Thursday, March 31, 2011

Karl Marx


Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818 in Trier, where he received a classical education. He studied jurisprudence at Bonn and later in Berlin, where, however, his preoccupation with philosophy soon turned him away from law. In 1841, after spending five years in the “metropolis of intellectuals,” he returned to Bonn intending to habilitate. At that time the first “New Era” was in vogue in Prussia. Frederick William IV had declared his love of a loyal opposition, and attempts were being made in various quarters to organise one. Thus the Rheinische Zeitung was founded at Cologne; with unprecedented daring Marx used it to criticise the deliberations of the Rhine Province Assembly, in articles which attracted great attention. At the end of 1842 he took over the editorship himself and was such a thorn in the side of the censors that they did him the honour of sending a censor [Wilhelm Saint-Paul] from Berlin especially to take care of the Rheinische Zeitung. When this proved of no avail either the paper was made to undergo dual censorship, since, in addition to the usual procedure, every issue was subjected to a second stage of censorship by the office of Cologne’s Regierungspresident [Karl Heinrich von Gerlach]. But nor was this measure of any avail against the “obdurate malevolence” of the Rheinische Zeitung, and at the beginning of 1843 the ministry issued a decree declaring that the Rheinische Zeitung must cease publication at the end of the first quarter. Marx immediately resigned as the shareholders wanted to attempt a settlement, but this also came to nothing and the newspaper ceased publication.
His criticism of the deliberations of the Rhine Province Assembly compelled Marx to study questions of material interest. In pursuing that he found himself confronted with points of view which neither jurisprudence nor philosophy had taken account of. Proceeding from the Hegelian philosophy of law, Marx came to the conclusion that it was not the state, which Hegel had described as the “top of the edifice,” but “civil society,” which Hegel had regarded with disdain, that was the sphere in which a key to the understanding of the process of the historical development of mankind should be looked for. However, the science of civil society is political economy, and this science could not be studied in Germany, it could only be studied thoroughly in England or France.
Therefore, in the summer of 1843, after marrying the daughter of Privy Councillor von Westphalen in Trier (sister of the von Westphalen who later became Prussian Minister of the Interior) Marx moved to Paris, where he devoted himself primarily to studying political economy and the history of the great French Revolution. At the same time he collaborated with Ruge in publishing the Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, of which, however only one issue was to appear. Expelled from France by Guizot in 1845, he went to Brussels and stayed there, pursuing the same studies, until the outbreak of the February revolution. Just how little he agreed with the commonly accepted version of socialism there even in its most erudite-sounding form, was shown in his critique of Proudhon’s major work Philosophie de la misère, which appeared in 1847 in Brussels and Paris under the title of The Poverty of Philosophy. In that work can already be found many essential points of the theory which he has now presented in full detail. The Manifesto of the Communist Party, London, 1848, written before the February revolution and adopted by a workers’ congress in London, is also substantially his work.
Expelled once again, this time by the Belgian government under the influence of the panic caused by the February revolution, Marx returned to Paris at the invitation of the French provisional government. The tidal wave of the revolution pushed all scientific pursuits into the background; what mattered now was to become involved in the movement. After having worked during those first turbulent days against the absurd notions of the agitators, who wanted to organise German workers from France as volunteers to fight for a republic in Germany, Marx went to Cologne with his friends and founded there the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, which appeared until June 1849 and which people on the Rhine still remember well today. The freedom of the press of 1848 was probably nowhere so successfully exploited as it was at that time, in the midst of a Prussian fortress, by that newspaper. After the government had tried in vain to silence the newspaper by persecuting it through the courts – Marx was twice brought before the assizes for an offence against the press laws and for inciting people to refuse to pay their taxes, and was acquitted on both occasions – it had to close at the time of the May revolts of 1849 when Marx was expelled on the pretext that he was no longer a Prussian subject, similar pretexts being used to expel the other editors. Marx had therefore to return to Paris, from where he was once again expelled and from where, in the summer of 1849, [about August 26 1849] he went to his present domicile in London.
In London at that time was assembled the entire fine fleur [flower] of the refugees from all the nations of the continent. Revolutionary committees of every kind were formed, combinations, provisional governments in partibus infidelium, [literally: in parts inhabited by infidels. The words are added to the title of Roman Catholic bishops appointed to purely nominal dioceses in non-Christian countries; here it means “in exile”] there were quarrels and wrangles of every kind, and the gentlemen concerned no doubt now look back on that period as the most unsuccessful of their lives. Marx remained aloof from all of those intrigues. For a while he continued to produce his Neue Rheinische Zeitung in the form of a monthly review (Hamburg, 1850), later he withdrew into the British Museum and worked through the immense and as yet for the most part unexamined library there for all that it contained on political economy. At the same time he was a regular contributor to the New York Tribune, acting, until the outbreak of the American Civil War, so to speak, as the editor for European politics of this, the leading Anglo-American newspaper.
The coup d’etat of December 2 induced him to write a pamphlet, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, New York, 1852, which is just now being reprinted (Meissner, Hamburg), and will make no small contribution to an understanding of the untenable position into which that same Bonaparte has just got himself. The hero of the coup d’état is presented here as he really is, stripped of the glory with which his momentary success surrounded him. The philistine who considers his Napoleon III to be the greatest man of the century and is unable now to exaplin to himself how this miraculous genius suddenly comes to be making bloomer after bloomer and one political error after the other – that same philistine can consult the aforementioned work of Marx for his edification.
Although during his whole stay in London Marx chose not to thrust himself to the fore, he was forced by Karl Vogt, after the Italian campaign of 1859, to enter into a polemic, which was brought to an end with Marx’s Herr Vogt (London, 1860). At about the same time his study of political economy bore its first fruit: A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Part One, Berlin, 1859. This instalment contains only the theory of money presented from completely new aspects. The continuation was some time in coming, since the author discovered so much new material in the meantime that he considered it necessary to undertake further studies.
At last, in 1867, there appeared in Hamburg: Capital. A Critique of Political Economy, Volume I. This work contains the results of studies to which a whole life was devoted. It is the political economy of the working class, reduced to its scientific formulation. This work is concerned not with rabble-rousing phrasemongering, but with strictly scientific deductions. Whatever one’s attitude to socialism, one will at any rate have to acknowledge that in this work it is presented for the first time in a scientific manner, and that it was precisely Germany that accomplished this. Anyone still wishing to do battle with socialism, will have to deal with Marx, and if he succeeds in that then he really does not need to mention thedei minorum gentium.” [“Gods of a lesser stock;” meaning, celebrities of lesser stature.]
But there is another point of view from which Marx’s book is of interest. It is the first work in which the actual relations existing between capital and labour, in their classical form such as they have reached in England, are described in their entirety and in a clear and graphic fashion. The parliamentary inquiries provided ample material for this, spanning a period of almost forty years and practically unknown even in England, material dealing with the conditions of the workers in almost every branch of industry, women’s and children’s work, night work, etc.; all this is here made available for the first time. Then there is the history of factory legislation in England which, from its modest beginnings with the first acts of 1802, has now reached the point of limiting working hours in nearly all manufacturing or cottage industries to 60 hours per week for women and young people under the age of 18, and to 39 hours per week for children under 13. From this point of view the book is of the greatest interest for every industrialist.
For many years Marx has been the “best-maligned” of the German writers, and no one will deny that he was unflinching in his retaliation and that all the blows he aimed struck home with a vengeance. But polemics, which he “dealt in” so much, was basically only a means of self-defence for him. In the final analysis his real interest lay with his science, which he has studied and reflected on for twenty-five years with unrivalled conscientiousness, a conscientiousness which has prevented him from presenting his findings to the public in a systematic form until they satisfied him as to their form and content, until he was convinced that he had left no book unread, no objection unconsidered, and that he had examined every point from all its aspects. Original thinkers are very rare in this age of epigones; if, however, a man is not only an original thinker but also disposes over learning unequalled in his subject, then he deserves to be doubly acknowledged.
As one would expect, in addition to his studies Marx is busy with the workers’ movement; he is one of the founders of the International Working Men’s Association, which has been the centre of so much attention recently and has already shown in more than one place in Europe that it is a force to be reckoned with. We believe that we are not mistaken in saying that in this, at least as far as the workers’ movement is concerned, epoch-making organisation the German element – thanks precisely to Marx – holds the influential position which is its due.

