Niccoló Machiavelli claims in “The Qualities of the Prince” that a prince must have certain qualities that will allow him to seize and maintain his power as a ruler. Machiavelli asserts that these qualities will guarantee the ruler to be able to govern his subjects effectively. According to him, a prince must study the art of war, must understand generosity and to what extent he must be generous to be effective, must choose to either be loved or feared, and be able to keep his word to his citizens according to the situation. These qualities can still apply in today’s politics, and will be useful for a modern time politician as long as they are used carefully. Machiavelli argues that a prince must study the art of war, during …show more content…
Since times has changed, it is more beneficial to be loved than feared as a ruler. Many countries now practice democracy as their form of government, and being loved will help politicians secure their way into being elected. Politicians work their hardest in order to be on the good side of the citizens to get their votes. By showing kindness and hospitality, such as helping charities and promising to help the poor when elected, many politicians can gain the support of the citizens. This is the complete opposite of what Machiavelli had suggested in “The Qualities of the Prince.” If a modern time politician was to follow his advice, many people would likely despise the politician instead of liking him and end up not voting for the politician in fears of him not being a good leader for the …show more content…
Because of technological advances today, it is very easy to track activities or whereabouts of any person. If a politician was to do something cunning, unethical, or morally questionable, other people will be able to easily find out about it and this will lead to his reputation being tarnished. A tarnished reputation will then lead to him having a difficult time exerting power because people will lose their trust in him. For example, during the 2012 presidential elections, Paul Ryan was caught in a scandal because he volunteered in a soup kitchen. Paul Ryan and his family visited a soup kitchen and pretended that they have been there to help out the soup kitchen by serving the patrons. However, it was later revealed that Ryan and his family came after the patrons were served and only put on the white aprons to take pictures of them washing dishes to show their voluntary activity to help the poor. The Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney candidacy took a hit because of this controversy because many of their supporters were angered for such a questionable act. They lost the trust of their supporters and also had their credibility ruined. Running a country while only caring for his own power and how to maintain this power can aggravate many citizens. Although Machiavelli believes that a prince does not have any obligation towards his subjects, a modern time politician owes his position to the
The Anglo-Saxon standards of a good leader can be further seen in the modern American political process. The quotation referring to the good prince who "by giving splendid gifts while still in his father's house makes sure that later in life beloved companions will stand by him, that the people will serve him when war comes" ( Norton p.27 ) provides a formula for political success. People tend to favor and vote for candidates who seem to offer the greatest rewards, such as tax cuts or needed legislation. Furthermore, those who support a candidate expect favors in return if that candidate is elected, just as gifts and bribes have become a way of retaining loyalty and trust. Even the idea of a smear campaign existed in Anglo-Saxon culture and can be seen when Unferth twists the truth about Beowulf's competition with Breca: "for he would not allow that any other man of middle-earth should ever achieve more glory under the heavens than himself." ( Norton p.33 )
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 many sections Niccolo Machiavelli writes he constantly compares to extreme qualities, one of which is ideal, the other real. These extremes include love(ideal) vs fear, clemency(ideal) vs cruelty, generous(ideal) vs stingy, and integrity(ideal) vs lying. In comparing these different traits Machiavelli highlights the merits of opposing characteristics and (specifically)when it is effective to act in certain ways. He argues that a balance of both are vital as to prevent a prince from dipping too far into a pool of inescapable extremism. The following excerpts display the author’s contrast-centered style: “ Thus, it's much wiser to put up with the reputation of being a miser, which brings you shame without hate, than to be forced—just
Written almost 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince” brings forward a new definition of virtue. Machiavelli’s definition argued against the concept brought forward by the Catholic Church. Machiavelli did not impose any thoughts of his own, rather he wrote from his experience and whatever philosophy that lead to actions which essentially produced effective outcomes in the political scene of Italy and in other countries. While Machiavelli is still criticized for his notions, the truth is that, consciously or subconsciously we are all thinking for our own benefit and going at length to achieve it. On matters of power where there is much to gain and a lot more to lose, the concept of Machiavelli’s virtue of “doing what needs to be done” applies rigorously to our modern politics and thus “The Prince” still serves as a suitable political treatise in the 21st century.
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...
While “every sensible prince wishes to be considered, merciful and not cruel”(pg. 35), one should learn to be merciful in moderation. Not doing so can lead to unintended effects where if you are too “good” it can lead to being taken advantage of, or to “uprisings and civil war” because then you will be looked at as a pushover by your citizens and other neighboring countries. Therefore if you were to be cruel, people will fear you enough to, in theory, not go against you and stay united. But I think this concept seems more like a dictatorship, which thrives on citizens fear, and I don’t think it should be instilled in our government considering that most dictatorships end poorly and lead to more uprisings and civil war than with a merciful leader. And this is why the question in this section on whether it is better to be feared or loved also comes up. Machiavelli believes that a prince should find a balance of being both feared and loved and in general just try to escape hatred. If you are loved by your people, rarely will they betray you, but it is also good to be feared by other nations so that you are not looked upon as a target. So in this section of the prince I think the concept of ruling only on fear should not be used, however I do think that a leader should try balance being loved and
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. ...
You can see the lack of morals in people with power a lot nowadays. It seems that as if someone gains power, they tend to get greedy and take whatever they want. They use people and give no credit where credit is due. Some of these people need to take a long look at themselves and see where their ethics are at.
Although Machiavelli gives numerous points on what it takes to excel as a prince, he also shows some raw examples of how he feels a prince should act in order to achieve maximum supremacy. First, when he says, "ought to hold of little account a reputation for being mean, for it is one of those vices which will enable him to govern" proves Machiavelli feels mighty adamant about his view that being mean will help a prince achieve success (332). It is absurd to imagine the meanest prince as the most successful. Also, when Machiavelli states, "our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft" revealing his attitude to manipulate people into fearing and respecting the prince (335). Also, Machiavelli shows that for a prince to be successful, he must not think about good faith.
Both Niccolò Machiavelli and Plato, in their works The Prince and The Republic (respectively), address the concepts of seeming and being in relation to political power and leadership, however they do so in two distinct manners. In the Republic, Socrates insists that seeming is bad, and being is good. Using a parable of people in a cave, he states that the only way to know the difference between what seems and what actually is reality is to experience it in its purest form, instead of through images. Machiavelli, on the other hand outlines the different ways that a prince could rise to power, and justifies any and all means that a prince could take. He states that a prince only has to seem good when it fits his purposes, not actually be good. He encourages an aspiring prince to be deceitful and conniving in order to gain and maintain power. Before concluding which political theorist is correct, it is interesting to examine whether it would be better to remain in the cave with Machiavelli or see the light with Socrates.
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
Through his many years of experience with Italian politics Machiavelli wrote “The Prince”; a how-to guide for new rulers. We are given descriptions of what a leader should do to effectively lead his country. A leader should be the only authority determining every aspect of the state and put in effect a policy to serve his best interests. These interests are gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Machiavelli’s idea is that a ruler should use a variety of strategies (virtues) to secure his power. Machiavelli lists five virtues that a ruler should appear to have; being compassionate, trustworthy, generous, honest and religious. A ruler should possess all the qualities considered good by other people.
Although, Machiavelli argues that an ideal ruler must be cruel, feared and unjust in order to maintain power in his paper, "The Prince", this is not necessary true. An ideal ruler must be assertive, just and filled with integrity to maintain power, prestige, and the loyalty of those he governs.