Should the Ruler Always Keep His Word - Essay Example

? Should the ruler always keep his word? Introduction Machiavelli is a famous Italian clerk, who bore in mind creative and powerful strategic ideas about the relevance of reign. He was focused on the issues of power. From the very childhood and his early years he felt a strong patriotic charge. Therefore, his inspiration enabled him to create his famous work “The Prince”. Unfortunately, this book was acknowledged only after his death, but the rulers of the world have been often triggered for making the right steps after reading this book. There is a clear and a stable relation between power and mind, between creativity and prudence. It is possible to present power from an unusual perspective. This task was the most relevant to Machiavelli and he managed to open the eyes of his fans and follower and the coming generations on the real essence of power, and on power of the words. In the majority of cases Princes are focused on their own interests. They are selfish and prudent; they do not care about their people at all. Machiavelli has been focused on the relevance of the ruler and the meaning of his word. Further on this paper considers controversial and challenging moments of the statement that a ruler should not keep his word. A word of a ruler Machiavelli inspires readers. They love him for sincerity, unexpected expressions, feelings and emotions. Machiavelli claims: “One ought not, of course, to call it virtu to massacre one’s fellow citizens, to betray one’s friends, to break one’s word, to be without mercy and without religion. By such means one can acquire power but not glory” (Prince online). Nowadays, the majority of politicians are focused on power. They consider it as an enormous blessing and there is no doubt that even the modern politicians cannot look further than their nose. Machiavelli and his feeling of patriotism, multiplied by a possibility to exist among other politicians and clerk were the main triggers for further developments of his political ideas. Actually, Machiavelli described people as masters and slaves. A former group of people is more powerful and it is appropriate for them to take care about themselves only. Slaves, or common people, in accordance with Machiavelli, are narrow-minded and follow the laws of the ruler, like an obedient herd of ships (Bagley, 1989). Therefore, it is possible to suggest, that Machiavelli wants to describe a dual nature of a human being. There are two origins in the nature of every man: on the one hand, we choose: "What [classical writers] intended to convey, with this story of rulers’ being educated by someone who was half beast and half man, was that it is necessary for a ruler to know when to act like an animal and when like a man; and if he relies on just one or the other mode of behavior he cannot hope to survive" (Prince online). This explanation can be correlated with a developed system of people, i.e. Masters and Slaves (Alter, 1999). Masters know how to behave with their slaves; they impose perverted laws on them and they have no doubts that their Slaves would follow all their needs and wants. When it goes about Masters’ words or the ways of behavior, they have sharp minds and can easily choose appropriate strategies and the ways of behavior. A Master uses beasty features, turns into a lion and can easily conquer his enemies. A Master turns into a fox, when he wants to conduct his cunning laws and create traps for his Slaves. On the one hand, it is appropriate for a ruler to choose different strategies of behavior. Otherwise it is impossible to reign. On the other hand, what can be said about a ruler if he does not keep his word? He can lose respect and trust of his people. Only a feeling of fear can prevent people from real protesting. In this case, the Prince can behave in whatever he wants, because he will get no resistance from people around him. There are many things, which are permitted for the king, but these deeds are forbidden for a slave. Machiavelli claims that there are many sins and every man is wicked. The Princes are not exceptions. They have a right for a mistake. The most valuable ability of the ruler is “to know how to conceal how crafty one is, to know how to be a clever counterfeit and hypocrite” (Prince online). To be flexible and open minded–these are two main principles for a ruler. Every particular situation should be analyzed in a new way (Landon, 2008). There is no option to turn into an angry and a reserved person, but rather to be open for new initiatives, at the same time thinking only about self-profit. These words explain the main intention of Machiavelli to describe the essence of a ruler’s word. People do not really care about the real essence of their rulers. They are selfish too. In case a ruler is able to satisfy all needs of people and they are pleased, they do not look further and are not interested in his cunning political or personal plans. In the modern world there is a great importance of a public popularity of a ruler. This can be seen in million dollar election campaigns, online and TV debates of future candidates et cetera. Machiavelli intrigues his readers and he uses different intriguing assertions: “by placing apparently "self-evident" or "natural" assertions in the shadow of dramatic historical evidence, Machiavelli engages in a strategy that encourages readers to overlook contentious steps of his argument. This strategy enables him to present the "the most serious matters in a boisterous allegrissimo” (Major 2007, p. 175). Therefore, people are scared off by the ability of a great political thinker to veil essential issues and interpret them in a coercive manner. Some critics claim that Machiavelli employed his ideas about politics and borrowed them from the ideas of great thinkers and ancient philosopher (Femia, 2004; Jensen, 1960). That is no wonder, because Machiavelli performed his ideas in the epoch of Renaissance, when there was a growth and renovation of innovative ideas and developments. Of course, he realized that uniqueness of his ideas is underlined, when his greatest inventions are interpreted from a different perspective. Actually, Machiavelli was sure that the end justifies the means. He realized that the essence of power is rather cruel and the rulers should try hard to act in a justified manner. Moreover, the rulers are much concerned about personal benefits. They are interested in flourishing of their power. As a matter of fact, to find out the truth, the rulers from the ancient