Religion as a Political Device? Examining Machiavelli’s Utilitarian View of Religion

Watch the video essay version here: https://youtu.be/NEBoOHTlkAU

Few figures in intellectual history have proved as notorious and ambiguous as Italian Renaissance philosopher and political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli. His most famous book The Prince, first published in 1532 made his name synonymous with autocratic ruthlessness and cynical manipulation. However, his lesser-known Discourses on Livy, first published in 1531, exhibits Machiavelli’s more diplomatic side where he argued the importance of citizens and government officials meeting in democratic unity for the sake of a prosperous state.

It is within these commentaries that Machiavelli shares his unique view of religion which at the time of his life and even after his death, readers often misunderstand or overlook. Thus, the focus of this video essay is to unravel what he really thought of religion as both an institution and practice.

To understand Machiavelli’s perspective on religion, it is crucial to briefly consider his life in politics and the cultural context in which he lived. Machiavelli was born in 1469, in Florence, Italy, during a time of political upheaval and transition. Renaissance Italy was a time of profound religious influence pioneered by the Catholic Church. However, during this time Machiavelli witnessed the Church’s politically dynamic papacy and its frequent corruption and abuse of power.

He grew up in a politically active family and received a humanist education that exposed him to classical works and philosophical concepts. Machiavelli’s early career entailed him undertaking roles such as a diplomat and a secretary, providing him with first-hand experience of the intricacies of power politics.

All of this was going well up until 1512, when the powerful Medici family who ruled Florence at the time were temporarily overthrown, catalysing both Machiavelli’s redundancy from public office followed by an accusation of conspiracy and treason due to his previous association with the deposed Florentine Republic. Consequently, Machiavelli was exiled from Florence which eventually produced his books Discourses on Livy and The Prince. These works, of course, eventually gained recognition and influenced political thought in later centuries, securing him as a pivotal figure in the development of modern political theory.

Machiavelli’s view of religion was based on his political philosophy which emphasised the importance of effective governance and stability whereby the ruler’s responsibility was to first and foremost maintain power and protect the state. It is with this in mind that Machiavelli recognised religion’s capacity for being used as a tool for political control. In his Discourses on Livy, he wrote:

“Nor in fact was there ever a legislator who, in introducing extraordinary laws to a people, did not have recourse to God, for otherwise they would not have been accepted, since many benefits of which a prudent man is aware, are not so evident to reason that he can convince others of them. Hence wise men, in order to escape this difficulty, have recourse to God.” (Book 1)

Here Machiavelli highlights that without appealing to a higher power, a law might not be so easily accepted by the people despite perhaps even being beneficial to them. Logic alone, Machiavelli contends, is not convincing enough — whereas an appeal to God often is.

An important aspect of Machiavelli’s approach to religion centres on his notion of Virtù, referring strictly to the qualities necessary for effective leadership. It is this concept which Machiavelli uses as a foundation to argue that successful rulers ought to possess qualities such as cunning, strength, and adaptability. Religious values, on the other hand, such as humility and compassion are, without strict measure, detrimental to a ruler’s power over their state.

Machiavelli, therefore, believed that in most cases religion is a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Under his philosophy, the success of a state is paramount. To accomplish this, the ruler cannot be bound by conventional religious morality. In The Prince, he wrote:

“It is necessary for a prince, if he wishes to maintain himself, to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge and not use it, according to the necessity of the case.” (Ch.15)

Machiavelli’s pragmatism towards religion and in turn morality, are best exemplified here. In this passage, he points out that for a ruler to effectively maintain their position of power, they must understand the concept of being both virtuous and non-virtuous, strategically employing either when politically necessary. Though, the ruler must be vigilant in how they execute moral or immoral deeds, for either decision carries consequences.

Based on this logic, Machiavelli vouched for a separation of morality and politics, challenging the traditional notion that rulers must always be morally upright. By positing that those in power should be willing to strategically utilise skills in deceit, Catholic ideals at the time clashed with his derivative principles. Machiavelli did not stop there, however. He was also highly critical of the Catholic Church and its nepotic involvement in political affairs, believing the Church should not be involved in the leadership regime of a ruler. In his Discourses on Livy, he wrote:

“If one would form a conjecture as to the causes of [the Catholic Church’s] decline can one do better than look at those peoples who live in the immediate neighbourhood of the Church of Rome, which is the head of our religion, and see how there is less religion among them than elsewhere. Indeed, should anyone reflect on our religion as it was when founded, and then see how different the present usage is, he would undoubtedly come to the conclusion that it is approaching either ruin or a scourge. Many are of opinion that the prosperity of Italian cities is due to the Church of Rome. I disagree. […] The Roman Church [of] Italy has lost all devotion and all religion. Attendant upon this are innumerable inconveniences and innumerable disorders; for as, where there is religion, it may be taken for granted that all is going well, so, where religion is wanting, one may take for granted the opposite. The first debt which we, Italians, owe to the Church and to priests, therefore, is that we have become irreligious and perverse.” (Book 1)

In this passage, Machiavelli criticises the Church and its dissent from core religious tenants. He suggests that if one were to compare the present state of religion to its founding principles, it becomes evident that it is moving towards ruin or acting as a source of affliction due to its corrupt representatives. Though, he does assert that where there is a genuine religious influence in a state, it is likely to flourish. Whereas in a state which lacks religion, it is, by his account, likely to corrode.

In conclusion, Machiavelli’s nuanced perspective on religion reveals his recognition of its powerful role as a political device for rulers seeking to maintain control and stability. His pragmatic approach, focused on effective governance and the protection of the state, led him to view religion primarily as a tool for political manipulation rather than a theological pursuit.

Machiavelli understood that people are more easily influenced by the promise of a higher power guiding their destiny than by logical declarations by their leader. Furthermore, he advocated for a separation of morality and politics, challenging the traditional notion that rulers must always adhere to religious ideals. His critique of the Catholic Church’s involvement in political affairs supports his belief that religion should not be intertwined with the leadership of a ruler. Importantly, Machiavelli’s insights on the relationship between religion and politics extend far beyond his historical context, shedding light on enduring tensions between religious principles and political power.

By examining Machiavelli’s complex views on religion, we have been able to gain a deeper understanding of the dynamics at play in the intersection of religion and governance, and the enduring significance of his ideas in the study of psychology and political theory. Lastly, despite ultimately considering religion a key component of a successful state, it is still debatable whether Machiavelli valued religion as a spiritual practice as much as he did a utilitarian device for political power.

Thank you for reading. If you found this to be interesting and/or useful consider following me here on Medium for more similar writings — you can subscribe to my YouTube channel too.