Karl Marx, 1818-1883

intellect.gif (9933 bytes)

Karl Marx, 1818-1883

marx-bio.jpg (9551 bytes)The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With theincreasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion to the devaluation of the world of men. Labour produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity -- and does so in the proportion in which it produces commodities generally.
Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1844)
The philosopher, social scientist, historian and revolutionary, Karl Marx, is without a doubt the most influential socialist thinker to emerge in the 19th century. Although he was largely ignored by scholars in his own lifetime, his social, economic and political ideas gained rapid acceptance in the socialist movement after his death in 1883. Until quite recently almost half the population of the world lived under regimes that claim to be Marxist. This very success, however, has meant that the original ideas of Marx have often been modified and his meanings adapted to a great variety of political circumstances. In addition, the fact that Marx delayed publication of many of his writings meant that is been only recently that scholars had the opportunity to appreciate Marx's intellectual stature.
Jenny von Westphalen, 1850sKarl Heinrich Marx was born into a comfortable middle-class home in Trier on the river Moselle in Germany on May 5, 1818. He came from a long line of rabbis on both sides of his family and his father, a man who knew Voltaire and Lessing by heart, had agreed to baptism as a Protestant so that he would not lose his job as one of the most respected lawyers in Trier. At the age of seventeen, Marx enrolled in the Faculty of Law at the University of Bonn. At Bonn he became engaged to Jenny von Westphalen, the daughter of Baron von Westphalen , a prominent member of Trier society, and man responsible for interesting Marx in Romantic literature and Saint-Simonian politics. The following year Marx's father sent him to the more serious University of Berlin where he remained four years, at which time he abandoned his romanticism for the Hegelianism which ruled in Berlin at the time.
Marx became a member of the Young Hegelian movement. This group, which included the theologians Bruno Bauer and David Friedrich Strauss, produced a radical critique of Christianity and, by implication, the liberal opposition to the Prussian autocracy. Finding a university career closed by the Prussian government, Marx moved into journalism and, in October 1842, became editor, in Cologne, of the influential Rheinische Zeitung, a liberal newspaper backed by industrialists. Marx's articles, particularly those on economic questions, forced the Prussian government to close the paper. Marx then emigrated to France.
Friedrich Engels, 1820-1895Arriving in Paris at the end of 1843, Marx rapidly made contact with organized groups of émigré German workers and with various sects of French socialists. He also edited the short-lived Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher which was intended to bridge French socialism and the German radical Hegelians. During his first few months in Paris, Marx became a communist and set down his views in a series of writings known as the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844), which remained unpublished until the 1930s. In the Manuscripts, Marx outlined a humanist conception of communism, influenced by the philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach and based on a contrast between the alienated nature of labor under capitalism and a communist society in which human beings freely developed their nature in cooperative production. It was also in Paris that Marx developed his lifelong partnership with Friedrich Engels (1820-1895).
30 Rue Vanneau, ParisMarx was expelled from Paris at the end of 1844 and with Engels, moved to Brussels where he remained for the next three years, visiting England where Engels' family had cotton spinning interests in Manchester. While in Brussels Marx devoted himself to an intensive study of history and elaborated what came to be known as the materialist conception of history. This he developed in a manuscript (published posthumously as The German Ideology), of which the basic thesis was that "the nature of individuals depends on the material conditions determining their production." Marx traced the history of the various modes of production and predicted the collapse of the present one -- industrial capitalism -- and its replacement by communism.
At the same time Marx was composing The German Ideology, he also wrote a polemic (The Poverty of Philosophy) against the idealistic socialism of P. J. Proudhon (1809-1865). He also joined the Communist League. This was an organization of German émigré workers with its center in London of which Marx and Engels became the major theoreticians. At a conference of the League in London at the end of 1847 Marx and Engels were commissioned to write a succinct declaration of their position. Scarcely was The Communist Manifestopublished than the 1848 wave of revolutions broke out in Europe.
Early in 1848 Marx moved back to Paris when a revolution first broke out and onto Germany where he founded, again in Cologne, the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. The paper supported a radical democratic line against the Prussian autocracy and Marx devoted his main energies to its editorship since the Communist League had been virtually disbanded. Marx's paper was suppressed and he sought refuge in London in May 1849 to begin the "long, sleepless night of exile" that was to last for the rest of his life.
Settling in London, Marx was optimistic about the imminence of a new revolutionary outbreak in Europe. He rejoined the Communist League and wrote two lengthy pamphlets on the 1848 revolution in France and its aftermath, The Class Struggles in France and The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. He was soon convinced that "a new revolution is possible only in consequence of a new crisis" and then devoted himself to the study of political economy in order to determine the causes and conditions of this crisis.
28 Dean Street, LondonDuring the first half of the 1850s the Marx family lived in poverty in a three room flat in the Soho quarter of London. Marx and Jenny already had four children and two more were to follow. Of these only three survived. Marx's major source of income at this time was Engels who was trying a steadily increasing income from the family business in Manchester. This was supplemented by weekly articles written as a foreign correspondent for the New York Daily Tribune.
Marx's major work on political economy made slow progress. By 1857 he had produced a gigantic 800 page manuscript on capital, landed property, wage labor, the state, foreign trade and the world market. The Grundrisse (or Outlines) was not published until 1941. In the early 1860s he broke off his work to compose three large volumes, Theories of Surplus Value, which discussed the theoreticians of political economy, particularly Adam Smith and David Ricardo. It was not until 1867 that Marx was able to publish the first results of his work in volume 1 of Capital, a work which analyzed the capitalist process of production. In Capital, Marx elaborated his version of the labor theory value and his conception of surplus value and exploitation which would ultimately lead to a falling rate of profit in the collapse of industrial capitalism. Volumes II and III were finished during the 1860s but Marx worked on the manuscripts for the rest of his life and they were published posthumously by Engels.
Jenny, Laura, Eleanor, Engels and Marx (1864)One reason why Marx was so slow to publish Capital was that he was devoting his time and energy to the First International, to whose General Council he was elected at its inception in 1864. He was particularly active in preparing for the annual Congresses of the International and leading the struggle against the anarchist wing led byMikhail Bakunin (1814-1876). Although Marx won this contest, the transfer of the seat of the General Council from London to New York in 1872, which Marx supported, led to the decline of the International. The most important political event during the existence of the International was the Paris Commune of 1871 when the citizens of Paris rebelled against their government and held the city for two months. On the bloody suppression of this rebellion, Marx wrote one of his most famous pamphlets, The Civil War in France, an enthusiastic defense of the Commune.
During the last decade of his life, Marx's health declined and he was incapable of sustained effort that had so characterized his previous work. He did manage to comment substantially on contemporary politics, particularly in Germany and Russia. In Germany, he opposed in his Critique of the Gotha Programme, the tendency of his followers Wilhelm Liebknecht (1826-1900) and August Bebel (1840-1913) to compromise with state socialism of Lasalle in the interests of a united socialist party. In his correspondence with Vera Zasulich Marx contemplated the possibility of Russia's bypassing the capitalist stage of development and building communism on the basis of the common ownership of land characteristic of the village mir.
Marx's gravesite, Highgate Cemetary, LondonMarx's health did not improve. He traveled to European spas and even to Algeria in search of recuperation. The deaths of his eldest daughter and his wife clouded the last years of his life. Marx died March 14, 1883 and was buried at Highgate Cemetery in North London. His collaborator and close friend Friedrich Engels delivered the following eulogy three days later:
On the 14th of March, at a quarter to three in the afternoon, the greatest living thinker ceased to think. He had been left alone for scarcely two minutes, and when we came back we found him in his armchair, peacefully gone to sleep -- but for ever.

