Shortcomings in Machiavelli:

He is one of the misjudged political thinker, according to Sabine, “He has been
represented as an utter cynic, an impassionate patriot, an ardent nationalist, a
political Jesuit, convinced democrat and an unscrupulous seeker after the
favour of deposits. In each of these views, incompatible as they are, there is
probably an element of truth. What is emphatically not true is that no one of
them gives a complete picture either of Machiavelli or his thoughts”. He has
contributed many thoughts which are new, and consist of number of faults and
is been under severe attack. Some of his contradictions and defects are here
under:
1 There is contradiction about his hypothesis about the nature of human and
reasons which monitor him as sketched in Prince and Discourses. He said in
the Prince, man is selfish fundamentally and not able to do good unless
appreciative to do so. Whereas in Discourses, he said that, men are neither
absolutely bad nor faultlessly good, human character is more complex. If we
think that man is selfish it is very difficult to clarify how he works with others
to form a state. He also prefers the republic form of government because it can
work successfully if the people ready to sacrifice their selfish ends for the
upliftment of the society.
2 It is criticised because some of his ideas are shallow and unsuccessful to
accumulate proper political concepts. He missed logical and philosophical
aspects to his theory, Sabine said that, “he was perhaps too practical to be
philosophically profound”. He is not considered as political thinker instead he
considers as person with practical question of politics. His writings are mere
diplomatic literatures.
3 The philosophy explained by him only just local narrowly dated, he is seen
people behaving very crooked and thought that all human are bad. It is not
good to analyze the whole human society on the basis of Italian grounds. Allen
said about him that, “His judgment of human nature was surely, profoundly at
fault. May it not be said that he lacked understanding of just what he most of
all needed to know”.
4 The principle of “ends justify the means” has been criticised severely, one of
the writer said that, “what is morally wrong can never be politically wright’.
The crimes based on politics can lead to counter offences and more crimes are
expected from it. His policy corrupted public opinion and encouraging
dishonest political practices all over the world.
5 Machiavelli gave unnecessary status to the role of force in keeping people
united. He did not estimate the importance of willing cooperation of the
people forcing unity to work effectively in the state.
6 He has given more importance to the rulers or the law givers in molding the
moral, religious and economic life of the people, the statement seems to be
incorrect and he seems to be guilty reserving the “sane order of values” and
useful order with casual efficiency. He says that law giver is the architect of the
state and society, in fact the society comes first and other latter.
7 He is unable to recognize that prince as a human being may try to encourage
his self- interest at the cost of public interest.
8 There has been contradiction between appreciation of monarchical
government and his republican government. Sabine said that, “his judgment
was swayed by two admirations for the resourceful despot and for the self-
governing people which were not consistent. He patched the two together
rather precariously”. If we accept Machiavelli’s statement, the only possibility
is despotic monarchy and the republican government is ruled out, republican
government encourages public spirit among the citizens. It is not possible to
do everything by the prince.
 9 Machiavelli’s policy of state expansion is illogical. This policy will keep
the state always at war with other states and thus divert it from peaceful
activities. He has advised his Prince to lay stress on art and literature,
but can a Prince, who is always at the verge of war with other states,
devote attention for literary activities?