Colonialism vs Annexation

Machiavellian political view speculates about different ways to expand power. Among them are by making overseas colonies and annexation lands. In Chapter 3 of The Prince, Machiavelli says that making colonies is a great way to expand power as it is very easy to establish and rule. But, an array of issues arise in establishing and ruling the colonies which are not the case for annexation were simply replacing the old ruler would give the prince the land and thus a ground to expand his power. In other words, annexation is much easier than establishing and holding a colony.

Machiavelli claims that “colonies do not cost much”. It is true that once the colony is established, it will benefit the mother country. But, the startup costs seem to be higher to build a colony. The mother country needs to spend their money on recruiting more troops in order to send them overseas. Sending them using fleets are also very expensive. Once there, the ruler must establish his rule in order to get the benefit from the colony. This requires dealing with existing local rulers, bribing them, making a deal to give them share. Compared to this scenario, a prince just needs to replace the existing ruler in order to gain the power which requires spending money on his own troops, rather than giving money to others. The prince can go with the old rule which people will naturally follow. In this way, the prince can protect the people of the new land as well as expand his own power which will last longer as he has people’s support now.  

It is also claimed that colonialism creates loyalty among subjects to the prince. Proponents of this loyalty would say that this can be achieved using violence to create fear. Supporting this they are actually making a mistake by mixing the term loyalty with comply. By definition, loyalty means faithful adherence to a rule while compliance means to act in accord with command. This can be illustrated by India under the British colony. Farmers who could not pay the British Raj on time were confiscated off of their land. Many times old father was shot in front of the young son as the father was unable to work due to an illness thus could not pay taxes. If the British Raj wants loyalty from the son, they will not get it as the son sees no protection of his life thus the component of faith is missing. He is complying to the Raj with the hope that he will not get shot like his father and survive with his mother. On the other hand, a prince in the annexed land can leave the farmers to do their work as they please under the old rule. If the old rule does not work properly, he can introduce old rules. Then comes the concern of the rebellions. He can use his troops to wipe them out and then establish new rule and show prosperity under the new rule. People will live happily and will have faith in the prince. Thus, it will simply turn into loyalty.

Colonialism leads to a parasite-host relation among prince and his subjects which gives no justice to the power. The purpose of building a colony is to benefit mother country by exploiting indigenous people of the land. The only way to achieve this goal is to be cruel to subjects. Most of the time colonists do not respond as to the violence and unjust laws of the colonials. As Machiavelli said, “Those who are harmed and dispersed cause no trouble” which can be interpreted as poor being the weak fellow and cannot stand up for justice. If this were the case, the colonies the British built would endure forever like a one-sided game. But, Colonists eventually see that there is no prosperity under this rule. Further noticing unjust rules imposed upon them without any political body that speaks for them turns their “will to be free” to “vow to be free”. American Revolution, Indian Revolution, are among the many examples in history. On the other hand, a prince can give justice to his power when it comes to annexation. Even though he may use violence, in the beginning, to eliminate his enemies from the land, he will have reasons to people when the good days come. In fact, a period of agitation followed by a period of prosperity will create the good vibe among subjects, creating mutualistic relation among subjects. This relation is a good thing politically as there will be less weakness and people are willing to die for the prince who serves them so well. A strong nation will think twice before conquering this unified land.

Although colonies may seem very easy to gain and control, the practicality is quite different. Startup costs to furnish it rationally seems much greater than annexing a land by killing the old ruler. Furthermore, unity among the prince and subject can be established only through annexation as the good prince will take care of his new fortune, not being the greedy one. Therefore, a land should be acquired by annexation.

Works Cited

Machiavelli, Niccolo.The Prince. Translated by Daniel Donno, New York, NY, Bantam Dell, 2003