Shaped By the Stories We Choose from our History’. The Alfred Deakin Lectures 2001. ABC Radio National. 12 May.

Jaensch, D. 1986. Getting Our Houses in Order. Ringwood: Penguin.

Keating, P. 1995. An Australian Republic: The Way Forward. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.

Kirby, M. 1993. ‘Reflections on Constitutional Monarchy’. In The Republicanism Debate. Eds W. Hudson and D. Carter. Kensington: New South Wales University Press.

Machiavelli, N. 1975. The Prince. Trans. G. Bull. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

McKinnon, J. 1992. ‘Breaking New Ground: An Interview with Sandra Shotlander.’ Australian Drama Studies 21:48-59.

Nelson, C. 1998. Perverse Acts. Melbourne: Text.

Plunkett, F. 1994. ‘"All Those Layered and Clotted Images": An Interview with Rodney Hall’. Australian and New Zealand Studies in Canada 11. <http://www.arts.uwo.ca/~andrewf/anzsc/anzsc11/hall11.thm>.

Sargent, L. 1999. ‘Australian Utopian Literature: An Annotated, Chronological Bibliography 1667-1999.’ Utopian Studies 10(2): 138-75.

Schedler, A. 1997. ‘Introduction: Antipolitics--Closing and Colonising the Public Sphere.’ In The End of Politics? Explorations into Modern Antipolitics. Ed. A. Schedler. London: Macmillan.

Shotlander, S. 1991. ‘Angels of Power: A Modern Myth in Two Acts’. In Angels of Power and Other Reproductive Creations. Eds S. Hawthorne and R. Klein. Melbourne: Spinifex Press.

Shotlander, S. 1995. ‘Disrupting the Space: Toward a Feminist Aesthetic in Framework, Blind Salome, and Angels of Power.’ In Theatre and Feminist Aesthetics. Eds K. Laughlin and C. Schuler. London: Associated University Presses.

Toohey, B. and Wilkinson, M. 1987. The Book of Leaks. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.

Turnbull, M. 1993. The Reluctant Republic. Melbourne: William Heinemann.

Uhr, J. Ed. 1999. The Australian Republic: The Case for Yes. Sydney: Federation Press.

Wark, M. 1999. ‘Canberra Kills’. Overland 155: 100-101.

Mary Walsh

University of Canberra

Machiavelli, Power and the Political

What is it about Machiavelli (1469-1527) that conjures up images of notoriety, duplicity and cunning? Into the new millennium his name continues to be associated with an absolutely ruthless realism and empiricism that defined the early modern essence of the political and the activity of politics. This paper considers Machiavelli's contribution to understanding the distinctly political, arguing that his conception of 'the political' has continuing contemporary relevance. There is contention in the literature about whether Machiavelli or Hobbes is the originator of a distinct genre referred to as modern political theory, with some commentators choosing Hobbes without mentioning Machiavelli (see Hampsher-Monk, [1998]1992). Machiavelli provides a provisional starting point to understanding politics as a public responsibility that cannot be based on the morality that characterises the private sphere.

In studying the significance of Machiavelli as the first modern political thinker (Wolin, 1960:199; Nelson, 1982:119), it is important to consider both the life and work of Machiavelli, as well as asking what it is about his theorising that marks it as fundamentally 'political' in character (Walsh, 2003). A combined reading of The Prince (1513) and The Discourses (1518), both published in 1532 five years after Machiavelli's death, reveal key events that made a lasting impression upon Machiavelli's understanding of successful statecraft. These key events were rather overwhelming for Machiavelli and forced him to come to key conclusions about the reality of politics in his age. He realised that successful states needed their own morality, the morality of success at all costs in terms of being able to successfully defend themselves from all enemies to ensure peace and stability for their citizens. A close reading of some of his main works shows that he means this in the context of preserving the common good of the early modern state. He is not saying acting ruthlessly is an end in itself, although he justifies this course of action when the main aim is to protect the common good. He studied history because of its capacity to teach and concluded that successful statecraft required tools that many classical philosophical and political ideals simply could not provide. Successful politics is about doing whatever it takes to win in any situation. Above all, Machiavelli came to believe that acting ruthlessly without recourse to the prevailing morality was the key to success in maintaining the newly emerging states of the early modern period.

Machiavelli in Historical Context

To begin with, the marking out of a boundary that signifies the beginning of the early modern period is somewhat arbitrary. The period designated as the Middle Ages (the fifth to fifteenth centuries) is already complicit with a "retrospective and even pejorative" understanding of this watershed thousand-year period (Coleman, 2000b: 5). From the eighteenth century at least the middle represented as the Middle Ages, is part of an elaborate teleological narrative that culminates in humanity's ongoing movement to enlightened Reason away from centuries of superstition, religion and myth. The period is characterised as beginning amongst the decline of the ancient philosophical and political wisdom of the Greeks and Romans through the Dark Ages and the 'age of faith'. This middle period was situated between the particular reason of the ancients and the universal reason that began to emerge in the sixteenth century Italian Renaissance culminating in the eighteenth century Enlightenment (see chapter 2). It is difficult to distinguish the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance and certainly those living at this time did not understand themselves to be living 'in-between ages' (Coleman, 2000b: 5). The period is characterised as the emergence of the modern state from the medieval realm (Minogue, 2000:32).

