Month: June 2026

Posted on

Antonio Pérez, the art of governance

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

This paper analyses the figure of Antonio Pérez and his political thought on the basis of several passages from The Works and Treatises of Antonio Pérez, included in The Art of Governance: An Anthology of Philosophical and Political Texts from the 16th and 17th Centuries. Following a brief biographical overview, marked by his rise at the court of Philip II, his involvement in the Escobedo affair and his subsequent downfall and exile, the text examines some of his reflections on the exercise of power, monarchical legitimacy and prudence in government. Through his warnings, Antonio Pérez criticises the abuses of absolute power and defends a limited and responsible conception of authority, linked to the prestige of institutions and the favour of the people. Furthermore, the text highlights the relationship between political theory and practice, as well as the importance of rulers’ personal virtues over mere strategic calculation. Finally, the commentary connects these ideas with contemporary debates on leadership, populism, political communication and the pursuit of the common good, demonstrating the continued relevance of these reflections for contemporary political analysis and governance.

Keywords: art of governance, legitimacy in exercise, spin doctors, demagoguery, common good

Antonio Pérez del Hierro was born in 1540 in Madrid and died in 1611 in Paris, France. He was the son of Gonzalo Pérez, who served as Secretary of State to Felipe/Philip II, and probably of Juana Escobar y Tobar. When she gave birth to Antonio, his father must already have been a member of the clergy and his mother a married woman. Some therefore consider him to have been an illegitimate and sacrilegious child. 

When his father died in 1556, he took his place in the Royal Secretariat, initially on an interim basis, and was confirmed in the post in 1567. His political decline was linked to his instigation of the murder in 1578 of Juan de Escobedo, who was secretary to Don Juan of Austria, the illegitimate son of Carlos/Charles I. The court intrigues, double-dealing and unspeakable secrets associated with this event led to a slow decline for Antonio Pérez, who was also persecuted by the Inquisition and ended his days in exile in Paris.  

Below, we will discuss excerpts from some of the letters written by Antonio Pérez, taken from his work “Las obras y relaciones de Antonio Pérez”, compiled by J. A. Santos Herrán and M. Santos López in the book entitled El arte de gobernar. Antología de textos filosófico-políticos. Siglos XVI-XVII (2008)/The art of governance. Anthology of philosophical and political texts. XVI-XVII centuries, in the Minerva Strategy blog style.

“This is from a wise counsellor who spoke to King Felipe/Philip II, not least regarding the various blows he had dealt to him on different occasions, seeing that they were leading him towards the freedom of absolute power. Sire, be calm, be temperate, acknowledge God on earth as in heaven, lest you grow weary of monarchies (a gentle form of government, if used gently) and cast them all aside, disillusioned by the abuse of human power” (Pérez, 2008, 51).

These lines can be interpreted as evoking the classic themes of absolute power and the relationship between temporal and divine authority, in the context of legitimacy of origin – “how was power attained?” – and legitimacy in practice – “how is that power exercised?” –. Antonio Pérez’s great lesson is that human power is limited and must be exercised without committing abuses. The legitimacy of monarchies – “gentle government” – stems from the fact that their power is exercised through setting an example and even through charisma, whilst fostering the prestige of institutions.

“What I said in the Tenth Admonition is that princes ought to have at their disposal a person of good character, prudent, well-informed about kingdoms and kings, and generally well-liked, to whom they might specifically entrust the task of dealing with the discontented.” (Pérez, 2008, 51).

The theory and practice of politics have been intertwined in various ways. Today, spin doctors or political communications advisers seem to dictate to politicians what they should do or say to maximise their electoral gains. Following Machiavelli’s precedent, it is argued that, if good results are achieved, the means employed will always be praised. However, from other perspectives, this political pragmatism is rejected and it is argued that politics based on moral convictions is preferable.  

