Month: December 2025

Posted on

Diego de Saavedra Fajardo, Political enterprises

Diego de Saavedra Fajardo was a Spanish political writer, literary critic, poet, philosopher and jurist, who was born in Algezares in 1584 and died in Madrid in 1648. He was private secretary to Cardinal Gaspar Borja (1606) and Spanish ambassador to the Papal States. He later served as ambassador to Rome (1631), Germany (1632) and Regensburg (1636), and represented Spain at the conferences in Münster (1643).

In his introduction, “To the Reader”, Saavedra Fajardo explains how the work Empresas políticas o Idea de un príncipe político cristiano representada en cien empresas/ (Political Enterprises or Idea of a Christian Political Prince Represented in One Hundred Enterprises) came about in the few spare moments his work as a diplomat allowed him. The intended recipient was none other than the son of Philip IV, Prince Baltasar Carlos, who would never reign in Spain, as he died as a child and who inspired Velázquez’s portrait “Príncipe Baltasar Carlos, a caballo”. This work, which consists of several volumes, follows the political philosophy tradition of giving advice to those in positions of power on how to govern better. 

Bellow, excerpts from the book Empresas políticas o Idea de un príncipe político cristiano representada en cien empresasby Diego de Saavedra Fajardo in the style of Minerva Strategy Blog will be discussed.

“This good education is more necessary for princes than for others, because they are instruments of political happiness and public health. For other people, poor education is detrimental to each individual or to a few; in the prince, it is detrimental to him and to all, because some are offended by it, and others by his example” (Diego de Saavedra Fajardo, Empresas políticas o Idea de un príncipe político cristiano representada en cien empresas, II).

The expression “good manners” can be understood as referring to etiquette or as a path to virtue. If we follow the perspective of manners, it is interesting that Emily Post, in her classic book Etiquette’s Manners for a New World,summarises that, rather than archaic rules, good manners are guidelines for life based on respect, consideration and honesty. 

If we follow the perspective of the path to virtue, good education involves shaping character towards dispositions and habits associated with models of excellence, inherent in the practices of human life. In other words, this approach involves fostering virtues and avoiding vices. 

“A wise prince is the security of his subjects, and an ignorant one is their ruin. From this we can infer how barbaric the judgement of Emperor Lucinius was, who called the sciences a public plague and philosophers and orators the poison of republics. No less barbaric was the rebuke of the Goths to the mother of King Alaric, because she taught him literacy, saying that it made him unfit for political matters” (Diego de Saavedra Fajardo, Empresas políticas o Idea de un príncipe político cristiano representada en cien empresas, IV).

Should politicians be required to have a minimum level of education? Can we be governed by ignorant people? Plato’s Myth of the Cave is at the origin of his political ideas, and among his most famous is the notion of the Philosopher King. This approach has been criticised for its elitism. Aristotle, more moderate, argued that the best government is that of the middle class. Politics has its own rationale for decision-making, and it is good to seek advice from experts. Sophists and philosophers were the first educators of Athenian citizens in democracy. In the face of ignorance, it is advisable to learn how to make the best decisions.

“History is the teacher of true politics, and the best teacher of how to reign for a prince, because it contains the experience of all past governments and the prudence and judgement of those who came before. It is an advisor that is with him at all times. From jurisprudence, the prince takes that part that belongs to government, reading the laws and constitutions of his States that deal with it, which Reason of State found and long use approved” (Diego de Saavedra Fajardo, Empresas políticas o Idea de un príncipe político cristiano representada en cien empresas, IV).

History explains the present. Understanding how things happened in the past and what criteria were involved at a given moment is crucial. That account comes from History for generations who did not directly experience the events. It is regrettable how easy it is to forget the experiences, sufferings and aspirations of past generations. 

“All human actions have some kind of good as their goal, and because we deceive ourselves in our knowledge of it, we err. The greatest quality seems small in our power, and very great in that of others. We are unaware of our own vices and notice them in others. How gigantic the tyrannical inventions of others appear to us! How dwarfed are our own! We consider vices to be virtues, wanting ambition to be greatness of spirit, cruelty to be justice, prodigality to be liberality, recklessness to be courage, without prudence discerning what is honest from what is evil and what is useful from what is harmful. We are deceived by things when we look at them through the lens of our affections or passions; only benefits should be viewed from both sides” (Diego de Saavedra Fajardo, Empresas políticas o Idea de un príncipe político cristiano representada en cien empresas, VII).