An incredible intellectual intensity characterizes the period of the late fourteenth to sixteenth centuries referred to as the Renaissance. The period represents a re-evaluation of the legacies of ancient philosophical and political wisdom and the revival of art and literature under the influence of the classical models with the rather romantic imagery of Europe awakening from a thousand-year slumber of cultural immobilisation. This resurgence of interest in classical antiquity went beyond the contemporary forms of knowledges based upon the teachings of the scholastics and the Catholic Church. The period marked a fascination and excitement about the ancient world that ultimately led to an explosion of artistic, literary and philosophical creativity as well as scientific discoveries that dramatically affected the perceived order of things at the time. This was particularly the case with the parallel emergence of humanism, a movement that runs concurrent with the period of the Renaissance. The humanist movement was essentially secular and instigated a shift away from the divine creations of God to an understanding of man as both the subject and object of knowledge. Their renewed interest in the classical literary texts of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Polybius (among others) gave them insight into the way that culture is formed by institutions, customs and ideas (Oliver, 2000:57).

Another important aspect of the context of the early modern period was the Reformation and the counter-Reformation. For a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church represented authority and legitimacy in society, dictating that individuals could reach salvation and/or communicate with God through his earthly manifestations in the persons of its bishops and priests. This also meant that these same bishops and priests could withhold their earthly salvation condemning a person to Hell. In the absence of the emergence of the beginnings of what was to become the modern state, the civil society at this time was the religious community, serving in a political guise as a community of members who were believers. The political significance of the community of believers meant that it was difficult for lone members to go against communal beliefs. Religion directly shaped the politics of the period as achieving eternal salvation was central to all people's lives, and communities were held under sway with the preoccupation of pleasing God (Minogue, 2000:32).

With the decline in the authority of the church combined with the Renaissance and the rise of humanism, widespread structural changes effected complex interplays between the religious, philosophical and political dimensions that were shaping Europe's cultural development. By the early fifteenth century this had culminated in Martin Luther's stand against the corruption and excesses of the Catholic Church in the form of his 95 theses against indulgences nailed to the gates of a church at Wittenberg in 1517. Indulgences were fees paid to bishops and priests for the promise of salvation for sins. Moreover, Luther made the radical claim that individuals could have a direct relationship with God, a claim made three centuries earlier by Joan of Arc (Waldman, 1935:247), although Joan did not read Scriptures (as she couldn't read), but via direct access by one individual to God. All this had radical implications for the key teachings of the Catholic Church because Luther suggested that there was a disjunction between the original Scriptures and the church as an institution. This gave rise to Protestantism as an intellectual movement in Europe and England and a great deal of religious tension due to the resultant religious diversity this had created. In the early modern period of the late medieval world, the idea of Europe as a political unity led by the Holy Roman Emperor and spiritually by the Pope was in decline. Various States began to sense that they could create their own destinies and that this movement could be advanced by appeals to national self-interest (Hale, 1969:23).

Machiavelli in Political Context

Machiavelli lived in Italy, in the city-state of Florentine at a time when Italy was divided into a number of independent competing city-states characterized by instability and religious upheaval. Accompanying this instability and religious upheaval were other key social, cultural and emerging economic changes associated with the decline of feudalism, the shift from ascribed status to achieved status and the destabilizing of the social fabric. The Italian city-states in Renaissance Italy were particularly proud of the intellectual legacy they had inherited from Ancient Rome, and believed that this intellectual and cultural lineage gave them an edge over other European Kingdoms. The concept of the humanities had been derived from Roman sources, particularly the ideals of Cicero that were the source of great interest in Italian universities and in public life more generally in the period. The type of education advocated by the humanists included lucidity in Latin, the practices of rhetoric, ancient history and moral philosophy as the key ingredients for the best preparation for political life (Skinner, 2000:5). Machiavelli took up a position in the Florentine Chancellery in 1498-1512 at the age of twenty-nine. The position became vacant in the aftermath of the arrest for heresy of Savanarola, a Dominican leader in San Marco, with the resultant dismissal of his various supporters from their governmental positions. Machiavelli was embarking upon his public career in the shadow of the post-Savanarola government.