“For if this responsibility falls to a single person, may they possess the grace of heaven in the eyes of the people—which is one of the qualities I mentioned above; there is no antidote so universal or so natural against the poisons of human life as this quality is against the poisons that threaten the preservation of kingdoms and kings. I said ‘favour of heaven’ and ‘natural’, because princes cannot bestow or withdraw it, for it is a gift from above, though they may bestow the respect of the people, which results from their favour. The evidence of this is plain to see every day. All the authority a king bestows upon a minister is not enough, not only for him to be loved, but for him to cease being hated; just as neither disfavour nor open persecution can prevent one who possesses the natural favour of the people from being loved and esteemed.” (Pérez, 2008, 52).

In these lines, the favour of the people is referred to as a natural quality of certain individuals, transcending the king’s authority. The preservation of the kingdom—the key objective of politics—would depend on certain personal qualities, which might be termed virtues, possessed by rulers who thereby attract the favour of the people. However, ever since the origins of democracy in the Athenian polis, we must be wary of the danger posed by those who manipulate the people for their own spurious interests. These demagogues have regained relevance today in the form of various populist movements.

“And he concludes this section with a natural example: I have never seen or read of a lion or any other wild animal bowing down to a person for the food they gave them; for food, and even grass and hay, are kind words from ministers and a breath of air that seems to refresh the thirsty a little, but do not quench their thirst; and for having removed a great thorn from them, for having delivered them from great pain or danger, I have read of miracles of nature, and ones very natural to the nature of their nobility, which, for such merits, I mark with the prize” (Pérez, 2008, 53).

There has been much reflection on the value of fine words and the impact of actions in politics. This passage by Antonio Pérez invites us to reflect, on the one hand, on the tendency to focus on short-term policies—promoted to generate media attention or boost poll ratings—and, on the other hand, on policies that tackle the country’s serious problems, seeking solutions that build consensus beyond electoral cycles. Democracy would be strengthened if politicians acted with the common good in mind, even if this might harm their party interests. 

References

Pérez, Antonio (2008), “Las obras y relaciones de Antonio Pérez” en Santos Herrán, J.A., Santos López, M. (eds.), El arte de gobernar. Antología de textos filosófico-políticos siglos XVI-XVII, Barcelona: Anthropos, pp. 44-57.

Escudero López, José (n.d.), “Antonio Pérez”, Real Academia de Historia, available:

https://historia-hispanica.rah.es/biografias/35285-antonio-perez (last accessed 30-5-26).

Posted on

Machiavelli, pragmatism and power

Oscar Pérez de la Fuente

Carlos III University of Madrid

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3708-846X

Abstract

This paper examines Niccolò Machiavelli’s political thought through the lens of pragmatism and strategic power, drawing primarily on The Discourses alongside the more familiar claims associated with The Prince. It outlines how Machiavelli can be read in two registers: as the supposed advocate of ruthless expediency and as a republican thinker concerned with civic virtue and the preservation of the state. The discussion highlights a further, influential interpretation—Machiavelli’s separation of politics from ethics and religion—arguing that political action follows distinct rules shaped by uncertainty, conflict, and changing circumstances. Selected passages from The Discourses are used to illustrate concrete strategic lessons: when to temporize rather than suppress emerging tensions; why agreement is easier on generalities than on particulars; the importance of adapting to the “times” as a condition of continued success; and the claim that defending one’s country may justify extraordinary means when the state itself is at risk. The text also stresses the informational dimension of strategy, including skepticism toward apparent opponent errors and the need for verification mechanisms. Overall, Machiavelli is presented less as a theorist of cynicism than as an analyst of decision-making under pressure, where ends, means, and context must be aligned.

Keywords: political pragmatism, strategy, power

The best-known work by Niccolò Machiavelli is The Prince; however, it is perhaps in this work  The discourses (2003 )that his political ideas are most clearly revealed. Some people see two sides to Machiavelli: a) The Machiavellian Machiavelli of The Prince, where ‘the end justifies the means’; b) The republican Machiavelli of the Discourses, who is a patriot concerned with civic virtues.

Another interesting interpretation of Machiavelli is the view that he was the first to separate politics from ethics and religion. He claims that politics has its own rules, which are different from ethics.