An immeasurable loss has been sustained both by the militant proletariat of Europe and America, and by historical science, in the death of this man. The gap that has been left by the departure of this mighty spirit will soon enough make itself felt.

Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.

But that is not all. Marx also discovered the special law of motion governing the present-day capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois society that this mode of production has created. The discovery of surplus value suddenly threw light on the problem, in trying to solve which all previous investigations, of both bourgeois economists and socialist critics, had been groping in the dark.

Two such discoveries would be enough for one lifetime. Happy the man to whom it is granted to make even one such discovery. But in every single field which Marx investigated -- and he investigated very many fields, none of them superficially -- in every field, even in that of mathematics, he made independent discoveries.

Such was the man of science. But this was not even half the man. Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force. However great the joy with which he welcomed a new discovery in some theoretical science whose practical application perhaps it was as yet quite impossible to envisage, he experienced quite another kind of joy when the discovery involved immediate revolutionary changes in industry, and in historical development in general. For example, he followed closely the development of the discoveries made in the field of electricity and recently those of Marcel Deprez.

For Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat, which he was the first to make conscious of its own position and its needs, conscious of the conditions of its emancipation. Fighting was his element. And he fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success such as few could rival. His work on the first 
Rheinische Zeitung (1842), the Paris Vorwarts(1844), the Deutsche Brusseler Zeitung (1847), the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (1848-49), the New York Tribune (1852-61), and, in addition to these, a host of militant pamphlets, work in organisations in Paris, Brussels and London, and finally, crowning all, the formation of the great International Working Men's Association -- this was indeed an achievement of which its founder might well have been proud even if he had done nothing else.

And, consequently, Marx was the best hated and most calumniated man of his time. Governments, both absolutist and republican, deported him from their territories. Bourgeois, whether conservative or ultra-democratic, vied with one another in heaping slanders upon him. All this he brushed aside as though it were a cobweb, ignoring it, answering only when extreme necessity compelled him. And he died beloved, revered and mourned by millions of revolutionary fellow workers -- from the mines of Siberia to California, in all parts of Europe and America -- and I make bold to say that, though he may have had many opponents, he had hardly one personal enemy.

His name will endure through the ages, and so also will his work.

Marx's contribution to our understanding of society has been enormous. His thought is not the comprehensive system evolved by some of his followers under the name of dialectical materialism. The very dialectical nature of his approach meant that it was usually tentative and open-ended. There was also the tension between Marx the political activist and Marx the student of political economy. Many of his expectations about the future course of the revolutionary movement have, so far, failed to materialize. However, his stress on the economic factor in society and his analysis of the class structure in class conflict have had an enormous influence on history, sociology, and study of human culture.

Perfect' Presentation Tips


PowerPoint is the most popular tool for giving presentations. It's ideal for everything from sales talks to academic lectures.

The program makes compiling and running a presentation easy, but there are still pitfalls that can trip up even the best presenter. Here are the eight P's to remember when planning a presentation:
  1. Purpose: Make sure you always know why you were asked to speak, who you will be speaking to, what they're looking to get out of your presentation and how you plan on delivering what they're seeking.
  2. Presentation: To start your presentation off with style, make sure you have a powerful opening. As you get into the meat of your presentation, remember it's your job to educate the audience, not inundate them with too much information. The bottom line is to make sure your audience understands the information you are trying to convey.
  3. PowerPoint: Always remember that less is more when it comes to PowerPoint. As you are laying out your slides, try to use the 5 x 5 matrix: no more than five lines and five words maximum per line. Also, never read your PowerPoint slides. PowerPoint was created to support the speaker, not be the speaker.
  4. Podium: If you find yourself speaking a lot, a good rule of thumb is to use a microphone when speaking to a group of 30 people or more. This will save your voice from unnecessary wear and tear. If you have the opportunity before your presentation to visit the room where you will be speaking, make sure the thermostat is turned down so the temperature will be at a comfortable level once the room is filled with people.
  5. Passion: It is by far the most important part of speaking. If somebody asks you to speak about something that you do not have true passion for, I suggest you decline the invitation and find somebody who does have the necessary passion for that particular topic.
  6. Perspiration: To help overcome any nervousness you might be feeling, always remember that you are the expert. If you know one more thing about a particular topic than anybody else, that makes you the expert.
  7. Practice: Always take the time to listen to your own presentation. I suggest using an audio tape recorder to listen to how you sound and a video recorder to see what you look like during your presentation. You'll be amazed at how much you'll learn about yourself. For the true beginning speakers, I suggest you check out a local Toastmasters chapter. For the more experienced speakers, I suggest you check out The National Speakers Association. Go to NSASpeaker.org for more information.
  8. Perfection: There is no such thing. Making mistakes during a presentation is very natural. What makes you a real pro is how you recover from these mistakes. No one in your audience knows you made a mistake, so just move on to your next point.

