The Nature of a Political Leader - Term Paper Example

Introduction Often characterized as a “profound pessimist” and an “archetypal realist” when it comes to human nature, Niccolo Machiavelli devoted first part of his adult life to public service in the Florentine republic. After the fall of the republic and the return of ever powerful Medici family to Florence, Machiavelli was striped of his post and, subsequently, exiled. In exile he wrote the majority of his works, including his famous one -The Prince in 1513. In this short but important book, Machiavelli discusses the ideal leader, a prince, and gives theoretical framework how the prince should rule. For the purpose of this paper the work itself is not the focal point, as recommendations given by Machiavelli are aimed at a prince only, and are not intended for a common man. Machiavellian Human Nature When Machiavelli talks about a common man and his nature, he contents that men posses good and bad qualities and traits, some of which are inherent in human nature. The majority is content, happy and trustworthy in prosperous times. However, when circumstances change, the bad qualities and traits prevail and most men quickly turn selfish, deceitful and self-interested. Therefore, Machiavelli, repeatedly calls humans fickle creatures. He, almost ironically, notices how most people admire honor, generosity, courage and piety without ever displaying those virtues themselves. Since most men are weak and lacking virtue of the good citizen, they need a new leader, a heroic one, who will infuse his own virtue into all the citizens. “Thus, the miserable creatures that human beings ordinarily are or become when not properly guided are thereby transformed into patriotic citizens, capable of sacrifice, self-exertion and other patriotic values.”(Prince, 1513) It is interesting to notice how Machiavelli, not only in the Prince, gives importance to outside factors influencing human nature. In the Prince, he asserts that men tend to be satisfied with the status quo as long as they are not victims of something terrible. Very few men express real ambition. In his other famous work- Discourses on Livy (1517), Machiavelli writes: “Men never do good unless necessity drives them to it; but when they are free to choose and can do just as they please, confusion and disorder become rampant.” ( Discourses, Book 1, chapter 3, 1517) Also, in his Florentine Histories through the eyes of an anonymous citizen, Machiavelli describes the state of the city of Florence at the time: “The young are lazy, the old lascivious; both sexes at every age are full of foul customs, for which good laws, because they are spoiled by wicked us, are no remedy. From this grows the avarice that is seen in our citizens and the appetite, not for true glory, but for the contemptible honors in which hatreds, enmities, differences and sects depend; and from these arise deaths, exiles, persecution of the good, exaltation of the wicked. " (Florentine Histories 1525) With this, somewhat bitter and self-reflecting passage, Machiavelli underscores not only city of Florence, but the humanity as a whole. He accepts those facts, no matter how bad they look, for he is not interested to try and figure how people should be, but how they actually are. Machiavelli and Plato “When evening comes, I return home and go to my study. On the threshold, I strip naked, taking off my muddy, sweaty work day clothes, and put on the robes of court and palace, and, in this graver dress, I enter the courts of the ancients, and am welcomed by them, and there I taste the food that alone is mine, and for which I was born. And there I make bold to speak to them and ask the motives of their actions, and they, in their humanity, reply to me. And for the space of four hours I forget the world, remember no vexation, fear poverty no more, tremble no more at death; I pass indeed into their world.” (Machiavelli 1513) This part from Machiavelli’s letter to Francesco Vettori, written also in exile, shows clearly that he, same as the vast majority of Renaissance writers and artists, looked back into classical antiquity for inspiration and insight. Platonic Human Nature Surely, at that court of ancients Plato sits at the head of the table and Machiavelli, although not always in accord with Plato, references the great Greek often in his works. This is to no surprise, as Plato, primarily in his Republic, talks about human nature in detail. In Platos view, the average man mistakenly identified his self-interest with the satisfaction of his irrational desires, whereas mans real self-interest and fulfillment of his true nature lay in the control of the irrational desires by reason. Therefore, Plato believed that it is a violation of mans true nature to allow irrational desires to dominate reason. He believed that the supremacy of the irrational results in immorality and unhappiness. Plato supposed that people exhibit the same features, perform the same functions, and embody the same virtues that city-states do. He saw human beings as having three distinct souls. The rational soul is the thinking part, one which distinguishes real from apparent, true from false, and makes the rational decisions in accordance with which human life is most properly lived. The spirited soul is the active portion of each one of us. It carries out reason and implements what intellect determined to be the best possible action. Finally, the appetitive soul is that part covering emotions and desires, most of which, according to Plato, must be deferred in the face of rational pursuits if we are to achieve a salutary degree of self control.( Republic 360 B.C.) In Republic, Plato attempts, and succeeds, to prove that body is not the essence of the human person. He proves this through the process of elimination. There are three possibilities, one is that the human person is essentially a soul or a body or a combination of body and soul. The body, says Plato, does not rule itself, therefore it cannot be a body. And if the body does not rule itself, it cannot be in combination of the body and soul ruling. Therefore, the soul rules over the body, and, thus, the soul is the essence of the human person. (Republic) An Imaginary Conversation Juxtaposed, Plato and Machiavelli, represent two great thinkers, separated by two millennia. One, Plato, believed in the realm of ideas, in the rule of soul over the body. The other appreciated world of ideas, but was far more interested in reality, in how things really are. Their conversation in an imaginary hall of ancients described by Machiavelli in his letter to Vettori might have been somewhat like this: Machiavelli: People say that we are so different, but I, as you, believe in human virtue. Plato: Yes, that is true, but your “virtu” is whatever is best for the ruler and his state. My virtue is moral and my ruler is always just. Machiavelli: Your ruler is to be served obediently by all men. The concept of autocracy that you advocate so passionately is out of date. My ruler has one goal and one goal only- to serve the citizens. Plato: But you said many times that “when effect is good it always justifies the action.” (Prince) This means that no matter how reprehensible actions are, brute force, deceit, betrayal, they are justified by the final result. A soul of my ruler, and any of my men is rational enough to distinguish true from false, and what you are saying is, clearly, false. Machiavelli: Let me remind you for a moment of your allegory of the chariot. Can you truly claim that the wild horse, the bad one, never prevails? Plato: Yes, because the charioteer is a virtuous person, one that embodies intellect, reason and truth. He never changes, never considers any wrongdoing, unlike your Prince. He knows the right measure, a proper note, he never goes beyond what is needed. Thus, he is just. Machiavelli: How can he be sure he will not falter? Plato: Because he possesses the ultimate knowledge. He knows himself and therefore has the ultimate wisdom. My teacher used to say that he knows that he knows nothing.(Republic, 345B) The charioteer is the same in that regard so he can act in virtuous manner at all times and never falter. Machiavelli: I believe I have more personal experience to talk about virtue. I saw examples of virtue and examples of no virtue. You, on the other hand, never participated in political life. You lived and still live in the world of ideas, I live in reality. Plato: Your reality is my idea, as my idea determines your reality. Without my idea, your reality would have been different, distorted or, even, non-existent. Summary The conversation, of course, could go on and on as both had a lot to say. What is important is to distinguish Plato and Machiavelli as living 2,000 years apart and as being concerned with different components of human nature. Plato writes about how things should be as if the world was a perfect place. He, personally is aware of that as he writes: "We did not set out to show that these ideals could exist in fact. Suppose a painter had drawn an ideally beautiful figure complete to the last touch, would you think any worse of him, if he could not show that a person as beautiful as that could exist?" (Republic, 49) Machiavelli as a stark contrast delves into real world, imperfect and ruthless. His realism caused him a lot of problems during his life and after, as his Prince was banned by the Church, sharply criticized by many. He even earned a place in dictionaries as a negative term of Machiavellianism. In the end, Plato could say that his thinking wins. Read More