Machiavellis Thinking on Leadership: Lies and Breaking Promises - Case Study Example

Introduction Machiavelli’s view about the nature of man explains that, despite man having both bad and good qualities, he tends to concentrate on hisown interests when everything is at balance. He continues and says that man either gains blame or praise from the qualities of leadership he has. According to Machiavelli, good qualities should be displayed to public and hide the bad qualities. However, if the bad qualities are important for his upkeep, man should embrace them. He also believes that man will cheat, lie or steal for self satisfaction. Man also has promises but Machiavelli argues that the promises are bound to be broken if they could destroy one’s reputation. Men should not be heavily bound to keep promises, at times promises ought to be broken (Machiavelli 2004). Machiavelli describes the nature of man as being eager for personal gain, avoids danger and is dishonest at times. He also observes that all political leaders tell lies, break promises, extinguish family ruling and use religious beliefs as political tools. Lying has become part of politics and leadership systems in the society today. Lying goes hand in hand with breaking of promises (Kain 1995). Machiavelli on lying A lie can be defined as untrue or false information meant to deceive another person to be as the ultimate truth. According to one of the scholars of deception, Lying is normal and it is not exceptional as human minds and bodies produce deceit. All people lie including lawyers, teachers, religious leaders and business people and it happens mostly in negotiations that are commercial oriented. Political leaders are no exceptional either; they are also involved in lying. Most leaders lie due to their desire to win over a certain agenda or issue related to political gains (Femia 2004). There are many instances that our leaders are involved in lying; current or future long term values about a good or a service, their goals, interests and priorities, when making a reservation point, if lying is the only alternative option left in a deal they are interested in, authority and ability to reduce terns of a certain contract or deal, promises, other offers; tenders, or bidders on a certain good or service, in case of a trial and finally their strength on the position they hold in leadership. Although at times some lies can usually be proved by evidences like documents signed, many forms of lies are not easily detected. Machiavelli argues that a clever leader should not keep his promises if they are not to his advantage. As far it is good to look trustworthy, religious, humane and honest it may turn out to be the opposite if the mind is disposed and the true self is realized. According to Machiavelli, leaders or positions are roles and they don not necessarily represent ones personal beliefs and standards. Many politicians and leaders intellectually keep on lying until it is accepted as the truth. Being truthful and having a conscience is a necessity for any great leader. However, many leaders are self centred people who are aiming at enriching their own life. As a result they use lies to deceive the public who elect them as leaders (Anglo 2005). Lying and deception are deeply into the society and people have come to believe that success comes through deception and lying. The society see political and religious leaders who are liars as being incredible, they have accepted lying to be a necessary quality in leadership. However breaking of promises, lying and being dishonest are signs of hypocrisy. Hypocrites have hidden missions that they want to execute and as a result they keep their identity hidden by lying. Leaders use trickery to acquire more power and authority, fame, promotion, favour and maintain their position in leadership. Having being a lying leader, it is very hard to raise the bar to the level of truthfulness; as a lying leader it is not easy to accomplish as it becomes difficult to comply with the rules of bring truthful. Most of lying incidences happens during negotiations. Lying in negotiations helps people close a deal with highly favourable terms to the liar over their client. This is because while negotiating the issues being tackled can be transformed and are malleable; hence they can change their dynamic and perspective easily to come up with a solution (Kain 1995). Lying also happens when there is new information that people are not very familiar with. The leaders take the advantage to base the new information on their own perspective before the truth is exposed. They shed its light in a different way and hence changing its interactions, events and circumstances. When the real truth about the new information is out, the audiences are left confused on what to believe and they mostly take the perspective of their leader. As the truth unfolds and new experiences come up, the audiences start to re-evaluate the perspective of their leader and they start having little faith in their story. By this time the leader has acquired his mission and if they are exposed, they flee. It is necessary for a leader to hide their nature and portray a good character to go along with presently; this is because a prudent leader will always find someone to lie to as men always follow their needs for the present. Machiavelli gives an example of Alexander I who always found a reason to lie to his people. He was not good at making assurances, offering solemn promises or even keeping them; but he succeeded as a leader using his deceptions as he played his role and knew his responsibility in the society and world very well (Machiavelli 2004). Machiavelli on breaking promises While talking about keeping promises, Machiavelli argues that a prudent leader ought to never keep their promises. He continues and says that the promises usually turn and work against them. Promise should be broken when the reasons for keeping them are not valid anymore. He continues and argues that men are evil and they will never keep their word to their leaders and fellow citizens, as a result, leaders should not also keep their word to them too. A leader should always break his promises to his subjects because they will also break their promises to them; this is because man is considered evil (Femia 2004). A good leader will always find reasons to break his promises to the people. Many important treaties and promises have been broken in the past and the leaders have still succeeded in their leadership. Rulers who keep their promises and live upright without trickery and deceitfulness receive a lot of praises from the society. Leaders nowadays have done great thing by making little promises but in a cunningly and that has left the