Nepal: Chronology Of Important Events

Nepal: Chronology Of Important Events
Newars are thought to have lived in the Nepal Valley since the 4th century AD, developing a Hindu-Buddhist culture. The Gurkha principality was later established by RAJPUT warriors from India, and in 1769 they conquered lands beyond the present-day borders of Nepal. After incursions into northern India in which the Gurkhas were defeated, Nepal lost part of its territory to British India but retained its independence and enjoyed close ties with the British.It has maintained its close association with India since the latter gained independence in 1947.
Nepal, the world's only Hindu monarchy, was controlled by a hereditary prime ministership until 1951. The nation's first election was held in 1959, but in 1960, King Mahendra dismissed the cabinet, dissolved parliament, and banned political parties. A 1962 constitution created a nonparty panchayat (council) system of government. After a 1980 referendum approved a modified version of the panchayat system, direct parliamentary elections were held in 1981. A dispute with India led to India's closing of most border crossings from March 1989 to July 1990, and the resultant economic crisis fueled demands for political reform. After months of violence, King Birendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev dissolved parliament. The opposition formed an interim government in April 1990, and a new constitution creating a constitutional monarchy and a bicameral legislature became effective on Nov. 9, 1990. Multiparty legislative elections held in May 1991 were won by the centrist Nepali Congress party; the Communists became the leading opposition party. Mid-term elections in November 1994, which were called after the government lost a parliamentary vote, resulted in a hung parliament and the communists, who emerged as the single largest party, formed a minority government.
PeriodDescription
ca. 563 B.C.Buddha born in Lumbini
ca. A.D.400-750Licchavi kingdom in power in Kathmandu
1100-1484Khasa Mall kings rule in western Nepal
1200-16Arimalla, first monarch of the Malla Dynasty, rules in Kathmandu Valley.
1312Khasa King Ripumalla leads raid in Kathmandu Valley
1345-46Sultan Shams ud-din Ilyas of Bengal leads raid in Kathmandu Valley.
1382-95Jayasthitimalla rules as king of united Malla kingdom in Kathmandu Valley.
1428-82Yakshamalla reigns - height of united Malla kingdom.
1484Malla kingdom divided; three kingdoms of Kathmandu, Bhadgaon, and Patan established.
1559Gorkha kindgom established by Dravya Shah.
1606-33Ram Shah of Gorkha reigns; Gorkha kindgom experiences first expansion.
1743Prithvi Narayan Shah ascends to throne of Gorkha.
1768-90Gorkha conquers Kathmandu and Patan, Bhadgaon, eastern Nepal, and western Nepal.
1775Prithvi Narayan Shah dies, first king of united Nepal.
1814-1816The Anglo-Nepalese War and the resulting Treaty of Sagauli reduces the territory of Nepal.
1846Jang Bahadur Rana takes over as prime minister and establishes hereditary Rana rule.
1946The Nepali Congress Party is founded.
1947The United States establishes diplomatic relations with Nepal.
1948
  • The country's first constitution, the Government of Nepal Act, is promulgated;
  • Prime Minister Padma Shamsher Rana resigns in the wake of opposition to the new constitution from conservative Ranas;
  • Mohan Shamsher becomes prime minister; constitution is suspended.
1951
  • Mohan Shamsher capitulates;
  • King Tribhuvan is restored to the throne
1952
  • Koirala resigns;
  • King assumes direct rule.
1953Koirala is recalled as prime minister.
1955
  • King Tribhuvan dies and is succeeded by Mahendra;
  • Nepal joins the United Nations;
  • National Police Force is formed;
  • Koirala resigns; Mahendra takes over direct control.
1956
  • Tanka Prasad Acharya is named prime minister;
  • Border treaty with China concluded;
1957
  • Acharya resigns;
  • K.I. Singh becomes prime minister for a few months.
1958
  • USSR opens an embassy at Kathmandu;
  • Subarna Shamsher is named new prime minister.
1959
  • United States opens an embassy at Kathmandu;
  • New constitution is promulgated, superseding Constitution of 1951;
  • First general elections are held;
  • Nepal Congress Party wins absolute majority;
  • Tribhuvan University founded;
1960
  • B.P. Koirala heads first popular government;
  • Koirala's policies are opposed by the king, and Koirala is abruptly dismissed;
  • All political parties are banned; the king takes over direct control of government;
  • Treaty of Peace and Friendship with China is concluded.
1961
  • Kind proclaims guided democracy;
  • Boundary treaty with China renewed.
1962
  • New constitution, third since 1951, establishes panchayat form of government;
  • Land Reorganization Act and Mulki Ain, new legal code, are promulgated;
  • Anti-India riots erupt in Kathmandu over Indian aid to dissidents.
1963
  • Emergency is ended; Panchayat elections begin;
  • National Guidance Council is formed;
  • Tulsi Giri is named prime minister;
1965
  • Local government reorganized;
  • Giri resigns;
  • Surya Bahadur Thapa is appointed prime minister
1969
  • Thapa yields office to Kirti Nidhi Bista;
  • Indian military mission withdrawn.
1970
  • Bista resigns;
  • Raj Bhandari becomes interim prime minister.
1971
  • Bista is recalled as prime minister;
  • New trade and transit treaty negotiated with India.
1972
  • Mahedra dies and is succeeded by King Birendra;
  • Development regions are established under National Development Council.
1973
  • Nagendra Prasad Rijal is named prime minister;
  • Singha Durbar, the seat of government, burns down.
1975
  • Rijal resigns;
  • Tulsi Giri is appointed prime minister;
  • King Birendra is crowned;
  • "Go to the Village" campaign is launched.
1976
  • B.P. Koirala returns from India and is arrested;
  • Treaty with India expires and is not renewed.
1977
  • Tulsi Giri resigns as prime minister in the wake of corruption charges;
  • Former prime minister Kirti Nidhi Bista is reinstated as prime minister.
1979
  • Following nationwide demonstrations by students, Bista is replaced as prime minister by Surya Bahadur Thapa;
  • King announces referendum on the panchayat form of government.
1980In national referendum people vote for continuance of the panchayat form of government and against the reintroduction of political parties.
1982B.P. Koirala, Nepali Congress Party leader dies.
1983Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa is defeated in the Rastriya Panchayat and is replaced by Lokendra Bahadur Chand.
1986
  • Second elections to Rastriya Panchayat held;
  • Marich Man Singh Shrestha becomes prime minister.
1989Failure to renegotiate trade and transit treaties with India disrupts economy.
1990
  • Demonstrations for the restoration of democracy;
  • Panchayat system is dissolved;
  • Interim government made up of various parties and king's representatives formed;
  • New constitution promulgated.
1991
  • Elections to Parliament held;
  • Nepali Congress wins a narrow majority;
  • G.P. Koirala becomes prime minister.President of Nepali Congress and interim prime minister, K.P. Bhattarai, defeated in the polls by the leader of CPN-UML, Madan Bhandari.
1992
  • Local elections held;
  • Nepali Congress wins a majority of the seats.
1993
  • Madan Bhandari killed in a mysterious car crash. Violent demonstrations by communists to overthrow Koirala's government;
  • Devastating floods kill hundreds.
1994
  • Prime minister Koirala resigns and calls for new elections afte losing a parliamentary vote due to the abstention of 36 members of his own party. New elections in November results in a hung parliament;
  • CPN-UML, which emerged as the single largest party, formes a minority government.
1995The minority goverment of CPN-UML loses power in a parliamentary vote of no-confidence. A coalition government of Nepali Congress, RPP and Sadhvabana is formed.
1997The NC-RPP coalition government loses power resulting in a UML-RPP coalition. This government itself loses power six months later to another NC-RPP coalition. Ganesh Man Singh, who led the 1990 democracy movement dies.
1999The third general elections after restoration of democracy results in Nepali Congress coming back to power with an absolute majority in the House. Krishna P. Bhattarai becomes Prime Minister for the second time.