Among the various duties of his public office, Machiavelli served as an ambassador of Florentine in affairs of foreign policy. Various commentators allude to three distinct events that were to have a profound effect upon the young Machiavelli that can be drawn from his own political career and experience (see Hale, 1969:25; Skinner, 2000:8, 36). The three events were his reaction to a military scandal that had occurred in 1499, the experience of his first diplomatic excursion to France in 1500 and his meeting with Cesare Borgia (also called Duke Valentino by the 'vulgar') (Machiavelli, [1532]1985:27). In 1495, Pisa, a town that was situated strategically by the sea with ample trade routes revolted against its Florentine oppressors. Machiavelli notes that Pisa was acquired by Florentine in 1405 but was lost by 1494 due to the invasion of the French King Charles V111 (Machiavelli, [1532]1985:21). Four years later, the Florentine's had laid siege upon Pisa in an attempt to regain control and the ensuing struggle was a matter of great pride for the Florentine's (Machiavelli, [1532]1985:55). The city-state of Florentine did not have its own armed forces and relied upon mercenary soldiers. And herein lay Machiavelli's first lesson. The mercenary forces had made great headway but in a crucial moment of the battle, Vitelli appeared and urged his men to retreat even though success seemed imminent. The Florentine's were baffled at Vitelli's motives but condemned his actions as those of a traitor and executed him ([1532]1985:36,51-52). In observing this aspect of statecraft, Machiavelli concluded that mercenary soldiers were never to be trusted and that secure states must have their own armed forces comprised of their own citizens who fought to protect their way of life rather than receive monetary payment for battle duties.

The diplomatic mission to France in 1500 proved to be rather more shocking and devastating for Machiavelli. The French King Louis X11, who was an ally of his native city-state and had previously provided troops for another military assault on Pisa, received Machiavelli. He quickly realised that the French regarded the Florentine's as lightweight governmental players. "Even more humiliatingly, Machiavelli discovered that his native city's sense of its own importance seemed to the French to be ludicrously out of line with the realities of its military position and its wealth" (Skinner, 2000:9). The French dismissed the city-state of Florentine as Ser Nihilo (Mr. Nothing). The French looked down upon Florentine for not having its own armed forces ([1532]1985:54), for having officials who did not adequately prepare financially for the arts of war, and for their republican governmental machinery, which the Italians considered to be about talk and not action. All this was rather overwhelming for Machiavelli and forced him to come to key conclusions about the reality of politics in his age. He began to realise that successful statecraft required tools that many classical philosophical and political ideals simply could not furnish. Successful politics was about mobilizing money and the sheer force of arms, and doing whatever it takes to win in a situation.

But above all, Machiavelli came to believe that acting ruthlessly without recourse to the prevailing morality was the key to success. This lesson he learnt from observing the actions of the warlike Cesare Borgia, son of Pope Alexander V1, "for I do not know what better teaching I could give to a new prince than the example of his actions" (Machiavelli, [1532] 1985:27). In 1502 Cesare Borgia was engaged in a military campaign with the support of his father that involved attempting to conquer lands in eastern and central Italy that had previously belonged to the papacy. In the infamous 'massacre of Sengallia', Cesare Borgia invited four of his mercenary leaders to a reconciliation dinner murdering two there and then whilst sending the other two off to be killed elsewhere, replacing them with military commanders that were loyal to him. Machiavelli greatly admired these actions and the results they achieved. These actions were ruthless but short and sweet, allowing Cesare Borgia to get on with the machinations of statecraft in his attempt to create a securely governed State. The combination of these three key events made a lasting impression upon Machiavelli's understanding of successful statecraft. He realised that successful states need their own morality, the morality of success at all costs in terms of being able to successfully defend themselves from all enemies to ensure peace and stability for its citizens. Throughout most of Machiavelli's service in the Florentine Chancellery, his native city-state was embroiled in many military campaigns and battles. Towards the end of 1512 republicanism had demised in Florentine and Machiavelli was dismissed from his governmental position. Moreover, in 1513 he was implicated in a conspiracy against the new Medicean governmental forces, tortured on the rack and imprisoned. The same year he wrote the book he is most famous for The Prince. Along with The Discourses (written in 1518), both were not published until five years after Machiavelli's death in 1532.

The Prince is widely considered to the greatest book ever written on politics. It differs from classic political texts like Plato's Republic or Augustine's The City of God because it deals with existing rather than imagined political communities. In chapter 15 of The Prince Machiavelli says,

Machiavelli dedicates The Prince to Lorenzo de' Medici (1492-1519). In his dedicatory letter he makes two important points. He explains to Lorenzo that his greatest possession was "the knowledge of the actions of great men, learned by me from long experience with modern things and a continuous reading of ancient ones" (p.3) and he hopes he will not be considered presumptive "if a man from a low and mean state dares to discuss and give rules for the government of princes" (p.4). These two points provide an important contextual cue for an understanding of Machiavelli's work. The first is that Machiavelli studied history because of its capacity to teach in terms of understanding both the past and present and the second is that Machiavelli is anticipating what he often refers to as 'the new prince', someone who is versed in the emerging arts of statecraft, necessarily a man who may not claim the legitimacy of rule through the sanction of the church or hereditary title. Above all, Machiavelli argues that politics has its own rules that are not limited by other spheres and that politics should not be limited by anything that is not political.

