People Accustomed to Freedom, Will Seek It Again

"The owner of a large factory decided to make a surprise visit and check up on his staf. They don't know whether for self-branding or just ordinary control. After passing through a badly damaged road, he arrived at the factory and as he walked through the plant, he noticed a young man doing nothing but leaning against the wall. Without asking anything to his staf, he walked up to the young man and said angrily, 'How much do you make a week?'

'Three hundred bucks,' replied the young man.

Taking out his wallet, the owner counted out three hundred dollars, shoved it into the young man’s hands, and said, 'Here is a week’s pay—now get out and don’t come back!'

Turning to one of the supervisors, the owner asked, 'Just how long had that lazy kid been working here?'

'He doesn’t work here,' said the supervisor. 'He was just here delivering rujak cingur for our breakfast, according to your directions,' said the Moon when her light shone brightly, after greeting with Basmalah and Salaam.

"If a people are used to living under the political culture of a monarchy or a despotism, they are neither cultured to desire freedom nor are they educated to succeed in such any insurgency efforts," the Moon carried on. "This contrasts with a people living in a liberal democracy, who will want freedom again and who are better equipped to win it back because of how they exercised freedom in the past.

If you've seen Mel Gibson's Braveheart, a 1995 American epic historical drama film, you can see what Machiavelli's true motives were in his advice to Lorenzo.

The fictional telling of the story of William Wallace (played by Mel Gibson), a leader during the Scottish wars of independence with England in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The film begins by informing viewers that the king of Scotland died without any issue, so English King Edward I (Patrick McGoohan), described as 'a cruel pagan,' aimed to fill the power vacuum by claiming the Scottish throne. When the Scottish nobles fought Edward on this, he proposed a truce; but this was a ruse, as Edward had all of the nobles killed, thus helping to consolidate his power over Scotland. The Scots, who were a relatively free people, were then abused by the tyrannical reign of Edward. King Edward took Scottish owned lands and gave them to his own nobles. Perhaps the most egregious wrong that Edward committed in the film was granting his nobles in Scotland prima nocte, a right for the nobleman to have sexual relations with a Scottish woman on her wedding night.

Wallace’s father was killed, when he was still a boy, by Edward’s army. When he reaches adulthood, Scotland has been under tyrannical English ruler for nearly two decades. Wallace is forced to marry his love, Murron MacClannough (Catherine McCormack), in secret, so that she does not have to submit to the prima nocte right given to the English nobles. However, when MacClannough refuses to subsequently submit to the sexual advances of English soldiers and fights them off, she is executed by the local English lord for 'lawlessness' and assault. This ruthlessness and arbitrary rule prompts Wallace and his fellow villagers to revolt against the local lord and his troops, killing them all. This eventually grows into an independence movement by Wallace and other Scottish leaders, and a series of battles against the English army ensue, with Wallace at the helm.

Machiavelli would not be surprised by this fictional account of William Wallace being able to easily rally an army against the oppression of Edward and his nobles ruling over Scotland. The Scots had many more rights and freedoms before Edward’s rule, so they wanted their liberty back again. When rumors spread of Wallace beginning a rebellion, Scottish volunteers numbering in the thousands quickly join the fight. When he leads his countrymen on the field at the Battle of Stirling Bridge, he gives a rousing speech that emphasizes how important it is for them to fight for their freedom. Later, when he is meeting with King Edward’s emissary, the Princess Isabella of Wales (Sophie Marceau), Wallace describes why his army sacked the City of York and killed the king’s nephew, Isabella’s cousin-in-law, 'York was a staging point for every invasion of my country, and that royal cousin hanged innocent Scots, even women and children, from the city walls. . . . Longshanks did far worse the last time he took a Scottish city.' Still later, Wallace is captured by the English, tried for treason, found guilty, and sentenced to be tortured and executed. During the torture, Wallace refuses to state 'mercy,' which would have led to the end of the torture and a quick death. Instead, the sole word he defiantly shouts is 'Freedom!' This rallying cry, and the sentiment it represents, spurs Wallace’s soldiers and Scottish King Robert the Bruce (Angus Macfadyen) to continue their rebellion against the English.

The Bruce then leads the Scottish army into battle, where, in the narrator’s words, 'patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields of Bannockburn. They fought like warrior poets, they fought like Scotsmen, and won their freedom.'

Thus, the Scots continued to fight the English and remained a thorn in the side of English kings until they won back their freedom. This should come as no surprise to the Machiavellian scholar, as the Scots knew freedom, so they would do nearly anything to get it back.