Chronology Of Important Events


563 B.C.
The Buddha born in Lumbini, in Tarai Region of Nepal


268-31 B.C.
Ashoka establishes empire in north India


ca. A.D. 353-73
Samudragupta establishes empire in north India


400-750
Licchavi kingdom in power in Kathmandu Valley


750-1200
"Transitional" kingdom in power in Kathmandu Valley


1100-1484
Khasa Malla kings rule in western Nepal


1200-16
Arimalla, first monarch of the Malla Dynasty, rules in
Kathmandu Valle



1312
Khasa king Ripumalla leads raid in Kathmandu Valley


1345-46
Sultan Shams ud-din Ilyas of Bengal leads raid in Kathmandu
Valley


1382-95
Jayasthitimalla rules as king of united Malla kingdom in
Kathmandu Valley


1428-82
Yakshamalla reigns--height of united Malla kingdom


1484
Malla kingdom divided; three kingdoms of Kathmandu, Bhadgaon,
and Patan expand


1526
Mughal Empire established in north India



1559
Gorkha kingdom established


1606-33
Ram Shah of Gorkha reigns; Gorkha kingdom experiences first
expansion. 1728 Chinese influence established in Tibet


1743
Prithvi Narayan Shah ascends to throne of Gorkha


1764
British East India Company gains control of Bengal


1768-90
Gorkha conquers Kathmandu and Patan, Bhadgaon, eastern Nepal,
and western Nepal


1775
Prithvi Narayan Shah dies, first king of united Nepal


1791-92
Nepal defeated in war with China


1806
Bhimsen Thapa becomes prime minister


1809
Nepalese troops lay seige to Kangra, farthest extent of Gorkha
empire


1814-16
Anglo-Nepalese War waged; Nepal defeated


1837
Bhimsen Thapa falls, beginning unstable period in court
politics


1846
Kot Massacre takes place; Jang Bahadur becomes prime minister


1855-56
War waged with China


1856
Royal decree gives absolute power to prime minister and his
family


1857-58
Sepoy Rebellion waged against British in north India; Nepal
aids British


1858
Jang Bahadur receives title of Rana


1877
Jang Bahadur Rana dies


1885
Ranoddip Singh Rana assassinated; Bir Shamser Rana becomes
prime minister


1901
Dev Shamsher Rana forced to abdicate; Chandra Shamsher Rana
becomes prime minister


1914-18
Thousands of Nepalese citizens fight as soldiers for British
in World War I


1923
Treaty of Friendship with Britain confirms independence of
Nepal and special relationship with British Empire


1935
Praja Parishad established, first political party in Nepal


1939-45
Tens of thousands of Nepalese citizens fight as soldiers for
British in World War II


1947
Nepali National Congress established through merger of former
All-India Nepali National Congress with Nepalese Society of
Banaras and Gorkha Congress of Calcutta


1948
Prime Minister Padma Shamsher Rana announces first
constitution of Nepal, then resigns; his replacement, Mohan
Shamsher Rana, represses opposition


1950
Nepali National Congress absorbs Nepal Democratic Congress and
becomes Nepali Congress Party; civil war breaks out


1950-51
Ranas fall; King Tribhuvan regains control over army and
administration; interim constitution enacted


1952
King Mahendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev ascends throne


1955
Nepal admitted to United Nations


1956
First Five-Year Plan of economic development initiated


1959
King Mahendra enacts new constitution; first general elections
in Nepal bring to power Nepali Congress Party with B.P.
Koirala as prime minister


1960
King Mahendra dismisses the democratic government and
imprisons B.P. Koirala and other leaders


1962
War waged between India and China; new constitution sets up
panchayat system


1963
First elections held to National Panchayat


1972
King Birendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev ascends throne


1980
National Referendum supports panchayat system


1982
B.P. Koirala, Nepali Congress Party leader, dies


1986
Second elections held to National Panchayat


1989
Failure to renegotiate trade and transit treaties with India
disrupts economy


1990
New constitution promulgated as result of agitations and
successes of Movement for the Restoration of Democracy


1991Elections to Parliament held; Nepali Congress wins a narrow majority; G.P. Koirala becomes prime minister.President of Nepali Congress and interim prime minister, K.P. Bhattarai, defeated in the polls by the leader of CPN-UML, Madan Bhandari.
1992 
Local elections held; Nepali Congress wins a majority of the seats.
1993Madan Bhandari killed in a mysterious car crash. Violent demonstrations by communists to overthrow Koirala's government; devastating floods kill hundreds.

1994
Prime minister Koirala resigns and calls for new elections afte losing a parliamentary vote due to the abstention of 36 members of his own party. New elections in November results in a hung parliament; CPN-UML, which emerged as the single largest party, formes a minority government.
1995The minority goverment of CPN-UML loses power in a parliamentary vote of no-confidence. A coalition government of Nepali Congress, RPP and Sadhvabana is formed.
1997 
The NC-RPP coalition government loses power resulting in a UML-RPP coalition. This government itself loses power six months later to another NC-RPP coalition. Ganesh Man Singh, who led the
Sources: The Third World Encyclopedia; Nepal and Bhutan, Country Studies.