Many commentators on Machiavelli understand his hard edge realism as an empirical and scientific treatment of politics, especially the politics of power. The Prince comprises twenty-six chapters. The first eleven chapters are concerned with kinds of principalities, chapters twelve to fourteen focus on the necessity of conquest and the arts of war, chapters fifteen to twenty-three outline a new morality based on the necessity of conquest, whilst the final three chapters depict man as both the object and subject of knowledge, master of his own destiny. Many political theory readers have no more than a couple of chapters at the most of original material for students to read (see Brown, 1990:188-196; Ball and Dagger, 1999b: 27-30) so students are advised to read an original copy. In chapter 2 Machiavelli makes clear he will focus upon principalities because he has reasoned on republics elsewhere (p.6), although they are mentioned in The Prince. Machiavelli refers to the state and in the early modern context literally refers to someone's state rather than the impersonal state that would emerge later.

Machiavelli recognizes two main types of principalities, hereditary and new, and outlines how they are governed and secured. He observes that hereditary states are easier to maintain and that even a prince of 'ordinary industry' (p.6) can hold onto one unless an exceedingly strong force takes it. In considering new 'mixed' principalities Machiavelli suggests that it is here that the greatest difficulties arise. His first advice to a new prince is to have as enemies all those whom he has offended in taking power in his new acquisition (p.8) because they cannot be kept as friends. He cautions new princes that regardless of the size of their armies they need to get the inhabitants of provinces on side before they enter it. A new prince that acquires a state with disparate languages and customs needs great skill to maintain this acquisition. Machiavelli recommends living in newly acquired states to make acquisition more secure and permanent, as the Turks did in Greece (p.10). Remarkably Machiavelli proceeds to give advice to the French king Louis X11 on how he might more successfully attack Italy after his second attempt (p.9, 13-16). He lists key errors made by the French king suggesting that the French do not understand the state and that if they did they would never have let the Church rise to such prominence. He concludes with the general rule that whoever causes another to become powerful sows the seeds of their own ruination, as that power was created via industry and/or force "and both the one and the other of these two are suspect to whoever has become powerful" (p.16). Machiavelli observes that states acquired by new princes through their own virtue and arms may be acquired with great difficulty but are easily maintained whilst states acquired thought he arms of others and fortune are easy to obtain but hard to maintain (chapters 6&7).

In chapter nine Machiavelli poses the question of how the new prince should lay his foundation. Should the former private citizen turned new prince lay his foundation on the people or the great? For Machiavelli these two groups can be found in any city and the people want neither to be oppressed nor commanded and the great always want to oppress and command the people. Machiavelli claims that acquiring a state with the assistance of the great is harder to maintain than a state founded on the people (p.39), because the great appear to be his equals, it is difficult to manage or command them for his own purposes. A prince may be alone, but with the principality founded on popular support there is almost no one not willing to obey (p.39). Machiavelli claims it is hard to satisfy the great with decency and not harming others but that the people can be satisfied "for the end of the people is more decent than that of the great, since the great want to oppress and the people want not to be oppressed" (p.39). More importantly, the prince cannot secure himself in the face of a hostile people as there are so many of them, although he can secure himself against the great because there are only a few of them. A prince only has to fear abandonment from a hostile people but he must fear both abandonment and treachery from the hostile great. In a sense, the people are a necessity to the prince but he can do without the same great persons because he makes and unmakes them and forms their reputation according to his convenience (p.40).

Machiavelli clarifies his view claiming that the great should be considered in two modes. Basically one must look at how they conduct themselves in their proceedings and examine whether they are obligated to the new prince's fortune or not. Those who are obligated and are not grasping or predatory should be both loved and honoured. However, those who are not must be considered carefully. If they act this way due to lack of courage and natural spirit they can be made use of as counsel for in prosperity they can bring honour and in adversity they do not have to be feared. When through art and ambition they are not obligated, it is a sign that they consider themselves first and not the prince. The prince needs to be wary of the latter, literally "on guard" against them. He should fear them, as he would open enemies because in adversity they go a long way towards the prince's ruination (p.40). A prince who has the support of the people (the masses) must endeavour to keep them friendly towards him and this is not difficult task because the people seek only not to be oppressed. On the other hand, a prince who comes to power without the peoples support and with the support of the great must do everything in his power to win over the people to himself, a task made easy by taking up their protection. The prince can win the people over in various ways, but the most important conclusion reached by Machiavelli is that it is necessary to have the people on side; otherwise there could be no remedy in an adverse situation. He is not saying that they will liberate a prince who lays his foundation on the people against his enemies. What he is saying is that a prince who lays his foundation on the people, who knows how to command, has heart and courage and made preparations in advance will inspire the people and the prince will never find himself deceived by them. Machiavelli explicitly challenges the proverb "that whoever founds on the people founds on mud" (p.41). He is scathing of ecclesiastical principalities that retain their princes regardless of their conduct suggesting that they have states they don't defend and people they don't govern (p.45-47).