Niccolò Machiavelli was born in Florence on 3 May 1469. His playing oknown by an active part in the affairs of his native city in 1498, the year in which the regime controlled by Savonarola fell from power. Girolamo Savonarola, the Dominican prior of San Marco, whose prophetic sermons had dominated Florentine politics for the previous four years, was arrested for heresy early in April; soon afterwards the city's ruling council began to dismiss his remaining supporters from their positions in the government.

By the time Machiavelli entered the chancery, there was a wellestablished method of recruitment to its major offices. In addition to giving evidence of diplomatic skills, aspiring officials were expected to display a high degree of competence in the so-called humane disciplines. This concept of the studia humanitatis had been derived from Roman sources, and especially from Cicero, whose pedagogic ideals were revived by the Italian humanists of the fourteenth century and came to exercise a powerful influence on the universities and on the conduct of Italian public life. The humanists were distinguished first of all by their commitment to a particular theory about the proper contents of a 'truly humane' education.

By the time Machiavelli came to record his final verdicts on the rulers and statesmen he had met, he had reached the conclusion that there was one simple yet fundamental lesson which they had all misunderstood, as a result of which they had generally failed in their undertakings, or else had succeeded more by luck than sound political judgement. The basic weakness they all shared was a fatal inflexibility in the face of changing circumstances. Cesare Borgia was at all times overweening in his self-confidence; Maximilian was always cautious and over-hesitant; Julius II was always impetuous and over-excited. What they all refused to recognize was that they would have been far more succcessful if they had sought to accommodate their personalities to the exigencies of the times, instead of trying to reshape their times in the mould of their personalities.

Machiavelli eventually placed this judgement at the very heart of his analysis of political leadership in The Prince. In chapter 1 of the Prince, he wrote, 'All the States and Governments by which men are or ever have been ruled, have been and are either Republics or Princedoms. Princedoms are either hereditary, in which the sovereignty is derived through an ancient line of ancestors, or they are new. New Princedoms are either wholly new, as that of Milan to Francesco Sforza; or they are like limbs joined on to the hereditary possessions of the Prince who acquires them, as the Kingdom of Naples to the dominions of the King of Spain. The States thus acquired have either been used to live under a Prince or have been free; and he who acquires them does so either by his own arms or by the arms of others, and either by good fortune or by merit.'

In chapter 5, Machiavelli wrote, 'When a newly acquired State has been accustomed, as I have said, to live under its own laws and in freedom, there are three methods whereby it may be held. The first is to destroy it; the second, to go and reside there in person; the third, to suffer it to live on under its own laws, subjecting it to a tribute, and entrusting its government to a few of the inhabitants who will keep the rest your friends. Such a Government, since it is the creature of the new Prince, will see that it cannot stand without his protection and support, and must therefore do all it can to maintain him; and a city accustomed to live in freedom, if it is to be preserved at all, is more easily controlled through its own citizens than in any other way.

We have examples of all these methods in the histories of the Spartans and the Romans. The Spartans held Athens and Thebes by creating oligarchies in these cities, yet lost them in the end. The Romans, to retain Capua, Carthage, and Numantia, destroyed them and never lost them. On the other hand, when they thought to hold Greece as the Spartans had held it, leaving it its freedom and allowing it to be governed by its own laws, they failed, and had to destroy many cities of that Province before they could secure it. For, in truth, there is no sure way of holding other than by destroying, and whoever becomes master of a City accustomed to live in freedom and does not destroy it, may reckon on being destroyed by it. For if it should rebel, it can always screen itself under the name of liberty and its ancient laws, which no length of time, nor any benefits conferred will ever cause it to forget; and do what you will, and take what care you may, unless the inhabitants be scattered and dispersed, this name, and the old order of things, will never cease to be remembered, but will at once be turned against you whenever misfortune overtakes you, as when Pisa rose against the Florentines after a hundred years of servitude.

If, however, the newly acquired City or Province has been accustomed to live under a Prince, and his line is extinguished, it will be impossible for the citizens, used, on the one hand, to obey, and deprived, on the other, of their old ruler, to agree to choose a leader from among themselves; and as they know not how to live as freemen, and are therefore slow to take up arms, a stranger may readily gain them over and attach them to his cause. But in Republics there is a stronger vitality, a fiercer hatred, a keener thirst for revenge. The memory of their former freedom will not let them rest; so that the safest course is either to destroy them, or to go and live in them.'