Sectarianism and factionalism lead to this double standard. There is no truth or falsehood, good or evil; everything depends on whether the person doing it is one of us. The group strengthens itself with closed-mindedness and dogmatism. It would be desirable to use equanimity and impartiality when judging the qualities of others, leaving tribal emotions aside.

Posted on

The best strategy is to prevent stratagems

Strategy has military origins, where a series of skills and abilities were required to organise operations aimed at achieving victory for armies. Nowadays, strategy is discussed in relation to a myriad of topics that, on the surface, seem to have little to do with its military background. Perhaps what they have in common is that the need to be strategic stems from the cost of losing, which can sometimes be unbearable. In other words, strategy arises because we seek the best and most suitable means to guarantee the end goal, whether it be military victory or success in business, politics, or life.

In previous posts, I have analysed four ethical models associated with strategy: deontological, consequentialist, Machiavellian, and virtuous. It is time to take stock. To do so, I will draw on the distinction between strategy and stratagem.

There are several possible definitions of the first term, depending on the field (military, business, politics, game theory, etc.). I will adopt a definition that serves explanatory purposes. Strategy is the art and science of developing a plan and choosing the appropriate means to achieve the proposed goals.

On the other hand, the Spanish Royal Academy of Language defines stratagem as, in its first meaning, “a ruse of war” and, in its second meaning, “cunning, pretence and artful deception”. As can be seen, stratagem also has a military origin. The term “ruse” is defined by the Spanish Royal Academy of Language as “a device, a means skilfully and cleverly employed to achieve some end”.

One possible conclusion seems to be that, according to these definitions, skilful and cunningly employed device is more justified in war than in other areas. In other words, a stratagem in a military context is a ruse and, outside that context, it is artful deception.  The answer may lie in the fact that the objective of war is victory, but if it is not successful, military defeat and its dire consequences ensue. Also, because in military terms, we often talk about enemies and consider scenarios that economists refer to as zero-sum: what they lose, we gain, and vice versa.

Life is richer in nuances than war. People find themselves in situations of cooperation and conflict and develop their life plans to achieve their professional or personal goals. I mentioned in a previous post that we are all philosophers—we ask ourselves questions, we define our alpha and omega—and that we would be better off if we were all strategists. What role do stratagems play?

Here we will see the functionality of the ethical models analysed in previous posts. The deontological strategist condemns the use of stratagems because they have an element of deception. The two maxims of the deontological model are to always tell the truth and keep promises. We should walk a fine line to use a stratagem that complies with these two maxims and leads to success.

The consequentialist strategist evaluates actions based on their results or on the maximisation of a chosen variable – well-being, utility, money, happiness, etc. According to this model, stratagems will be valid depending on the consequences they produce. The key question is whether an artificial deception can be stable over time. A distinction should be made between interactions that occur once or over a longer period or are lifelong. The use of stratagems does not last over time because it increases the risk of being discovered and, therefore, would no longer produce the desired consequences.

The Machiavellian strategist is a specialist in stratagems, but authentic Machiavellianism consists precisely in not being noticed. Their vision is an art of simulation and dissimulation, the highest rule of which is the desire for success. The means are appropriate if they achieve the ends proposed. The Machiavellian strategist makes abundant use of cunning and pretence to achieve their goals. However, like the consequentialist, the passage of time increases the risk that their true actions and intentions may be discovered.

The virtuous strategist has an ambivalent position on stratagems. They can develop skills and dispositions that shape their character and involve pretence or cunning, but within known limits. According to the law of the middle term, virtue lies in moderation, never in excess. Furthermore, according to this view, not everything can be called a virtue; it is a pluralistic view, but not a relativistic one.

In summary, the deontological strategist condemns stratagems; the consequentialist strategist values stratagems based on the consequences they produce, fearing discovery over time; the Machiavellian strategist habitually uses stratagems while pretending not to; and the virtuous strategist may use stratagems, in moderation, but only if they can be considered virtues.

After these reflections, it can be said that the best strategy is to be wary of stratagems.