In discussing types of principalities and the necessity for the prince to lay good foundations, Machiavelli suggests that the prince needs good laws and good arms because there cannot be good laws without good defence. The types of arms available to a prince are his own, mercenaries, auxiliary or mixed. Machiavelli is extremely negative about mercenary arms as mercenaries take from the prince in times of peace and give nothing in war. He suggests mercenaries lack loyalty and faith, "bold among friends, among enemies cowardly" (p.48). They are not to be trusted because they fight for a fee and the fee isn't enough to make them want to die in battle for the prince. They may want to be soldiers of the prince but when war approaches they may leave. Machiavelli points to the ruination of Italy as evidence of what happens when mercenaries are relied upon. Mercenary captains may or may not be talented men of arms but if they are they, definitely cannot be trusted because they always aspire to their own advancement, by either oppressing the prince who is their patron or oppressing others without the consent of the prince. He imagines a respondent arguing that whoever has arms will do this but Machiavelli is adamant that arms should only be employed by either the prince or a republic (p.49), and that the prince should be there to manage his arms. He cites the cities of Rome and Sparta as evidence that princes and armed republics achieve great things, whereas the reliance on mercenaries can only bring ruination as in the Vitelli incident mentioned earlier (see p.51).

Machiavelli argues that auxiliary arms are 'useless' too. If the prince has to call on extra arms to help him he will come undone in defeat and possibly end up a prisoner in event of victory. Moreover, auxiliary arms are more dangerous than mercenary arms, as the prince chooses the latter, but the former always obey a third party. Mercenary armies tend to be found and financed by the prince and they are not a uniform body, which means it would take some time and organisation to challenge the prince, whereas the auxiliary arms may seize authority quickly. In discussing various examples from history Machiavelli claims that the hiring of Goths was the first cause of the ruin of the Roman Empire (p.57). In summing up, Machiavelli concludes that "in mercenary arms laziness is more dangerous; in auxiliary arms, virtue is" (p.55). The wise prince does not enlist any men except his own army avoiding both mercenaries and auxiliaries. Machiavelli even counsels that it is better to lose on your own than rely on others, as winning with others are not a true victory. The prince without his own arms leaves his principality insecure and open to the whims of fortune for lack of virtue (p.57). The defending of his state means that the princes first concern should be the arts of war as being insufficiently armed makes the prince 'contemptible' in the eyes of others. It is important for the prince to be respected by his soldiers and the most expedient prince makes preparation for war in times of peace. The prince should accustom his body to hardness as well as making sure he has an excellent knowledge of the geographical terrain as more knowledge about his country helps him better defend it.

In chapters fifteen to twenty four, Machiavelli outlines a new morality based on "effectual truth" rather than "imagination", a morality that is highly critical of previous classical and Christian interpretations. He acknowledges that many others have discussed non-existent principalities and he wants to base his observations on actual principalities "leaving out what is imagined about a prince and discussing what is true" (p.61). Controversially, Machiavelli claims that a good man will come to ruination amongst many bad men, so the prince has to know how not to be good according to necessity. The prince should not be concerned about getting a reputation for doing whatever it takes to hold on to his state, suggesting that a vice can be a virtue if the end goal is to preserve the state (p.62). However, Machiavelli cautions the prince not to act in ways that engender hatred (p.65, 72), as hatred is an emotion that makes men act against their own self-interest. The prince should be merciful and not cruel, but acknowledges that the new prince will have difficulty avoiding being considered cruel as the acquisition of his new state presents various difficulties. On the question of whether it is better to be loved or feared, Machiavelli argues it is better to be feared as "men have less hesitation to offend one who makes himself feared" (p.66). Ideally, the new prince should be feared but nor hated and this he can do if he respects the property and women of his citizens and subjects (p.67). Machiavelli outlines two modes of combat; law and force, with the former belonging to men and the latter to beasts. He suggests that law is often not enough and that the new prince may need recourse to force, although the prince should avail himself to both as together they work very effectively. The new prince should know how to utilise the beast and choose the fox and the lion, as foxes recognise traps and lions scare away wolves (p.69). He should not fear falling out of faith with those who have not observed it with him. Moreover, he claims that appearing to have these qualities is as important as actually having them.

