Research Article

Conflict as Legitimacy: A Modern Case for Machiavellianism

Jingxiang JiaBeijing No. 101 High School*

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

This paper reexamines the foundations of political legitimacy by shifting focus from virtue, justice, or consent to the management of conflict. Traditional theories, from Locke’s consent-based social contract to Rawls’s principles of justice, presume a level of agreement and trust that contemporary societies often lack. Drawing on Hobbes’s account of the state of nature and modern theories of collective action, the paper argues that governments exist because conflict is inevitable and cooperation fragile. Their central function is to monopolize force and make collective action possible. Revisiting Machiavelli, the paper contends that legitimacy is not achieved by eliminating conflict but by institutionalizing it. Durable political order depends less on consensus than on the capacity of institutions to channel division into lawful, predictable, and stable forms.

Keywords: Political Legitimacy; Conflict; Machiavellianism; Consent Theory; State Formation
Published: October 23, 2025
DOI: 10.54254/2753-7064/2025.NS28482
Volume: CHR Vol.91
pp. 1-7
Download PDF

References

  1. Cicero, M.T. (1928) De Re Publica, De Legibus. Translated by C.W. Keyes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
  2. Bell, P. (2024) Public Trust in Government: 1958-2024. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https: //www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/public-trust-in-government-1958-2024/
  3. Edelman. (2025) 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer: Global Report. Retrieved from https: //www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2025-01/2025%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer_Final.pdf
  4. International IDEA. (2024) Credibility of Elections under Threat Worldwide. Retrieved from https: //www.idea.int/news/credibility-elections-under-threat-worldwide
  5. Locke, J. (1823) Two Treatises of Government. C. and J. Rivington, London.
  6. Hoff, S. (2015) Locke and the Nature of Political Authority. The Review of Politics, 77, 1-22.
  7. Machiavelli, N. (1996) Discourses on Livy. Translated by H.C. Mansfield and N. Tarcov, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  8. Machiavelli, N. (2008) The Prince. Translated by J.B. Atkinson, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., Indianapolis.
  9. Herzog, D. (1989) Happy Slaves: A Critique of Consent Theory. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  10. North, D.C., Wallis, J.J. and Weingast, B.R. (2009) Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History. Cambridge University Press, New York.
  11. Hobbes, T. (2003) Leviathan. Edited by R. Tuck, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  12. Olson, M. (2002) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
  13. Olson, M. (1993) Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development. The American Political Science Review, 87, 567-576.
  14. Jurdjevic, M. (2007) Machiavelli’s Hybrid Republicanism. The English Historical Review, 122, 1228-1257.