Niccoló Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Statecraft


Florentine political advisor and historian often regarded as the first Modern Western Political Theorist. After
the fall of Savonarola’s administration, Machiavelli became head of the Second Chancery of Florence at the
age of 29. As a member of Florentine diplomatic delegations, Machiavelli became acquainted with the chief
political actors of his region and time – notably, Cesare Borgia, Maximilian (the Holy Roman Emperor), and
Pope Julius II. Following the invasion of Florence and restoration of the Medici family, Machiavelli was sacked
and imprisoned for conspiracy. Upon his release in 1513 he sought employment as a political adviser to the
new Medici Pope (Giovanni), to whom he dedicated The Prince. Political ambitions frustrated, Machiavelli
turned to scholarship in the company of a group of ‘literati’ at the ‘Orti Oricellari’. During this period he wrote
(among other works) three Discourses on the first ten books of Livy’s history of Rome (completed in 1519).
From 1521 until his death, Machiavelli devoted his attention to writing a commissioned history of Florence.
Machiavelli’s main contributions to political science are to be found in The Prince and the Discourses. Both
works can be seen as expounding the requirements for the maintenance of political stability in two different
regimes (principalities in The Prince, republics in the Discourses), addressing similar themes, and offering
similar counsel to political leaders. The primary goal of political leaders must be to sustain government, and to
acquire glory, honour, and riches for the rulers and their people. The bulk of discussion in these works is
concerned with what is required of those in power in order to secure these goods. Machiavelli’s answer rests
on the interplay of two key classical concepts – fortune and virtú.
Machiavelli’s concept of fortune is very much a Roman rather than a Christian inheritance. Fortune is not a
synonym for ‘fate’ or ‘Providence’ in Machiavelli’s usage. Rather, it is a ‘force’ with which a state must ‘ally’
itself in order to reap greatness. Machiavelli argues that princes (and in republics the whole citizen body) must
be prepared to do whatever is necessary to preserve liberty and earn glory on behalf of the state. This is the
quality of virtú. Virtú uses luck and fortune when it can, but princes who possess it can achieve great things
even without luck or fortune. In an evil world, Machiavelli warns, the wise prince must recognize that it is not
always prudent to act according to conventional maxims of private morality. Nothing other than necessity
should dictate prince’s actions. Much of The Prince is devoted to examples (drawn largely from Machiavelli’s
own diplomatic experience) of the art of political leadership – princes must imitate the cunning of the fox and
the brawn of the lion; they must avoid the people’s hatred but sustain their awe; they must consistently
project an image of nobility and virtue irrespective of their deeds; they must be prepared to be cruel. His name
became associated with the exercise of cunning and expediency.
Whereas The Prince is concerned with the qualities of princes, the Discourses place a greater emphasis on the
civic demands on citizens. Machiavelli’s central claim in the Discourses is that liberty is a necessary
precondition for the accumulation of power and riches. The protection of liberty is therefore the fundamental
political task in a republic, and requires first and foremost a citizen body of the highest ‘virtue’. What role
should rulers play in a republic? Machiavelli’s answer is that they should organize the polity in such a way as to
promote the virtue of its citizens, and prevent its corruption (either by the substitution of private for general
interests, or by creeping indifference). This requires men of great stature, exhibiting those qualities detailed in
The Prince. In addition, a state can only secure its liberty through a perennial quest for dominion over other
states (for which a large population, citizen militias, and strong allies are indispensable). Internally, a strong
republic is characterized by a wisely designed constitution and basic institutions (ordini) whose chief function is
to promote the civic patriotism required to secure liberty. Central to this project is state sponsorship of divine
worship in order to inspire individuals to strive for excellence and glory. However, Machiavelli is at his most
radical in urging that this utilitarian function is better fulfilled by Roman religion than by Christianity (with its
enervating values of piety, humility, and general ‘other-worldliness’). Machiavelli also rejects conventional
1 Following introductory section is heavily borrowed from Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan (eds.), The Concise Dictionary of Politics, (New
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2003).
2 | P a g e
Rajeev Kunwar, 2010
Interactive Lecture @KSL L.L.B 1st Year
Christian affirmation of social harmony by emphasizing the instrumental value of preserving the distinction
between the ‘orders’ of rich and poor. Fearing the domination of one order by the other, Machiavelli
embraced the notion of a ‘mixed constitution’, neither aristocracy nor democracy, but embracing elements of
both forms. Similarly, laws should be designed not only to protect the rich (e.g. prohibition on slander) as well
as the masses (e.g. limitation of emergency power provisions), but to keep people poor in order to avoid the
dangers of factionalism.
Machiavelli remains an impenetrable figure – as Sabine observes: ‘He has been represented as an utter cynic,
an impassioned patriot, an ardent nationalist, a political Jesuit, a convinced democrat, and an unscrupulous
seeker after the favor of despots.’ His work excites similar controversy. Civic republican commentators (e.g.
Skinner, Pocock) see Machiavelli as part of a broader contemporary renaissance of the virtues of classical
humanism. Straussians (e.g. Strauss, Mansfield), in contrast, view Machiavelli as a pivotal figure in the history
of political philosophy in his elevation of ‘liberty’ above ‘nature’ as the defining object of political inquiry. To
these interpreters, Machiavelli is the first modern political philosopher.
Machiavelli is not interested in the religious and ecclesiastical issues so characteristic of medieval political
thought.2 He is on the whole hostile to Christianity, believing that a people genuinely committed to the
Christian virtues of meekness and submission would not thrive in the cut-throat world of politics. He is a
republican and a patriot interested in the establishment and maintenance of a strong state in the face of
foreign aggression and domestic upheaval. This interest expresses itself in two main ways. In The Prince,
Machiavelli’s concern is with how one man can maintain his sway over subjects; The Discourses, he addresses
the question of how a republic can be made to endure and prosper by channeling the fundamentally selfish
vigour of its citizens in publicly beneficial ways. Machiavelli’s method is historical and comparative, relying
especially upon illustrations furnished by classical antiquity. His purpose is to show how events are conditioned
by the circumstances in which they occurred, to identify their causes, and to lay bare the general principles
underlying human relationships and behavior. His underlying hope seems to be that a strong prince will one
day unify Italy and that a republican form of government will thereafter emerge.
Throughout his writings, Machiavelli subscribes to a consistent theory of human nature. An important aspect
of this theory is the assumption that human nature is changeless. It is this that enables us to make
generalization about politics. Although their behavior is always in some respects modified by their conditions
of life, human beings exhibit the same essential characteristics, and these characteristics are not of the kind
traditionally admired. Machiavelli says in The Prince,
One can make this generalization about men: that they are ungrateful, fickle, liars and
deceivers; they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well they are
yours… but when you are in danger they turn against you. (The Prince ch. 17)
In The Discourses (3:4) he remarks that
All men are bad, and ready to display their vicious nature whenever they find occasion for it.
If their evil disposition remains concealed for a time, this must be attributed to some
unknown reason, and we must assume that it has lacked occasion to show itself; but time,
which has been said to be the father of all truth, does not fail to bring it to light.
The root of man’s ‘evil disposition’, Machiavelli believes, is inveterate (arch) selfishness. This selfishness
manifests itself primarily in the desire for self-preservation and security; then, when security has been
achieved, it becomes a single-minded devotion to personal power and the glory inseparable from it. Also,
power means freedom: this is one of the main reasons why people value it. Even those who do not wish to rule
2 The following section is drawn from Ian Adams and R.W. Dyson, Fifty Great Political Thinkers, (London & New York, Routledge, 1st Indian
reprint, 2004), pp. 38-46.
3 | P a g e
Rajeev Kunwar, 2010
Interactive Lecture @KSL L.L.B 1st Year
others at least wish to have enough power to prevent themselves from falling too completely under the