The new prince goes to great lengths to maintain his state by appearing to be "all mercy, all faith, all honesty, all humanity, all religion" (p.70). He should especially appear to be all religion as generally men judge what they see, with very few being close enough to touch. Those few would not dare to oppose the many who have the state on their side. The prince's strongest enemy against conspiracy is to be supported by the people, as conspirators are less likely to spring into action when the people disapprove of their actions. The conspirators have the "terrifying anticipation of punishment", whilst the prince has his state, laws, friends and with the support of popular good will, makes the likelihood of conspiracy remote. Machiavelli claims there has never been a new prince who disarms his population to secure his state, suggesting that disarming the population from distrust or cowardice can generate hatred against you and therefore should be avoided. An esteemed prince should also be either a true friend or a true enemy with nothing in between, as he may have to fear the winner of two opposing forces. He suggests that the force that requires your neutrality is not a friend, but the one who requires your arms is friendly. Princes who follow the neutral path come to ruin in most cases (p.90). Moreover, the prince should avoid associating with someone more powerful than himself unless it is a necessity, as in victory he may become the prisoner so he should go to great lengths to ensure he does not have to rely on others.

The final three chapters of The Prince enshrine the humanist legacy of the Renaissance examining how the princes of Italy have lost their states. Machiavelli claims men are more focussed on the present than the past, and the new prince (more than a hereditary one) is judged on his actions. The lords of Italy who lost their states at this time had problems with arms, some faced a hostile people and those that didn't had no idea how to fortify themselves against the great. His point is that the princes who lost their states tended to blame fortune rather than their own actions. They fail to make adequate preparations for war in times of peace and fled instead of defending their state when it is under threat (p.97). He acknowledges that the dominant beliefs in his time, that fortune and God control the destiny of men but disagrees. He claims that fortune (whom he likens to a violent river and a woman) only governs half of men's actions and that the other half are controlled by men themselves through their 'free will'. His final chapter, which some have argued does not quite fit into the whole work (see Wolin, 1960:204), is a patriotic plea for a new prince to free and redeem Italy from its present situation "to cure her of her sores that have festered now for a long time" (p102). He appeals to the House of Medici to free Italy from the barbarians claiming that God cannot do everything required meaning that men should use their free will to achieve their own goals to protect the state.

Machiavelli and the Discourses of Titus Livy

Machiavelli's Discourses were begun in the same year as The Prince, but were completed five years after it in 1518 (Walker, 1950:53). In the opening dedication, Machiavelli devotes the work to two men who are not princes but should be on account of their numerous qualities that make them excellent candidates for the position. In the Discourses Machiavelli details what he has learnt from a long experience of political affairs. The Discourses include material from lost treatises on republics and commentary on the first decade of Titus Livy. Although the commentary is about the ten books of Titus Livy, in fact, there are only three books that examine the development of Rome's Constitution; the growth of Rome's Empire and the example of Rome's great men. A great deal of material is covered in the Discourses, so selected aspects will be examined. To begin with, the first ten parts of book one discuss the best form of government. In discussing the types of commonwealth, Machiavelli is only interested in cities that have not been subject to external forces, preferring to focus upon either principalities or republics that govern according to their own plans ([1532]1950:211). In discussing the institutions of Rome and the events that led to its institutional perfection, Machiavelli discusses the categorization of states by Plato and Aristotle. Plato recognised three forms of government; principality, aristocracy and democracy suggesting those wanting to create a new state adopt one of them. Aristotle suggests there are six types of government of which three are good and three are bad, as a principality can easily degenerate into a tyranny, an aristocracy into an oligarchy and a democracy into anarchy. Setting up one of the first three types of government may last for a while but what is there to prevent the slide into its contrary.

Machiavelli claims these variations in forms of government are due to chance ([1532]1950:212). From "the beginning of the world' people have come together so that they could protect themselves, attracted to the strongest man who they could make their head to protect them. This led to men distinguishing what is honest and wicked and the notion of justice emerges, leading to the development of selecting a prince not for his strength and boldness but for his 'prudence and justice' ([1532]1950:213). At yet another stage when the prince gains his title through hereditary right rather than election, the heirs do not act in the same manner as their ancestors and become corrupt and hated, which leads to tryanny. The prince will be challenged by like men who are not prepared to stand by as he desecrates his office. These powerful men will seek the support of the masses that then owe their allegiance to the liberators. Importantly, the people who understood how they are treated in a tyranny were ruled in accordance with the laws that were created and "subordinated their own convenience to the common advantage, and, both in private and public matters, governed and preserved order with the utmost diligence"([1532]1950:213).

However, when the administration of these cities were passed to their descendants who had not had to deal with fortunes whims and bad times, and whose ambitions made them disregard the prevailing civil equality, the aristocracies became oligarchies where civic rights were entirely ignored, and their fate is the same as the tyrants. The masses were ready to support anyone who would free them from the tyranny and a new leader would arise, who with the help of the masses "liquidated" the former ruler. The masses that have eliminated the government of the few do not want to return to princely rule and form a democracy where power is not vested with the few or a prince. The democratic form of rule lasts for a while but not for long when those that formed it pass away. Anarchy can quickly become the rule of the day disregarding individuals and officials with things getting quickly out of control because everyone is doing exactly as they please. The whole thing comes full circle when a strong prince is once again called upon to restore order via a principality, although according to Machiavelli, this is unlikely to happen as it is more likely that the state will be subject to a better organised neighbouring state.

