More handpicked essays just for you.
Niccolos Machiavelli "the prince" of political leadership
Machiavelli s beliefs on leadership
Niccolos Machiavelli "the prince" of political leadership
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the sixteenth century, there were three sets of socioeconomic statuses that one could acquire or be a part of, the clergy, the nobility, and the peasantry. The divide between these three generalized classes was far more complicated in reality that it seems, as socioeconomic classes consist of multiple branches. Nonetheless, it all essentially came down to two undeniable factions, the oppressors and the oppressed. Niccolo Machiavelli, being a mixture of the two due to his living situation while writing the book, gained a middle-ground which allowed him to achieve omnipotent intelligence that so many rulers normally lack, first hand experience of what it like to live both lives, one as a peasant and the other as a nobleman. This omnipotent …show more content…
Being a successful leader also means being able to anticipate trouble even when everything seems fine, and this forethought is what so many fail to consider. Using Italian rulers as an example of why Italian princes have lost their estates, Machiavelli writes, “ Their own indolence was to blame because having never imagined when times were quiet they they could change (and this is a common failing of mankind, never to anticipate a storm when the sea is calm), when adversity came their first thoughts were of flight and not of resistance. (page 78). A successful prince needs to be skilled in the art of war, but Machiavelli would agree that this skill is very useful for affairs aside international ones, such as domestic affairs. At one point or another a leader is faced with an arduous decision that involves hurting a part of the population. Machiavelli realizes that there is no realistic way of governing a group of people and keeping them all content at the same time, therefore a prince must systematically make tough decisions, keeping the majority content as the minority can not overthrow once you've taken everything they have. It may seem immoral to hurt the minority simply because they can not rebel, however, it makes far much more sense than causing hurt upon the majority, as that would make a prince contemptible, therefore staggering his political
Machiavelli strongly believes that a prince should be involved in the military and understand all military matters. A prince must always be concentrated on war. Whether his country is at war or not, he must always be prepared. He must continuously be training, mentally and physically, and know the terrain around him. Machiavelli believes that a prince who does not attain these military related qualities will fail as a leader. In addition, during times of war, a successful prince should always question all outcomes of possible battles and prepare himself for the future by studying past wars. Studying the
Throughout The Prince and The Discourses of Livy, Niccolo Machiavelli demonstrates multiple theories and advocacies as to why popular rule is important to the success of a state. Popular rule is a term that will be used to define an indirect way to govern the people of a state. In order to rule the masses, a leader must please the people or revolts will occur, causing mayhem and a lack of stability in one’s state. During both written works, Machiavelli stresses the importance of obedience and order needed for a state, and especially for a leader to be successful. Machiavelli thoroughly states that anything and everything must be done to keep the peace of the masses, even if acts of immorality are used. However, instead of advocating immorality, Machiavelli is saying that to serve the people and the state well, a ruler must not restrict himself to conventional standards of morality. His use of immoral tactics in leadership would appear to be unpopular; however the acts of immorality have limitations and are done solely to avoid displeasing the masses or creating disorder. Therefore it is acceptable to practice immorality if it is done only to a small number of constituents, if it is not repeated, and if it is performed to please and benefit the public. It is these limitations that prove Machiavelli is arguing that the use of immoral tactics, to rule the people and in turn be ruled by the people, is needed. He suggests that if the majority of the population is unhappy with a leader, that particular leader’s rule would be in jeopardy, thus falling victim to popular rule.
Niccolo Machiavelli lived in Florence, Italy in the 1400’s. The country of Italy was divided into city-states that had their own leaders, but all pledged alliance to their king. In time in which great leaders were needed in order to help the development of a city-state and country, Machiavelli had a theory that man needed a leader to control them. In his book The Prince, he speaks of the perfect leader.
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
In the television series, House of Cards, a position in Congress is the basis of the show and the main character, Frank Underwood, thrives for his goals of personal achievement and working his devious plans into a profit for himself and ultimately achieving anything he wants no matter what it takes. Frank Underwood is an extremely intelligent congressman, who lives in Washington D.C. representing his home state of South Carolina, but has always put his self first. At the introduction of the show he states, “I see two different types of pain, useful pain, that helps you grow, and useless pain that does nothing but cause suffering”. These sorts of pain, but more importantly the meanings, explain a specific part of his distinctive morals that carry his actions along and show how he works with certain people or conflicts. His eminent colleagues of the U.S. legislative branch, specifically congress, perception of Frank is that he does whatever he can to make the government stronger while his intellectual perception is the contrary. While his colleagues trust him, it is hard for Frank Underwood to show a virtuous personality, enough to have full faith and trust especially regarding a huge decision he makes to murder a member of the Legislative branch. This internal situation, mirrors the philosophy (shown in the book, “The Prince”) of the political Philosopher, Niccolo Machiavelli, who has provided many with the conflicting opinion of modern times political contemplation. The scene in the last few minutes of “House of Cards: Chapter 11” exemplifies Frank’s means for consequentialism by, the fact of achieving his ultimate maxim or intended end. There is no skepticism that Frank’s actions do not follow solitarily consequentialism but ther...
... to the times of kings and princess, however it must be noted that the underlying human emotions and their motivations can only be dealt with decisiveness and deep plotting. The concepts discussed are applicable to all leaders and politicians holding offices. Bottom line is, some things never changes. Even though a lot has changed, principles of Machiavelli’s Prince are adapted and used widely yet secretly in a complex world of growth and prosperity with a greater demography and geography.
