Comparative Analysis of Legal and Political Orders in Prince, and Utopia - Essay Example

A Critical Comparative Analysis of the Legal and Political Orders in Machiavelli’s “Prince” and More’s “Utopia” Raphael Hythloday, the traveler from the island of Utopia in Thomas More’s “Utopia” would necessarily views Machiavelli’s Prince as a more upgraded version of corrupted and despotic European rulers in the monarchic legal and political system. Even Machiavelli’s Prince would prove to be more morally degraded, harmful and dangerous than the European monarchic rulers because of his education and knowledge about how to manipulate his power as well as people’s emotion and fear to tame them. Machiavelli takes it for granted that princes are devoted to the welfare of their subjects as well as their states. But he has always an inherent distrust people’s ability to remain loyal to the ruler of a state. This distrust provokes him to advise the Prince to be both feared and loved by the people and, if not loved, then, to be feared only. But in the “Utopia”, Thomas More has freely criticized Machiavelli’s suggestion for the prince to acquire absolute power to be feared by his subjects on the ground that absolute power begets absolute corruption. Here, Macahiavelli remarkably believes that a prince’s power uniquely derives from his law-making ability, enforcing it strictly and wisely, and holding unto it in order to arouse love and fear in his subjects. More also has distrust for a man’s weakness for money, wealth and power which lead him to corruption, crime and manipulation of power and wealth for suppression. In fact, this same distrust which provokes Machiavelli to advice the Prince to manipulate power and wealth, and people’s fear and emotion shrewdly for the welfare of the subjects as well as of the state, induces More to rely on people’s collective conscience and ability to rise above adversary, to amend themselves and subsequently to do good. The legal and moral philosophy on which More depicts the social and political order of the Utopia necessarily defies to allot any place to Machiavelli’s Prince in the utopian political system considering him as a potential threat to the peace and happiness of the subjects. Indeed, Machiavelli’s law and legal measures are amoral and they, being introduced by the prince, are devoted to highlight the princely image, whereas the laws and news measures come from the mass people in the Utopia. A sense of duty and responsibility prevails the consciences of the citizens to comply with their laws, since they themselves are involved in its making. More’s Utopia stands out as a foil to the Anglo-European monarchic governments’ enormous crime, injustice, corruption and tyranny which, as More believes, emerge from the monarchs’ hunger for absolute power as well as from their lack of morality and respect for their subjects. More’s sole objective in the text is to his contemporary readers, what an ideal looks like, even though he knows that some of the ideals are possible to be implemented to the full extent. One of such examples is Hythloday’s dismay at the utopian’s pride about their justice: “I would gladly hear any man compare the justice that is among them with that of all other nations; among whom, may I perish, if I see anything that looks either like justice or equity” (45). But in the same, More makes a reproachful comparison between the commonwealth countries and the Utopia as following: “no commonwealth could hold out a year without them, can only earn so poor a livelihood, and must lead so miserable a life, that the condition of the beasts is much better than theirs?” (45) But strikingly enough, Machiavelli’s “Prince” advocates, in contrast to More’s ideology and perspective for an ideal political state in which the government will be as adept as the prince in ruling its subjects irrespective of the morality of the moral stance and the means of striving for the throne. In fact, such amoral perspective for a prince’s duty and responsibility, in the first place, is supposed to warn More’s philosopher traveler, Hythloday, about the impending suppression and political corruption which is supposed to disrupt the peace and happiness in the Utopia. In order to justify the cruel and bloody ascent of the prince to the throne, Machiavelli says, “Reviewing thus all the actions of the Duke, I find nothing to blame, on the contrary I feel bound, as I have done, to hold him up as an example to be imitated by all who by fortune and with the arms of others have risen to power.” (The Prince, 57) Apart from this amoral hunger for power and wealth, Machiavelli-prescribed leadership skill of a ruler is, to a certain extent, praiseworthy, even though cruelty, treachery and shrewdness are inherent to the leadership of the prince. But such leadership skill is quite alien to More’s Utopian society where people choose to live in a sociopolitical order of mutual cooperation and understanding. The leadership skill of the prince