Machiavelli's The Prince tells us much about democracy and defence

The interpretation of that short and difficult book has given rise to much controversy. Is Machiavelli pragmatically making the best of a bad situation, in at least making sure the Prince receives honest advice? Is he angling for a job, and hang his principles? Or is the Prince an elaborate work of satire?

In any case, we know from Machiavelli’s other works that he was no friend of princes. At heart, he was a democratic republican, who trusted the people, and popular institutions, as the primary safeguard of liberty.

Perhaps Machiavelli’s strongest message was on the connection between a democratic ­constitution and effective defence. “The chief foundations of all states are good laws and good arms”. These two always go together. A strong constitution, a robust democracy, healthy political institutions, are the bedrock of our security.

This was no novelty. Polybius’s History of Rome, written more than a millennium and a half before The Prince made much the same point: Rome’s military prowess was a product of its constitution.

At a time when democracy is engaged in a life-and-death struggle against authoritarianism, both on the green benches of Westminster and in the rubble-strewn towns of Ukraine, it is useful to reflect on this. If Scotland, as an independent but never isolated country, is to play our part in keeping the West free, we need to understand that democracy is our strongest shield.

When it comes to winning wars, liberal ­democracies have deep strengths that give them powerful advantages. Democracies are ­characterised by resilience, unity, flexibility and will-to-win, whereas authoritarian states are fragile, brittle, divided and easily demoralised.

Democracies can trust their militaries to fight. It might seem paradoxical, but the fact that ­democratic armed forces are under ­elected civilian leadership, and are subject to the ­triple constraint of parliamentary ­scrutiny, ­legal ­responsibility, and public ­accountability, ­actually gives them more freedom, not less, to do their job without hands-on political ­interference. They can form their own ­operational plans and doctrines, and can develop professional ­expertise and esprit de corps.

Because democracies provide a peaceful and legitimate means of changing national leadership through elections, they are less prone to – and so less frightened of – military coups. ­Authoritarian regimes are always worried about military coups. This affects everything. Because politics has no natural space to express itself, the armed forces of an undemocratic country become politicised. They are hotbeds of ambition. So they have to be kept weak and divided.

Military leaders in liberal-democracies ­conduct their profession in the open. There’s a porous community of journals and conferences, and a free press and blogosphere, where lessons learned are openly discussed. We can ­(eventually) learn from failure and embrace ­innovation. Authoritarian regimes cannot do that. Moreover, generals in a democracy can take a risk, knowing that if it fails the worst that will happen is that they retire early to write their memoirs and play golf. Generals in authoritarian regimes are always under suspicion – ­failure might mean death – which makes them too

cautious. Apparently, the Russian Defence ­Minister has not been seen for two weeks.

The armed forces of a democracy are encouraged to work together and train together. ­Despite some siloed thinking and (mostly healthy) inter-branch rivalry, they are “all of one company” when it counts. Authoritarian rulers are ­terrified by military unity and ­actively ­prevent it, in case the military rises up as one. So their militaries cannot work together well and their soldiers have to be kept in the dark – told they are going “on exercises” when really they are invading a neighbouring country.

Democratic militaries can sustain morale. Citizens of democracies do not want to fight, but if we have to, we can do so with ­single-minded determination because we defend our ­freedom, and a society in which we have a stake. The ­better the quality of democracy, the more the democratic state genuinely tracks the ­interests of ordinary people, the more willing we will be to defend it.

The conscripts of an ­authoritarian state, or the economically conscripted ­mercenaries of an oligarchy – no matter how buoyed they might be by military propaganda at the outset – cannot sustain morale in that way. They know the elites in charge do not care about them. They know they are voiceless. Why risk your life for that?

That is one of the reasons why ­strengthening our democracy – settling our governing ­institutions upon a solid, broadly agreed and legitimate constitutional foundation – is vital to our defence. The constitution is vital to any ­discussion about the defence position and ­capabilities of an independent Scotland. If push comes to shove, we will defend a country that is truly “ours”.

Kenny MacAskill MP is this week’s guest on the TNT show. Join us at 7pm on Wednesday