Bhumics Week 10: The Pauper, Part 3

Can the Pauper become a Prince?

That's the main question in my mind after reading chapters 7-9. Princes are expected to rule, and there are sages like Machiavelli waiting to advise them, but we are never taught the art of governance. Democratic theory and practice talk about many things - the right to vote, freedom from oppression and many such good things, but we are neither expected to rule, nor taught how to do so. Machiavelli is quite skeptical about our capabilities:

Other cases are those private citizens who became emperors, attaining the imperial throne by bribing the soldiers. Such men are entirely dependent on the goodwill and prosperity of those who gave them their positions, and these are two things that are exceedingly variable and uncertain. Such men lack the knowledge and capacity to maintain their power.

Now you might say that if everyone decides to be a ruler, no one's a ruler. Instead, there will be chaos. I will disagree with that in the Pauper's Perspective later in this essay.

Comments on Chapters 7-9

Right or wrong, power is constantly being exercised and Machiavelli has a lot to say on the topic. Chapters 7-9 are particularly important for paupers because M is talking about rulers who come to power because of luck, evil or popular acclaim, all of which could be said of 'people power' too.

To illustrate these two methods of becoming ruler, namely, through ability or through favour or luck, I want to cite two recent examples: Francesco Sforza and Cesare Borgia.

Hence, anyone who considers it necessary in his new principality to deal effectively with his enemies, to gain allies, to conquer (whether by force or by cunning), to inspire both devotion and respectful fear in the people, to be obeyed and respectfully feared by troops, to neutralise or destroy those who can or must be expected to injure you, to replace old institutions with new ones, to be both severe and kind, both magnanimous and open-handed, to disband disloyal troops and form a new army, to maintain alliances with kings and other rulers in such a way that they will either be glad to benefit you or be slow to injure you: for all these, no better examples can be cited than the actions of this man.

Machiavelli’s comparison of ability and luck is useful for analyzing modern power struggles. He suggests that a ruler who relies solely on fortune—like a populist leader catapulted into power by viral discontent—will struggle to maintain authority. In contrast, those who systematically build power structures (like Sforza) can sustain control.

Those Who Become Rulers through Crime

I believe that this depends upon whether cruel deeds are committed well or badly. They may be called well committed (if one may use the word ‘well’ of that which is evil) when they are all committed at once, because they are necessary for establishing one’s power, and are not afterwards persisted in, but changed for measures as beneficial as possible to one’s subjects.

….

Hence, it should be noted that a conqueror, after seizing power, must decide about all the injuries he needs to commit, and do all of them at once, so as not to have to inflict punishments every day.

Machiavelli’s pragmatism here is chilling but insightful. His argument—that cruelty, if necessary, should be swift and decisive rather than prolonged—has been echoed in modern governance, from authoritarian crackdowns to corporate restructuring. Maybe Trump, Musk, Vought and co are cribbing from M’s playbook.

The Civil Principality

A man who becomes ruler through the help of the nobles will find it harder to maintain his power than one who becomes ruler through the help of the people, because he is surrounded by many men who consider that they are his equals, and therefore he cannot give them orders or deal with them as he would wish. On the other hand, a man who becomes ruler through popular support finds himself standing alone, having around him nobody or very few not disposed to obey him.

Machiavelli acknowledges here that a ruler propped up by elites will always struggle because those elites see themselves as equals. However, someone who rises through popular support may face fewer challenges—at least initially.

Contemporary Reflections

Machiavelli's insights about power acquisition through ability, luck, and popular acclaim find stark parallels in our current political landscape. The rise of figures like Orbán in Hungary and Erdogan in Turkey demonstrates how modern leaders can combine popular support with systematic power consolidation, much like Machiavelli's analysis of Francesco Sforza. These leaders have mastered what we might call "democratic autocracy" – using democratic mechanisms to establish increasingly authoritarian control.

The "cruelties committed well" that Machiavelli describes have evolved into more sophisticated forms of political violence. Consider how the Trump administration's family separation policy at the border was implemented swiftly and decisively – a modern example of Machiavelli's advice to inflict necessary cruelties all at once. Similarly, China's rapid implementation of the Hong Kong Security Law in 2020 shows how contemporary powers can quickly neutralize opposition through decisive legal-political action.