times used to dress into a shabby clothes and walk among common people. In such a way they could find everything out. A conception of a wise ruler in Machiavelli’s work is defined in the following way: "a wise ruler… cannot and should not keep his word when such an observance of faith would be to his disadvantage and when the reasons, which made him promised, are removed" (Prince online). A value of a ruler’s word is determined by its power. On the one hand, a ruler would keep his word if there is a serious hazard to lose his life. On the other hand, when he is freed, he would not keep his word, because there is no direct hazard for his life. Machiavelli claims that in some cases to keep a word is rather selfish for a ruler. A value of his word should not be above the price for human lives. Let’s think about some historical events, when military officers and commanders had to spend 2-3 lives of their soldiers in order to save the lives of a hundred of people. A ruler has no right to hesitate and be able to make right and instantaneous decisions. Machiavelli was against papacy. Thus, one of the most negative persons for Machiavelli was Pope Alexander VI, who “had no care or thought but how to deceive, and always found material to work on. No man ever had a more effective manner of asseverating, or made promises with more solemn protestations, or observed them less” (Prince online). This Pope was able to gain power by means of coercive plans and strategies. He did not care much about means; he was focused on the end only. Some critics discuss the essence of Machiavellian words in the following way: “cover-up is indeed in the nature of executive power. In operation, executive power covers up because the successful executive does his best to represent his choices as necessities unwillingly imposed on him" (Danoff 2000, p. 295). If to consider these words with respect to the American politics, it is evident that Lincoln and other Presidents, if they could not keep their word, they just positioned themselves as a victim of the circumstances (Major, 2007). It is appropriate even for the modern politicians. During elections they claim that their people will leave very good, but after elections very many promises are gone or perverted. A national power is not enough to take control over cunning attempts of politicians to catch power (Skinner, 2000). That is why, there is no doubt that a word of a ruler may have no value, but it will be powerful if imposed on other people and on the whole nation. In the result of not keeping a word, a ruler can lose respect of his people. It is very interesting, how a Prince can keep his princedom, if he loses respect of his people? It is possible to turn a nation into a grey mass of slaves, like it was in the Soviet Union, and promote only selfish interests and concerns of the Prince. There are many controversial ideas about this matter, because in this case people can be disillusioned and fight against a ruler. Stalin is an outstanding example of a global tyranny. He never kept his word; he arrested thousands of people. The Soviet Union was a large cage for the whole Russian nation. In the result of this power religious, social and economic pillars of the country were undermined. A real Prince should not be a monster. He should have and gain love and respect of his people. The most appropriate features for the Prince are: “mercy, good faith, integrity, humanity, and religion” (Prince online). There is no doubt, that it is very difficult to cheat the whole nation. But it is easy to conduct a biased policy of power: people would feel the essence of the Prince, but they would live with respect laws and regulations, imposed on them. Machiavelli interprets this feature of a national mind in the following way: “Everyone sees what you seem, but few know what you are, and these few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many who have the majesty of the State to back them up” (Prince online). To know the real essence of a ruler and to guess about it–are two different things. To keep a word for a really talented ruler is one of the greatest benefits and delights. Crafty and vicious rulers are not afraid of not keeping their word. Consequently, Prince’s actions should be correlated with his words: “A certain Prince of our own days, whose name it is as well not to mention, is always preaching peace and good faith, although the mortal enemy of both; and both, had he practiced them as he preaches them, would, oftener than once, have lost him his kingdom and authority” (Prince online).    Conclusion Machiavelli is a great strategist of a political power. He develops templates for behavior of our rulers, though these are often focused on selfish needs and wants of them and not on common people. Therefore, Machiavelli revealed the truth about power for his followers. Politicians all over the world tried to forbid The Prince. Nevertheless, a power of Machiavellian mind promoted this book and common people have a strong basis for their suggestions about the real essence of the Prince. That is not good to be afraid of truth. It is better to open our eyes and minds in the face of coming reality. Machiavelli is often criticized, even nowadays, but he clarified the essence of politicians of all times. The modern politicians should put all their efforts to create an image of a real, successful ruler, a powerful politician, who care about his people, has many followers, gains respect and love of his people and, of course, can keep his word. References Alter, Jonathan, 1999. THE NEW PRINCE: Machiavelli Updated for the 21st Century. Washington Monthly, July, p. 52. Bagley, Gerald L., 1989. Do You Have to Be Machiavelli to Succeed? Security Management, July, pp. 116+. Danoff, Brian F., 2000. Lincoln, Machiavelli and American Political Thought. Presidential Studies Quarterly 30, p. 290. Femia, Joseph V., 2004. Machiavelli Revisited. Cardiff, Wales: University of Wales Press. Jensen, De Lamar, ed., 1960. Machiavelli: Cynic, Patriot, or Political Scientist? Boston: D. C. Heath. Landon, William, 2008. Seeking Real Truths: Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Machiavelli. Renaissance Quarterly 61, p. 873+. Machiavelli. The Prince. [online]. Available from: http://www.online-literature.com/machiavelli/prince/ [Accessed June 30, 2012] Major, Rafael, 2007. A New Argument for Morality: Machiavelli and the Ancients."Political Research Quarterly 60, p. 171+. Skinner, Quentin, 2000. Machiavelli A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More