people confused. These leaders mostly do this to go against the leaders who are trustworthy and have been relied upon by the society. Leaders should not keep their word or be truthful as very few men in the society are upright nowadays. As a result, even if the leaders are truthful and keep their promise they will be lying to themselves. A good leader should always have calculations of what is in his best interest or gain. This is the concept of hypocrisy discussed in Machiavelli’s theory. A leader should make his subjects believe him that he is humane, honest, and faithful; and as soon as they believe, he should be in a position to change to the opposite (Anglo 2005). Machiavelli argues that having good qualities and always practicing them is harmful for a leader. It is however necessary for a leader to be true to their nature and portray an honest character to their subjects occasionally. A good leader should not back up their actions with moral judgment or faith; power rules in politics and leadership. Machiavelli argues that leaders should be guided by hypocrisy and self interest rather than using ideologies to rule. When executing moral justice, it should be based on increasing and maintaining power and authority a leader holds. Keeping of promises should be done when it is working in favour of the leader and it brings him more power, security and authority. A leader should not keep his word only because it is necessary to do so. Men judge by eyes not by hands and hence keeping promises is something that men will not see physically. Is Machiavelli justified in thinking that it can be right for a leader to lie or break promises? Machiavelli displays man as evil and he should act in an evil manner. When his view is compared to our leadership systems today, there are many elements of being evil and having inhumane leaders portrayed. It is not justified for a leader to lie or break promises to their people for self interest. The leaders would work for the good of the community and development of all the members in the society. Machiavelli’s theories of lying and breaking of promises are not justified. This is because they are based on self interest instead of interest of the society and the country at large. If a leader deceives to save the society or the country at large; that is a justified reason to do so. The same case applies to keeping promises to the subjects; leaders should keep promises that are beneficial to the whole society and break self centred promises. A good leader should be concerned with the welfare or the people in the society and worry less about his position, power and authority (Anglo 2005). Good leaders never worry about their position because they are sure they will retain them in case of elections. This is because they have made a good impression in leadership skills. Leaders should tell the truth and win the publics support by being known to be who they are. A leader who lies to get public support is seen to be using the idea of preparing for the worst by thinking in conditions of the worst. This measure only benefits evil intended leaders and politicians. Lying leaders loss their credibility and hence people do not trust them at all to make any decision for the society .These leaders do not also care about the society at all; they are involved in self enrichment. A country can still grow without having deceitful leaders contrary to what Machiavelli says; leaders must be deceitful for a country to grow. Being good or evil, defines what kind of a leader one is or can be. All leaders are not evil; a man can be a good leader if they don’t use wickedness described by Machiavelli. His theory on good leadership reveals man to be immoral and cares less about other people. Leaders who use deceit do not feel guilty nor do they care about the consequences of their lies (Fischer 2000).Any leader who wants to maintain his position should learn how to be good and stop using trickery and deception to obtain favour form his subjects. He should also have the knowledge to use his goodness to help the society and the country. The best leaders rule in the interest of all people in the society, while rich leaders rule in their own interest. Despite the fact that man is wicked and self centred leaders should not be self centred too. They should rule or lead without the perception that man is selfish and evil. If all leaders in the society were selfish, the poor people in the society would be in very big problem as a majority of our leaders are the rich people in the country. Quality leadership should not involve trickery and breaking promises but it should involve fair judgement and execution of human rights effectively. It is not justified for a leader to use lies and break promises in order for them to rule effectively. Effective leadership is possible without the use of deceit and trickery. Leaders should not also rule by repression and cruelty. Most men tend to follow with love, serve and imitate good leaders and this should be a motivation all the leaders in the world (Fischer 2000). Conclusion Machiavelli’s theories were practically applicable to his time, nowadays the society has evolved and these theories would not have an upper hand in leadership and politics. However some aspects of these theories are still practiced as many leaders are self centred, liars and do not keep the promises they make to the people. As far as many leader want to be truthful and keep their promises, they are ruined by others who are liars and do not keep their promises. Leaders who desire to lead must learn to not being good always (Femia 2004). Their being good can sometimes be taken as weakness which may cost them their job. Effective leader should learn how to make distinctions, evaluate the effects and consequences of some actions to be taken, assess critical conflicts and take advices from other leaders. By doing this they will preserve and maintain their state and will know how to apply general information about human nature when dealing or solving conflicts. The beliefs one hold determine what kind of a leader one will become but according to Machiavelli, man was made naturally evil and hence needs control. In his book Prince, he portrays man as being evil by nature (Fischer 2000). References Anglo, S 2005, Machiavelli: The first century, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Femia, JV 2004, Machiavelli revisited, University of Wales Press, Cardiff. Fischer, M 2000, Well-ordered license: On the unity of Machiavelli’s thought, Lexington Books, MD Lanham. Kain, P 1995, Niccolò Machiavelli: Adviser of princes, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, vol 25, pp. 33-55. Machiavelli, N 2004, The prince, Penguin, London. Read More