By: Emily ‘Sal’ Salamanca, Stanford University
The following blog post summarizes the research that was the winner of the 2026 Midwest Political Science Association’s Review of Politics Award for research presented at the 2025 MPSA Annual Conference.
What does it mean for a republic to punish its most prominent leaders without destroying them entirely? When political elites fall from favor, might political exclusion serve as more than just a punishment, but also kickstart a process of popular accountability and potential redemption? And how can a political community discipline ambitious figures while preserving the possibility that they might one day return to serve the common good?
Political exile is usually understood as a blunt instrument of punishment: a way for regimes to remove dangerous figures and stabilize public order. In Machiavelli’s political thought, however, exile serves a more complex and productive function. Rather than merely expelling elites who threaten the republic, exile operates as a structured process of political communication—one that allows the people to hold leaders accountable while simultaneously giving those leaders an opportunity to renegotiate their reputation.
This project argues that exile in Machiavelli should be understood not simply as coercion or elite suppression, but as an institutional mechanism that mediates the relationship between the people and political elites. Much scholarship on Machiavelli has framed this relationship in one of three ways: as elite domination, as popular control, or as an inherently conflictual struggle. While each of these perspectives captures important dimensions of Machiavelli’s thought, they tend to overlook the role of ordinary political procedures—such as trials, accusations, and exile—as spaces for interaction and negotiation between social groups.
Machiavelli repeatedly emphasizes that political conflict between elites and the people is both inevitable and necessary for republican freedom. The challenge for a stable republic is not to eliminate conflict but to channel it into institutional forms. Exile is one such form. When elites are accused of wrongdoing, formal trials and subsequent banishment provide an outlet for popular grievances while avoiding uncontrolled violence. At the same time, the process places elites under public scrutiny, compelling them to respond to the judgment of the citizenry.
Central to this argument is Machiavelli’s treatment of exemplary exiles in Roman and Florentine history. Figures such as Marcus Furius Camillus demonstrate how exile can function as a redemptive process. Although Camillus was accused and banished for actions that offended republican norms, he accepted the judgment of the people and refrained from resisting their authority. His deferential response ultimately allowed him to regain public trust and be recalled to leadership in a moment of crisis. In Machiavelli’s account, Camillus’s enduring reputation depends not solely on his military achievements, but on his willingness to submit to the republic’s institutions and acknowledge popular power.
By contrast, other exiled figures illustrate the consequences of rejecting this process. The Tarquin kings, expelled for tyrannical rule, attempted to regain power through conspiracy and external force. Their refusal to accept exile permanently damaged their reputation and transformed them into negative exemplars of political arrogance. Similarly, figures who sought honor without respecting popular judgment, such as Manlius Capitolinus, failed to achieve lasting glory because they undermined the very institutions that sustained republican order. These cases reveal a consistent pattern: exile becomes politically productive when it facilitates a form of reciprocal recognition. The people demonstrate their authority by enforcing accountability, while elites can signal their commitment to the common good by accepting civic judgment. Reputation, in this framework, is not fixed but continuously negotiated through public interaction.
Understanding exile in this way reshapes how we interpret Machiavelli’s broader political theory. Rather than portraying politics as defined solely by domination or violent struggle, this perspective highlights the importance of institutionalized conflict and communicative exchange. Exile emerges as a mechanism that preserves republican liberty by simultaneously restraining elite ambition and enabling the possibility of political rehabilitation.
This interpretation also carries contemporary relevance. Modern democracies continue to grapple with how to discipline political leaders who violate public trust while allowing for the possibility of reintegration. Machiavelli’s analysis suggests that accountability mechanisms are most effective when they combine enforcement with opportunities for reputational recovery—transforming punishment into a process that ultimately reinforces democratic norms. In this sense, exile is not merely a tool of exclusion but a dynamic institution that sustains the delicate balance between authority and popular power at the heart of republican governance.
The views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the MPSA (Midwest Political Science Association). Any content provided is for informational purposes only and should not be taken as official statements or endorsements by MPSA.