control of others. The world is divided into those who dominate and those who strive not to be dominated.
It is because this desire for power plays so prominent a part in human behavior. Machiavelli believes, that
political life has always been characterized by strife. Politics is not, and cannot be, about the kind of cooperation
and organic interdependence that Plato and Aristotle assumed to be possible. People are able to cooperate,
but they do so only in so far and for as long as co-operation serves their turn. The traditional
suggestion that the point of politics is to achieve a harmonious common good is humbug. Politics necessarily
involves struggle. In a monarchy, Machiavelli suggests, the struggle is that of one man to dominate all others. It
is true that the prince’s private gratification can also be a public good. The decisive qualities of the ruthless
Italian Cesare Borgia are just what are needed to unite Italy. But the prince’s primary purpose is his own secure
tenure and free enjoyment of power. The struggle can be seen most clearly in the case of prince who has just
seized power, and whose position is therefore not buttressed by custom, apathy or the people’s veneration for
his family. The ‘new’ prince has to maintain and consolidate his position by his own adroitness alone.
Ostensibly, The Prince is a treatise on how he may do so.
Machiavelli suggests that the prince must rely chiefly on the judicious use of force and deceit. Because we
must assume that man is the slave of his own selfish passions, it is pointless and unsafe to suppose that
subjects may be ruled by obtaining their rational consent or setting them a good moral example. Whereever
there is a choice, men will respond to the dictates of passion rather than to the requirements of moral reason.
It is therefore by manipulating the passions of others that they can be made to do what one wants them to do.
There is, in politics, no such thing as an effective appeal to reason. Machiavelli suggests that there are four
passions that govern human behavior: love, hatred, fear and contempt. Love and hatred are mutually
exclusive: clearly it is not possible simultaneously to love and hate someone. By the same token, it is not
possible to both fear and despise someone: fear and contempt are also incompatibles. However, love and fear
are compatible; so are hatred and contempt, hatred and fear, and love and contempt. The passions that the
prince will most obviously seek to inspire are the compatibles of love and fear. If people hate and despise their
ruler, they cannot be controlled and they will, indeed, be anxious to act against him. Love and fear are
therefore to be induced, and contempt and hatred avoided. The worst thing that can happen to a ruler in
seeking to maintain his power, Machiavelli suggests, is that he be despised. Thus, though love and fear are
best, hatred and fear are to be preferred to love and contempt. Any combination with fear will be good
because it will mean that subjects can be controlled through their fear. Any combination with contempt,
however, even if that combination is love, is to be avoided because it will rob the ruler of his power to coerce:
fear and contempt are incompatibles. It is not essential to be loved, but it is essential to be feared – and it is
even more essential not to be despised.
What this means, in plain terms, is that the foundation of the prince’s power is force and his willingness to use
it ruthlessly. This accounts for Machiavelli’s assertion that the only arts that the prince need acquire are the
military arts. Many of Machiavelli’s Renaissance contemporaries, and many of his forbears in the history of
political thought, had taken it as a truism that the prince should be a cultivated and humane man: a patron of
the arts, godly, wise, learned and so forth. To Machiavelli, though, the proper study of the prince is the art of
war. This is because, for Machiavelli, politics itself is only a kind of muted or ritualized warfare. His takes it for
granted that, in quality if not in scale, the relations between a ruler and his subjects are the same as those
between sovereign states. It is as if subjects are perpetually at war with their ruler, just as states are always
potentially or actually at war with one another. The prince’s correct general policy, therefore, is to ensure that
there is no one who has sufficient power to challenge him, because, if such persons exist, he must assume that
lust for power will induce them to challenge him indeed. Moreover, war between states, Machiavelli thinks,
can never be avoided, only postponed: the prince who does not realize this is heading for disaster. If there are
neighbouring powers capable of challenging the power of the prince, war is inevitable, because neither side
can rest secure until the threat from the other is removed. So it is always best to attack if one has the
4 | P a g e
Rajeev Kunwar, 2010
Interactive Lecture @KSL L.L.B 1st Year
advantage or to destroy the other’s advantage by diplomacy if not. War should never be postponed to one’s
own detriment. Above all, if the prince is forced to injure others, he should do it in such a way as to deprive
them of power permanently or destroy them altogether. If he does not do this, desire for revenge will
augment their natural ambition and they will leave no stone unturned in their efforts to undermine him.
Machiavelli’s view of morality and politics is, then, very different from the traditional insistence that the food
ruler is necessarily also a good man: that he will exhibit moral virtue in his own life and conduct; that he will
set a good example to his subjects; that he will seek to secure the common good rather than his own good
merely; that he will submit to the guidance of the Church. To the Machiavelli of The Prince, politics is simply
about getting and keeping power. He attaches to the word ‘virtue’ a quasi-technical meaning. Virtue, to
Machiavelli – it is the custom in discussing his view to retain the Italian spelling, virtú – is not moral virtue;
rather, it is a particular kind of skill or aptitude, combined, of course, with the will to use it.
We can amplify this idea by examining the relationship, which Machiavelli sketches in The Prince, between
virtú and fortuna. There is, he remarks, a considerable extent to which we are all in the hands of the fickle
goddess Fortuna, and experience teaches us that there is no necessary connection between traditional moral
virtues and the incidence of good and ill fortune. An honest and skilful merchant may have all his ships sunk in
a storm, and his honesty will not help him. A diligent and godfearing farmer may still have all his corps
destroyed in a storm. Life does not run in comfortable grooves; unpredictable and unexpected things happen;
we inhabit a morally incoherent world in which there is no necessary relation between what one deserves and
what one gets. And nowhere is this unpredictability and moral incoherence more evident than in the political
forum. Those who occupy the shifting and unstable world of politics are pre-eminently in the hands of fortune.
For them, there is certainly no connection between desert and reward. They do not know from one day to the
next what will happen, how loyalties will change, how the balance of force will alter, and so on.
In contrast to the unstable and contingent world of practical affairs, however, stands the fact that, on the
whole, human beings have rigid and inflexible temperaments. A man’s character and disposition, Machiavelli
observes, and therefore his mode of procedure, are normally fairly fixed and constant. Indeed, what might be
termed a traditional moral education calls upon one to cultivate such a fixed and constant disposition (one is
brought up, after all, to be virtuous only sometimes or when it serves one’s purposes). But what is the good of
having an inflexible mode of procedure in a world where the necessities under which fortune places one are
subject to such variation? Always to act in the same way regardless of the circumstances in which you find
yourself is, Machiavelli insists, a recipe for disaster. This is particularly true, of course, if you are a prince –
especially a new prince – trying to survive in the volatile and merciless world of politics.
In a nutshell, then, we can say that, for Machiavelli, virtú is that quality or prowess which enables an individual
to encounter the blows of fortune and overcome them by whatever means are necessary. Fortune, he tells us,
uttering in the process a celebrated piece of political incorrectness, is like a willful and headstrong woman. A
man should cope with her, just as he would with any willful and headstrong woman, by beating her into
submission. In his encounters with fortune, it will not do for the prince to be bound by a rigid moral
temperament. He must be adaptable. He must be ready and able to use both the lion and the fox in him: he
must be able to be both man and beast. When mercy is appropriate, let him be merciful; but when it is
appropriate for him to be merciless, savage and terrifying, let him be these things too. Let him be honest and
truthful where necessary; but let him lie and break faith if he must. The prince must do whatever
circumstances require, and if those circumstances require him to disregard traditional moral values and
Christian ways of behaving, then so be it. It is self-defeating to behave in ways that will increase one’s chances