Machiavelli's observations about popular support versus elite backing are particularly relevant in our era of populist politics. When he notes that a ruler supported by the people "finds himself standing alone, having around him nobody or very few not disposed to obey him," we can see this dynamic in leaders like Brazil's Lula, whose popular mandate allows him to challenge established elites. However, the modern twist is that popular support has become increasingly volatile and subject to manipulation through social media and disinformation campaigns.

What's particularly relevant for the Pauper's perspective is how these dynamics play out in resistance movements. The 2020 Black Lives Matter protests showed how popular momentum needs to be transformed into systematic change to be effective. Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement, despite massive popular support, struggled against Beijing's systematic approach to power consolidation. These examples suggest that modern paupers need both popular energy and systematic organization to challenge established power structures effectively.

The Pauper’s Perspective

People's power is a joke in 2025. Mass mobilizations haven't been able to stop wars or the carbon pouring into the atmosphere. Political parties are owned by their donors, not by their voters. And social media plugs directly into our brains, and most of the messages in it are circulated by people infinitely more powerful than you and me. Put together, these developments have turned authoritarian politics into the default the world over.

The multitude isn’t organized; in a time of rampant inequality, it doesn’t have wealth, institutions or other means of organizing - consider how the most expansive effort at organizing the citizenry, i.e., elections, bind citizens to the state, not to each other. Just as people’s power is increasingly a joke, so is civil society, the third leg of collective life (the state and the market being the first two). Its vibrancy is conditional upon the state and the market restraining thenmselves, but every authoritarian moves to restrict its role as soon as they come to power.

So in this situation, how might we be able to exercise power as citizens? Not hand it over to others, but to exercise it directly. We are never taught the arts of governance. Yes, we are given rights and freedoms, but power stands above both of those, at least if you believe Machiavelli.

And if we don't have the ability to exercise power in our own lives, to be able to change our world for the better, then what do we do?

Perhaps the answer lies in examining whether our modern technological infrastructure itself has become inherently hostile to democratic power. Machiavelli's insights about systematic power consolidation find their ultimate expression in today's computing technologies. Social media platforms, AI systems, and blockchain technologies - often celebrated as tools of democratization - may actually represent the perfect Machiavellian instruments of control.

Consider how social media platforms concentrate power while maintaining the illusion of democratic participation. Like Machiavelli's ideal prince, they exercise control through both fear and love - offering connection and validation while simultaneously surveilling and manipulating user behavior.

The crisis of democracy, then, may not just be about political institutions or popular movements. It might be embedded in the very nature of our computing technologies, which concentrate power through technical complexity while maintaining the illusion of democratic participation. For today's pauper, the first step toward genuine democratic power might be recognizing that our digital tools, far from being neutral instruments, are themselves expressions of power that would make Machiavelli proud.

How can we repurpose these tools for our ends when they are owned by others? Is Open Source enough?

This technological capture of democratic agency points to a deeper problem: we have surrendered the practice of power to distant systems and platforms while losing the immediate, tangible experience of governance in our own communities. Machiavelli wrote for princes because he understood that power must be exercised to be understood. Today's citizens, in contrast, are expected to participate in democracy without ever having wielded meaningful political authority.

The path forward, then, might require us to think smaller before we think bigger. This means creating spaces where citizens can practice the art of governance directly - in neighborhood councils, worker cooperatives, community land trusts, and other local institutions where power is not just theoretical but practical and immediate. I might even add climate councils and citizen assemblies to the list as future democratic spaces.

These spaces of democratic practice serve as training grounds where citizens can develop what Machiavelli called virtù - the practical wisdom and capability needed to exercise power effectively. When people experience firsthand the challenges of collective decision-making, resource allocation, and conflict resolution, they develop political skills that no amount of social media activism can provide.

The pauper's path to power, therefore, might begin with becoming what we might call a "skillful citizen" - someone who understands power not just theoretically but through direct experience. Only by building this foundation of practical democratic capability can we hope to effectively challenge and transform the larger technological systems that currently dominate our political life.