In chapter 15, 'It now remains for us to consider what ought to be the conduct and bearing of a Prince in relation to his subjects and friends. And since I know that many have written on this subject, I fear it may be thought presumptuous in me to write of it also; the more so, because in my treatment of it, I depart from the views that others have taken.

But since it is my object to write what shall be useful to whosoever understands it, it seems to me better to follow the real truth of things than an imaginary view of them. For many Republics and Princedoms have been imagined that were never seen or known to exist in reality. And the manner in which we live, and that in which we ought to live, are things so wide asunder, that he who quits the one to betake himself to the other is more likely to destroy than to save himself; since any one who would act up to a perfect standard of goodness in everything, must be ruined among so many who are not good. It is essential, therefore, for a Prince who desires to maintain his position, to have learned how to be other than good, and to use or not to use his goodness as necessity requires.

Laying aside, therefore, all fanciful notions concerning a Prince, and considering those only that are true, I say that all men when they are spoken of, and Princes more than others from their being set so high, are characterized by some one of those qualities which attach either praise or blame. Thus one is accounted liberal, another miserly (which word I use, rather than avaricious, to denote the man who is too sparing of what is his own, avarice being the disposition to take wrongfully what is another’s); one is generous, another greedy; one cruel, another tender-hearted; one is faithless, another true to his word; one effeminate and cowardly, another high-spirited and courageous; one is courteous, another haughty; one impure, another chaste; one simple, another crafty; one firm, another facile; one grave, another frivolous; one devout, another unbelieving; and the like. Every one, I know, will admit that it would be most laudable for a Prince to be endowed with all of the above qualities that are reckoned good; but since it is impossible for him to possess or constantly practise them all, the conditions of human nature not allowing it, he must be discreet enough to know how to avoid the infamy of those vices that would deprive him of his government, and, if possible, be on his guard also against those which might not deprive him of it; though if he cannot wholly restrain himself, he may with less scruple indulge in the latter. He need never hesitate, however, to incur the reproach of those vices without which his authority can hardly be preserved; for if he well consider the whole matter, he will find that there may be a line of conduct having the appearance of virtue, to follow which would be his ruin, and that there may be another course having the appearance of vice, by following which his safety and well-being are secured.'

The story in Braveheart is similar to an example that Machiavelli describes in chapter 5 of The Prince. According to Machiavelli, the 'Spartans held Athens and Thebes [previously free cities] by creating within them a state of a few people.' In Braveheart, King Edward granted land titles to various English nobles to encourage them to move to Scotland and help him oversee the Scots; likewise, the Spartans sent some of their own authorities to Athens and Thebes in an effort to better control them. However, this strategy was ultimately unsuccessful in Braveheart, with the Scots winning back their freedom; likewise, Machiavelli tells us that despite the Spartans’ effort in Athens and Thebes, 'nevertheless, they lost them.' In both cases, the ruler was unwilling to destroy these cities, or at the very least reside there, which eventually resulted in them being lost."

"Ultimately," the Moon was about to leave, "Machiavelli’s chapter 5 discussion in The Prince is a cautionary tale for rulers wishing to overtake free peoples. There can be no peace as long as a Prince tries to rule over people who have known freedom and are unwilling and unable to relinquish it. The fre peoples know what they want. So, the best course for the Prince, may simply be to leave such free peoples alone. And Allah knows best."

Before leaving for the other side of the world, the Moon sang,

Ampuni aku yangg telah memasuki kehidupan kalian

[Forgive me for entering your life]

Mencoba mencari celah dalam hatimu

[Trying to find a hole in your heart]

Aku tau ku takkan bisa menjadi s’perti yang engkau minta

[I know I can't be what you asked for]

Namun selama nafas berhembus, aku kan mencoba

[But as long as the breath blows, I'll try]

Aku tau dia yg bisa menjadi s'perti yang engkau minta

I know he who can be what you ask for]

Namun selama aku bernyawa, aku kan mencoba menjadi s’perti yang kau minta *)

[But as long as I'm alive, I will try to be as you ask for]

Citations & References:
- Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, translated by Ninian Hill Thomson, 1513, Feedbooks
- Eric T. Kasper and Troy A. Kozma, Machiavelli Goes to the Movies: Understanding The Prince through Television and Film, 2015, Lexington Books
- Quentin Skinner, Machiavelli: A Very Short Introduction, 1981, Oxford University Press
*) "Seperti Yang Kau Minta" written by Pongki Barata

Bahasa