of losing power or to omit to behave in ways that will increase one’s chances of keeping it.
Many of Machiavelli’s contemporaries held, and many of his subsequent critics have held, that he is a teacher
of evil. By the early 17th century, Machiavelli’s name had become synonym for tyranny and perfidy. But it is
5 | P a g e
Rajeev Kunwar, 2010
Interactive Lecture @KSL L.L.B 1st Year
easy enough to see that Machiavelli does not counsel wickedness and that his prince is not a wicked man.
Machiavelli is quite ready to concede that, from the point of view of ordinary morality, necessity requires
political actors to do deplorable things. This may be regrettable, but the fact remains that the prince who can
not alter his mode of procedure to suit changing circumstances will not be a prince for long. This is a fact of life
and there is no point, Machiavelli thinks, in wringing one’s hands about it. Most people can not deviate from
what their character or education predisposes them to; or perhaps, having prospered by walking in one path,
they cannot persuade themselves to adopt another. If one could change one’s mode of procedure and
character to suit the varying conditions of one’s life, one’s fortune would never change. The successful prince,
Machiavelli thinks, is a man who can do precisely this. The ability by which he counteracts the effects of
fortune is the ability to be infinitely flexible, to bend with the breeze. Everything he does is done because
circumstances require it; he does nothing merely because his character or moral principle dictates it. We
might, therefore, most easily describe the prince as amoral. He is neither good nor bad, neither wicked nor the
reverse. He has no moral character in the traditional sense of the term. He does not have a fixed disposition or
habit of mind to act in a certain way. Unlike most men, who do have such fixed dispositions, he is able to be
either completely virtuous or utterly vicious, and he knows how to be both. The traditional moral virtues are
simply no part of his character. They are not absolutes to which he adheres through thick and thin. They are
simply modes of action, which he can pick up and discard at will.
Machiavelli’s assumption about human nature and behavior lead him to conclude that, though power is most
easily studied in the case of the new prince, a republic is a healthier and more successful form of government
than a monarchy. This is the theme of The Discourses: a quite different work from The Prince, but resting on
the same presuppositions. In a monarchy, one man has supreme power. One man is in a position to stifle –
and, if he is to survive, must stifle – the manly impulses of all those subject to him. In a republic, every
individual is a prince: every individual is able to develop and deploy his own virtú in defence of his security,
freedom and property, thereby producing a kind of collective or public virtú that conduces to the welfare and
safety of all. In a monarchy, Machiavelli says, only one man is free; in a republic, all are free. This collective
virtú does not arise out of friendship or altruism. Men co-operate because they know that collective wisdom
and effort is, on the whole, better than that of any individual. Each man co-operates with others so far as is
necessary to secure his own good, while at the same time competing with others for the things that men value
– glory, honour, riches. A republic furnishes everyone with both the benefits of co-operation and the
opportunity to develop virtú by striving with others to assert himself in an open forum. Republics will be more
stable than monarchies, more able to defend themselves and more successful at extending their territories by
war, not because they somehow submerge or counteract human self-assertiveness, but because they give it
freer range and so produce sturdy, indomitable, self-reliant individuals.
Human nature being what it is, the problem confronting a republic is that of ensuring that it does not become
a tyranny; or, at any rate, of delaying the process of deterioration for as long as possible. Republics can only be
stable if they enable men to compete with one another creatively without allowing anyone to acquire so much
power that he can simply dominate everyone else. There is bound to be conflict between the aristocracy or
commercial elites and the mass of the people. The former will wish to dominate the latter; the latter will wish
to remain free. Such conflict is inevitable and energizing. The struggle between the plebeians and the Senate in
the Roman republic is the example to which Machiavelli looks. Opposing interests produce the force by which
good laws are generated, provided such conflict is kept in bounds by properly designed political institutions.
Machiavelli realizes that actual governmental forms will vary according to the circumstances of the people in
question, but the best form of state, he thinks, will be a republic with a mixed constitution rather like that
favoured by Aristotle. Where the people have a meaningful share in government, all are able to feel secure in
their honour, property and person. The laws must be clear and made known: the citizens must know with a
high degree of certainty what they can and cannot do with impunity. General economic prosperity should be
encouraged, but excessive individual wealth and luxury prevented by the laws. Due recognition must be given
to the merits of citizens, and advancement in the service of the state should be open to those who seek
6 | P a g e
Rajeev Kunwar, 2010
Interactive Lecture @KSL L.L.B 1st Year
honour and glory. There should be a state religion for the inculcation and maintenance of civic virtue. The
religion should not, however, be Christianity, which encourages weakness and submission. There should be a
citizen army, both to defend the republic and to extend its possessions by wars of aggression. The army should
serve an educational as well as a military purpose: it should instill in citizens a respect for authority, patriotism
and martial virtues. It will also provide a means for individual ambition to find its natural and healthy
expression. Life in a republic should not be too comfortable. Social cohesion and vigour are most readily
secured in conditions of hardship and crisis. Such conditions bring out the best in a people and encourage
them to work together. Ease and security are consistent with public virtú not because they make people
selfish, but because they turn their natural selfishness inwards and make it destructive.
In short, Machiavelli regards political activity as being the activity of individuals with power of various kinds
and degrees who are trying to keep what they have and acquire more. The Prince and The Discourses are not
radically different; nor are they contradictory. Both share a view of human nature as individualistic,
competitive and, where necessary, ruthless and unscrupulous. The Prince is an essay on how the prince is to
control the forces of human nature to his own advantage; The Discourses is a treatise on how these forces can
be harnessed in such a way as to secure unity and public safety. But the forces involved in each case are the
same. It is often said that Machiavelli is the first political theorist to give serious attention to the idea of raison
d’état. This may be so, but it is not the whole story. Machiavelli admires the combination of practical qualities
that he calls virtú, even where no particular raison d’état is at stake. He does so because, at heart, he is
fascinated not so much by outcomes as by the phenomenon of power itself. One cannot help forming the
impression that, for Machiavelli, the ends to which power is applied are of secondary importance. He admires
Cesare Borgia – an individual who, by all ordinary standards, is a cruel and vicious tyrant – for his effectiveness,
not his moral character. Unlike the great majority of his forbears and contemporaries, Machiavelli really does
believe that politics is a morally neutral art. The fact that he, more than anyone, established this as a
respectable view of how political events and relationships are to be analysed is what gives his career its
significance in the history of political thought.
o “Right and wrong have nothing to do with government”
o The prince must “know well how to use both the beast and the man”
o The Renaissance produced no important theoretical philosopher yet produced one man of supreme
eminence in political philosophy. His political philosophy is scientific and empirical.
o His interest in politics – completely absorbed in the technique of influence – the chessboard of power
politics.
The Burden of New Republic: Whither a Machiavellian Spirit in Democratic Nepal? (Topical Class Discussion)
Further Reading
Primary sources
The Discourses, ed. L.J. Walker and B. Crick (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970)
The Prince, ed. Q. Skinner and R. Price (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988)
Secondary sources
Pocock, J.G.A.: The Machiavellian Moment (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975)
Skinner, Q.R.D.: The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, vol. I: The Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978)
__ Machiavelli (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981)
Viroli, M.: Machiavelli (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998)