Machiavelli argues that the forms of governments mentioned are unsatisfactory, "the three good ones because their life is so short, the three bad ones because of their inherent malignity". The wisest legislators will take heed of the defects of these forms of government and select "instead one that shared in them all"([1532]1950:214). Machiavelli suggests that a state should incorporate all three forms of rule, principality, aristocracy and democracy so that they all keep an eye on the other. He praises Lycurgus, the Spartan king who created laws that gave the king, aristocracy and populace their own functions creating a state that lasted for more than 800 years. He compares the laws of Solon in Athens who set up a democracy that fell to tyranny before the end of his lifetime. Although the tyranny was challenged after forty years and democracy restored, the stability of that democracy did not last more than one hundred years. In discussing Rome, Machiavelli focuses upon the friction between the plebs and the senate. As Rome was originally set up as a kingdom it did not have the institutions essential to preserve freedom (p.215). When the kings lost their sovereignty two consuls who took the place of the king replaced them, so that they eliminated kings but not royal power. At this stage, the consuls and the senate represented principality and aristocracy. Democracy soon found a place because the Roman nobility lorded over the population to such an extent that they revolted. The nobles fearing losing everything grudgingly gave the population a share in the government. With the appointment of plebs to the office of tribune and the government founded on the three estates, certain stability emerged. Machiavelli claims, "the blending of these three estates made a perfect commonwealth" (p.216). He argues that it was the friction between the plebs and the senate that "brought this perfection about" (p.216).

Machiavelli believed that all writers on politics, those constituting and legislating commonwealths should take for 'granted that all men are wicked'. "That there evil dispositions often do not show themselves for a time is due to a hidden cause which those fail to perceive who have had no experience of such contrariness; but in time-which is said to be the father of all truth-it reveals itself" (p.216). When the Tarquins were expelled from Rome there was an outward appearance of great harmony between the plebs and the senate. The nobles seemed to set aside the belief in their own superiority and appeared to have some commonality of spirit with the population. The nobles were afraid of the Tarquins and attempted to find common causes with them whilst treating the plebs with consideration. "But, no sooner were the Tarquins dead and the fears of the nobility removed, that they began to vomit forth against the plebs the poison hid in their hearts and to oppress them in every way they could" (p.217). The role of the tribunes was therefore to mediate between the plebs and the nobles to "curb the arrogance of the nobility" (p.217). Machiavelli claims that men never do good unless it is out of necessity and that when can choose their course of action disorder reigns. The fighting between the patricians and the plebs led to the appointment of the tribunes.

Machiavelli does not deny the importance of fortune and good military organisation in securing a state, but he argues that this leaves out the need for good order (which is often accompanied with good fortune). In a position that is markedly different from the present, he argues that legislation in favour of freedom has been brought into being by class conflict. He claims that the 'primary cause' of Rome's greatness was the fighting between the nobles and the plebs and argues against those who would try to stem the discord, as "they pay more attention to the noise and clamour resulting from such commotions than to what resulted from them, i.e. to the good effects which they produced" (p.218). Every republic has two main dispositions, the population generally and the nobles and that all legislation positive for freedom derives from the clash between them. Arguments between the two dispositions rarely ended in bloodshed or banishment. The focus on the common good led to laws and institutions that further enhance freedom. Every successful city should find an outlet for allowing the population a voice, especially when the people are called upon for important undertakings on behalf of the city. The demands of the population do not harm freedom, as they are due to the population being oppressed or fearing oppression, and when these impressions are false, someone can publicly appeal to the population and though they may be ignorant they are reasonable and amenable to the truth (p.218). He comments that critics of Rome should be more sparing in their criticism as allowing the population a share in the administration of government brought about only excellent things, and preserved the foundations of freedom in Rome.

Machiavelli moves to the question of whether the nobles or the population can be more trusted to safeguard the freedoms of Rome and asks who has the most compelling reasons for creating disturbances, the haves or the have-nots. The Spartans and in his day, Venice, entrusted it to the nobles whereas the Romans entrusted it to the plebs. He believes it is necessary to enquire which of these republics made the better choice "and unquestionably if we ask what it is the nobility are after and what it is the common people are after, it will be seen that in the former there is a great desire to dominate and in the latter merely the desire not to be dominated. He believed the people should be the guardians of liberty as they have less desire to lord over others and that a reasonable expectation would be the assumption that they would take better care of it. He turns to the question of what is more harmful for a republic, the have nots who want to have and the haves who don't want to lose what they have (p.221). He discusses the trial Menenius (a pleb hounded by the nobles but pardoned by the people). At the trial a great deal of discussion went into the question and it was concluded that both groups had ambitions and appetites that had potential for calamity. However, Machiavelli argues that the haves usually cause disturbances because the fear of losing what they have arouses in them the desire to acquire more, and they are inclined to belief that this cannot be achieved unless it is at others' expense (p.222). He recognises that those with wealth can bring about change more swiftly suggesting that their "corrupt and grasping deportment" (p.222) ignite the desires of the have-nots to have.