In this post, I have selected several topics addressed by Machiavelli in The discourses, which have an undeniable strategic background and numerous applications.

I.33.- When either within a State or against a State an inconvenience has made headway, the safer course is to temporise, not to supress it (Machiavelli, 2003, 190).

Machiavelli’s advice is that, when a source of conflict arises, one should try to adapt to it rather than confront it head-on. Facing the problem may escalate it, while avoiding it may eventually cause it to fade away for extrinsic or intrinsic reasons.

A well-known Spanish politician often uses this tactic to manage conflicts, although rather than attributing it to his reading of Machiavelli, people tend to put it down to his personality. This strategy has its pros and cons, which should be analysed on a case-by-case basis.

The main concern will be the assets at stake and the potential losses or damage if the conflict succeeds. If the conflict is of minor significance, it may be advisable to avoid it. However, when it comes to matters of vital importance, it is better to confront it, even if this does not always mean launching a direct attack. It does, however, involve a plan of action based on the best strategy available.

I.47.- Though men make mistakes about things in general, they do not make mistakes about the particulars (Machiavelli, 2003, 225).

There is a certain tension between discussions of abstract issues and those concerning specific matters. When it comes to the former, people tend to say a great deal and may even reach a consensus. What Machiavelli points out is that when the discussion turns to specific matters, it becomes more difficult to reach agreement and easier for someone to be misled.

It is worth recalling the rule of the Harvard Method Focus on interests, not positions. Behind individual positions lie underlying interests, and these must be properly explored to reach effective and sensible agreements.

III.9.- That is behoves one to adapt oneself to the times if one wants to enjoy continued good fortune (Machiavelli, 2003, 425).

One definition of intelligence is the ability to adapt to change. Any good strategy is based on the understanding that the current situation is not permanent. The key issue addressed by strategic intelligence is how to manage change in such a way as to achieve the best possible results.

Situations of change often involve tension and uncertainty, but the key is to be clear about the objectives that really matter and to devise an appropriate strategy.

III.41.-The one’s country should be defended whether is entail ignominy or glory, and that it is good to defend it in any way whatsoever (Machiavelli, 2003, 514). 

This would be the version of ‘the end justifies the means’ that appears in The Discourses. If the State is in danger, any means are justified. The statement could be interpreted in a Machiavellian light or, alternatively, as the view of a true patriot. According to the latter interpretation, this would not be applicable to other spheres and could only be applied when the State, as the highest interest, is in danger.

This view of means and ends is characteristic of Machiavelli. But the alignment of means and ends is precisely the key element of strategy. In other posts, I have outlined the deontological, consequentialist, Machiavellian and virtuous ethical models, where each one addresses the ethical dimensions of various strategic approaches. Strategy aims for victory or success, but each ethical model involves a qualitatively different way of achieving it.

III.44.- Results are often obtained by impetuosity and daring which could never have been obtain by ordinary methods (Machiavelli, 2003, 519).

In a dynamic environment, it is crucial to thoroughly evaluate all possibilities, even those that may initially appear improbable. One should aim for the highest possible expectations once the data has been thoroughly and realistically analysed.

It is essential to clearly understand your priorities and what you value. You need to know your desired outcome and the non-negotiable points. Strengths depend on the parties’ needs, which may not always align, and that’s where agreement can be found.

III.48.- When the enemy is seen to be making a big mistake, it should be assumed that it is but an artifice (Machiavelli, 2003, 524).

Having the most and best information about the other party enables one to assess their actions and statements. It is important to understand their intentions, views, and character. One should be wary of the possibility of deception or some other subtle form of pretence. Mechanisms should be established to verify data, statements or assessments impartially. It is necessary to cross-verify accounts between people with differing strategic interests.

Occasionally, some people take these impartial checks as a sign of mistrust. However, one must separate personal relationships from the subject of the negotiation. Verifying the relevant facts is the duty of any good strategist. 

References

Machiavelli, Nicolò (2003), The Discourses, London New York: Penguin Books, trans. Leslie J. Walker.