For all of Machiavelli’s ruthlessness and espousal of deceit, he knew the value of authenticity and relying on his administration. A true leader cannot achieve greatness alone. Machiavelli says that the prince is the state, and the state is the prince. This means that whatever vision and principles the leader holds in the highest regard, they must be known to the state so that they can be realized. He believed that no matter how a prince was elected, his success would depend largely on his ministers. Collaboration between a prince and ministers would create an atmosphere of harmony and camaraderie, highly reducing the chances of rebellion. Without the support and cooperation of the people, military action is not possible, expansion is not possible and most importantly, governance is not possible. If a leader does not satisfy the needs of the people, they have the power to overthrow him through strength in numbers. Thus, a leader depends just as much on the people as they do on him. A leader must be able to convince the people to buy into his visio...
Machiavelli in his famous book “The Prince” describes the necessary characteristics for a strong and successful leader. He believes that one of the most important characteristics is to rule in favor of his government and to hold power in his hands. Power is an essential aspect of Machiavelli’s theory, and a leader should do whatever it takes to keep it for the safety of his country because “the ends justifies the means.” To attain and preserve the power, a leader should rather be feared than loved by his people, but it is vital not to be hated. As he states, “anyone compelled to choose will find far greater security in being feared than in being loved.” If a leader is feared, the people are less likely to revolt, and in the end, only a threat of punishment can guarantee obedienc...
Machiavelli's realization of the penultimate import of the people is probably most significant reason his book holds so much influence on realpolitik. He writes, "it is essential for a prince to possess the good will and affections his people, otherwise he will be utterly without support in time of adversity." (Chapter 9). Clearly, Machiavelli understands the source of power within a princely republic lay with the people, whom the prince must constantly court. No other political philosopher before him had ever given much significance to those being governed. The reason that Machiavelli felt that the subjects were vital to the prince maintaining his rule was because the implications of earning the hatred and ill will of the people are dire for the political future of both the state and the prince. Of the two sources of attack the prince must fear, one is a conspiracy from within inspired by the hatred of the people (Chapter 19). Additionally, the prince must be aware that actions of his intermediaries can reflect upon himself. That is, if his army is cruel and brutish towards the people, the people will turn their hatred upon the prince, who is seen to tacitly condone the actions of the army. ...
Stability in government is the bottom line for every political decision made for that particular government. Regardless of the type of government, or who is in office, everyone desires their position to be secure. Whether or not this equals stability and prosperity for the people is questionable. According to Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince, stability is based upon the ruler alone, and how he gets the people in line does not matter as long as he plays his cards right. Cruelty is acceptable, if he can later divert the outrage to another party, and in so doing make himself look the hero. This totalitarian view of government and authority works for a time, but, when compared with a more republican government, cannot hold ground.
After five hundred years, Niccolo Machiavelli the man has ceased to exist. In his place is merely an entity, one that is human, but also something that is far above one. The debate over his political ideologies and theories has elevated him to a mythical status summed up in one word: Machiavelli. His family name has evolved into an adjective in the English language in its various forms. Writers and pundit’s bandy about this new adjective in such ways as, “He is a Machiavelli,” “They are Machiavelli’s,” “This is suitable for a Machiavelli.” These phrases are almost always the words of a person that understands more about Niccolo’s reputation than the man himself. Forgotten is that Machiavelli is not an adequate example of the ruler he is credited with describing; a more accurate statement would be to call someone a “Borgia” or a “Valentino.” Most of the time they are grossly mistaken in their references. All these words accomplish is to add to the legend, and the misinterpretation, of the true nature of Niccolo Machiavelli.
Machiavelli’s book The Prince could be considered a guideline for anyone, who possesses both “virtue” and “fortune”, interested in becoming a ruler over a group of civilians. The Prince acts as guideline by providing both the do’s and don’ts one should act on. If such are executed correctly one will not only gain power over a group of people but also maintain power for as long as one wishes. Machiavelli not only provides a list of steps one must follow in order to successfully maintain power but also same provides examples of those who didn’t do such things and as a result lost their power. In chapter 26 Machiavelli takes a moment to reference Italian princes and why they lost their principalities, something very important since Machiavelli
Political order, or the success and security of the state, has a role of the utmost importance in Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, so much so that it becomes sacred, taking over the role of religion in the state. Like the Catholic Church, political order encompasses every aspect of the life of the state, for it is the foundation off of which all princes form their acts, and like a god it defines what is good and what is evil. But though it is clear in The Prince that political order takes up a sacred role in the state, Machiavelli is not discrediting Christianity, but merely setting it up as secondary to political order. In other words, political order is a religion more powerful than Christianity, though the two co-exist in the state. I will
Niccolò Machiavelli in his work, The Prince, claims that in order for princes to be successful and effective leaders they must ‘learn how to not be good’, this can then help when faced with challenges and how they should go about approaching these challenges. The idea of ‘learning how not to be good’ is instituted through the idea that being feared by people is better and safer than being loved by them, following this is the idea of Fortuna and Virtù, both which influence the other. This fortuna is a set of conditions or circumstances that are not created by the person whom is affected by them, whereas possessing princely virtù will allow for fortuna to be endured, allowing for success and and maintaining power as a prince. Machiavelli’s claim
Machiavelli once said ‘Because men are wretched creatures who would not keep their word to you, you need not keep your word to them’. Machiavelli is seen in history as one of the most influencing men of all time. Matter a fact, “the name Machiavelli was a synonym for the devil” (Barnett page 6). Machiavelli established a lot of this reputation from his work The Prince, it was written in 1513-1514. But, a lot people thought that he was misunderstood considering he wrote many books and people focus mostly on one. Second you must take the time period into thought and realize how the world was about 500 years ago.