which is desired by Machiavelli entails murder, assassination, cruelty, treachery and capital punishment which are seriously abhorred by the members of More’s utopia society. In comparison to More’s ideal state of which the legal order is continually decided and sustained by the people, Machiavelli-envisioned realist state’s legal order and sociopolitical order are determined by the Prince in way which Machiavelli calls wise and prudent. A prince must inherit the wisdom and prudence to barter the royal compassion and generosity for the subjects’ respect and love. But at the same time, he has to arouse fear arouse among his subject. Machiavelli claims that it is better for a price “to be feared than loved”, though ideally he should be both “love and feared” (Machiavelli 45). When a prince cannot both be loved and feared, it is “much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with” (Machiavelli 45). The concept of ‘fearful respect’ necessarily requires that a prince must uphold the law by execution, punishment and showing mercy. In contradiction to this concept of Machiavelli, More’s utopian society considers the social members as an integral part of the law-making process. Indeed, instead of being imposed by the ruler of the state like a Machiavellian, the laws and rules of the state comes from the society to the ruling class whose sole duty is to enforce the law. Therefore, in such a state the citizens grow a sense that they are subject to their own law. This sense also begets a sense of responsibly among them to comply with it. For example, the families of the states are groups into units which themselves elect their representatives to participate in the government as well as in the law-making process. Since the law comes from the mass, the legal system considers the capital punishment as the last resort to uphold the legal and social order of the state. Such approach to law in the utopia is quite contradictory to the advice of Machiavelli. More’s utopia essentially infers that the people are the integral part of the government and of the existing legal and sociopolitical order. Here, they participate in this government willfully and systematically. Such tendency of More to handover the absolute power to the mass necessarily reflects his belief in man’s ability to do good and to correct themselves. In contrast to More’s concept, Machiavelly claims that the mass people of a state are generally “ungrateful, fickle, dissembling, anxious to flee danger, and covetous of gain.” (Machiavelli 45). When the prince is free of dangers, they will be eager to sacrifice their lives and wealth for him. But during the days of turmoil, they will desert him. Even they will not hesitate to turn against him, as in this regard Machiavelli notes, “they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you” (Machiavelli 45). For him, shredding the bond of love during the dog-days is much easier than a bond of fear. It is because friendships and love can be bought with money. In this regard, Machiavelli further says, “men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared….but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails” (Machiavelli 73). From a political realist’s perspective, his distrust in human nature can be excused to a great extent. Indeed he has endeavored to champion orders, laws and rules while keeping aside the emotion and compassion that can prove to be a potential threat to orders, laws and rules which are, in the very first place, meant to ensure peace and happiness of the subjects. But there is no way in which Machiavelli’s prince can be saved from the title of a tyrant who is a threat to the peace and happiness prevailing in the Utopia. More’s Utopia serves as a foil to Machiavelli’s realist perspective for a state’s political system, government and sociopolitical order. Indeed, More himself is supposed to be aware of the implausibility of the Utopia, since the title, ‘Utopia’, means ‘a place in nowhere’. In order to set the goal for a change towards a better political culture, during the Renaissance period, this influential renaissance author chooses to show his readers how a country’s sociopolitical order can emerge from the mass and integrate them into it. More was aware of the fact that the Utopia is not plausible on this earth. There must be deviations from it. Obviously, there will be the people like the prince and his subjects in a state. But More’s sole purpose is to create the role-model for the players in Anglo-European political fields. Sometimes, in the text, he chooses to teach his readers with laughter. Works Cited Macchiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince, ed. Quentin Skinner and Russell Price, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. More, Thomas. Utopia. Translated into English with an introduction by Paul Turner. Harmondsworth, UK, Penguin, 1965. Reynolds, E.E. The field is won: the life and death of Sir Thomas More. London, Macmillan, 1968. Read More