This leads to the question of whether Rome could have set up a government that would remove the hostility between the nobles and the plebs. Machiavelli asks whether it has occurred to critics that without these animosities, Rome would be unable to have achieved the great things that it did. The constitution of Sparta and Venice would have been very difficult in Rome (pp.223-226). Venice did not utilise its plebs in wars and Sparta did not allow foreigners to have citizenship (p.224), although Rome did both in its quest for expansion. When Sparta and Venice attempted to expand they collapsed because their constitutions were aimed at protecting the status quo. He is convinced that adopting the Roman type of constitution is better than any other republic because it is impossible to reach a middle point between the two extremes. "Squabbles between the populace and the senate should, therefore, be looked upon as an inconvenience which it is necessary to put up with in order to arrive at the greatness of Rome" (p.227). Finally, the question of whether it is necessary to have public indictments for the maintenance of freedom in a republic is discussed. Nothing is more 'useful or necessary' than the ability to indict before the people, magistrate or court those citizens who have committed a crime against the freedom of the state (p.227). This institution is useful for a republic in two ways. Firstly, it instils fear in the citizens and makes it more likely they wont commit crime that effect the state and secondly, it provides an outlet for ill feeling that may have been vented elsewhere to the detriment of the republic. Moreover, when disputes between the plebs, the senate and private citizens arise, they can be settled domestically rather than seeking recourse to outside force (p.230).

In conclusion, it would appear that a great deal of misunderstanding surrounds the interpretation of Machiavelli's works. This represents a strange paradox. On the one hand, Machiavelli is famous (or rather infamous) for advocating that one can get away with murder. His book The Prince is widely reputed to be a guidebook on ruthless statecraft. However, this is the reputation of the book rather than the actual book, as a close reading demonstrates that Machiavelli did not advocate 'an anything goes' mentality. It is tempting to argue that those who put forth the position of Machiavelli as an unscrupulous scoundrel have not actually read his work and are relying on rather misunderstood secondary interpretations. On the other hand, a combined reading of Machiavelli's The Prince and The Discourses reveal that Machiavelli was advocating doing whatever it takes to preserve the common good in the early modern state. Moreover, Machiavelli's endorsement of the stability created by class conflict particularly in the Roman Republic that encompassed the three estates of principality, aristocracy and democracy provides fresh insights into the rather stale dread of conflict apparent in contemporary liberal democracies. Machiavelli was interested in the actual rather than the ideal, and his contributions to political theory make him eminently worthy of being considered the greatest early modern political thinker of the western tradition.

References:

Coleman, J. (2000) A History of Political Thought: From the Middle Ages to the Renaissance, Blackwell: Oxford, UK and Cambridge, USA.

Hale, J.R. (1969) "Machiavelli and the Self Sufficient State", Thomson, D. (ed) Political Ideas, Pelican Books: London, pp.22-33.

Hampsher-Monk, I. ([1992]1998) A History of Modern Political Thought: Major Political Thinkers from Hobbes to Marx, Blackwell: Oxford, UK and Cambridge, USA.

Machiavelli, N. ([1532]1985) The Prince, trans and introduction H.C. Mansfield, Jr., Chicago and London: Chicago University Press.

Machiavelli, N., ([1532]1950) The Discourses of Niccolo Machiavelli, Volume 1, trans and introduction Leslie J. Walker, S.J., London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Machiavelli, N., ([1532]1950) The Discourses of Niccolo Machiavelli, Volume 2, trans and introduction Leslie J. Walker, S.J., London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Minogue, K. (2000) Politics: A Very Short Introduction, New York: Oxford University Press.

Nelson, B.R. (1982) Western Political Thought: From Socrates to the Age of Ideology, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Oliver, M. (2000) History of Philosophy: Great Thinkers from the Ancient Greeks to the Present Day, Great Britain: Octopus Publishing Group.

Skinner, Q. (2000) Machiavelli: A Very Short Introduction, New York: Oxford University Press.

Waldman, M. (1935) Joan of Arc, Longmans, Green and Co: London and New York.

Walsh, M. (2003) Introducing Political Theory, London: Sage (forthcoming)

Wolin, S. (1960) Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought, Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Conference Background | Streams and Panels | Conference Program | Abstracts | Conference Proceedings | Home

webhumans | text version | privacy | © 2003 griffith university | disclaimer