Political Theories: Machiavellis Prince and Aristotles Politics - Book Report/Review Example

Political Theories: Machiavelli’s Prince and Aristotle’s Politics Introduction In a book d Darwin’s dangerous idea, Dennett (1996) argues that the idea of evolution through natural selection was a “global acid” (24). According to him, this idea ate through most things and destroyed popular convictions and notions, leaving in its wake the all transformed. Machiavelli and Aristotle have also come to present a similar effect by mirroring humanism, political aspects, traditional virtues and religion in the context of the state. This paper is a comparison of Machiavelli and Aristotle’s political theories in distinguishing legitimate political goals and creating manipulated images in the minds of subject. Discussion Machiavelli The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." (Biko, 1986, 103). In a book entitled the Prince, the author Machiavelli (1961) offers a view of how a state ought to be run or governed in his own perspective. His views greatly differ from those of the humanists that were existing in his time. Among some of these views are that the ruling prince ought to have an exclusive authority to determine each of the state’s aspects. In this perspective, he expected the prince to put in effect a regulation that could be used to serve his exclusive interests. Apparently, the major interests for the prince included acquiring, maintaining and widening his political territories (Heilbroner, 1999, 115). The prince could effectively achieve these goals through capturing the mind of the subjects. Machiavelli understands and presents human nature in a very different way and which contradicts the views and beliefs of the existing humanists in his time. According to his views and perceptions, he has strongly advocated for a secular society and has a feeling that morality is not essential and instead, it was an obstacle to an efficient governing of the state Machiavelli, 1996, 71). As one analyst put it, Machiavellis views are actually immoral and harsh but it should be taken into consideration that his views emanated from the concern of Italy, which was utterly unstable at that time (Heilbroner, 1999, 125). This means that his perceptions were largely driven from the incompetence of Italy’s prince as the cause for instability of that nation. Machiavelli and Human Nature According to Machiavelli, men are untruthful and ungraceful lot. They are “fickle, ungrateful, deceivers, liars and greedy”. He goes on to articulate that men are self-centered who would act for their own and not the state’s interest given the slightest opportunity. He posts that men cannot care even in the case when the prince lands in danger. This is why he reinforces the idea that the prince need to be feared by the citizens by arguing that men do not care injuring one who wants to be loved in comparison to another who wants to be feared. According to him, the prince can be able to rule effectively if he creates a sense of fear among his subjects. Since men are wreaked creatures, he argues, they will break the existing bond of love no matter what level it was for their own interest if an opportunity arose. This therefore makes fear to be an effective element since it cements the trepidation of discipline (79). Machiavelli also articulates that an effective prince ought not to tell the citizens the truth always and instead should be ready to deceive them. In other words, he should not endeavor to exercise the virtue of honesty as a matter of pleasing citizens (84). A sense of fear is important in making him to be honored among the citizens. He should encourage citizens who work hard and triumph in their work or careers for increasing the state’s prosperity. Prosperity of the state will in turn bring the prince honor from these citizens (including his opponents) as it will be perceived that he was the one behind the success (Machiavelli, 1961, 72). Machiavelli goes on to argue that virtuousness is not a fundamental element of humanity. This as he perceives is due to the assumption that if a man tries to be good or virtuous, those who are not so virtuous may still grieve him. If a ruler wants to be effective, he must not be virtuous among citizens. In other words, the prince should not be morally bound in governing the state (Machiavelli, 1961, 70). Despite the fact that other humanists during his time had a belief that an individual was very much significant to the well running of the state, Machiavelli utterly mocked human nature. For instance, according to humanists, any person develops to maturity both morally and intellectually through “involvement” in the state’s operations. Apparently, Machiavelli does not trust any citizen to be involved in the state. Interestingly, he argues that a prince ought not to mistreat the state’s citizens (45). This view is however, also aimed at serving the interests of the ruling prince. According to him, it would be better if the citizens feared him instead of being loved by them (Heilbroner, and Milberg, 2011, 23). Role of the Prince and the state Machiavelli observes that a state is one of the highest forms of human relations. It is an indispensable element with regard to promotion of man’s welfare. A state is so important in the sense that any person ought to sacrifice his or her interests to meet those of the state. He goes on to postulate that a ruler ought to conceive that anything that can be able to bring him power and prosperity is virtuous, irrespective of the means used to acquire it (44). The state as Machiavelli notes is above all associations in any society. A part from being autonomous, it is also sovereign Among the responsibilities of the state according to his observation is that it should be able to maintain order and law, protect people’s life and ensure the well being of the subjects. According to him, it was the mandate of the state and the ruler in particular to ensure that the people in his or government’s jurisdiction enjoy the common good Gisela et al 1990, 34) Machiavelli also posts that every man has some qualities, which may either bring him some blame or praise among other people. Since a ruler is also a human being just like the rest, these qualities are also in him. However, he should display his good qualities in public and be able to hide his weaknesses and failures from the public. Apparently, the author articulates that the ruler should be able to embrace the vices if they are necessary in running the state. This is because, as Machiavelli notes, the subject’s perception of a strong state gives them a feeling of security (Dennett, 1996.444). Machiavelli continues that the state is there to meet the interest and needs of the citizens. He also goes on to opine that a state does not solely exist to punish citizens for their wrongs. The state should be able to use force in restraining people since force results into them developing fear, a necessary element in successful governance of the state (89). Characteristics of the State in Machiavelli’s Views An effective state as Machiavelli point out in his book, the Prince is the one where a moral or religious consideration does not bind the ruler. Such a state is not influenced by religion and neither should the church control the political aspects of the state. A state that is sovereign is the one, which exercises sovereignty and power in all its institutions and subjects. All institution in a state ought to be subject to it. The political aspects of the state should not be integrated with theology or any type of religious perspectives. Additionally, the author articulates that a state should not have a moral purpose or end but is significant for the welfare of man. Political and governance aspects ought to be an independent phenomenon with its own laws and principles. In protection of the state, a state’s ruler has a mandate of employing instruments of conspiracy, lie, deception, massacre and even killing to achieve this goal (Machiavelli, 1961, 12). The author also pointed out that governments that were republican in nature were not very effective. This is because such forms of government must employ honesty, virtuous, and citizens who are patriotic to it, a factor that is hard to find. He also goes on to opine that a state does not solely exist to punish citizens for their wrongs. Going to his perspectives, this is attributed to the fact that people are naturally weak with many failings. A state is founded upon the insufficiency and weaknesses of men (Machiavelli, 1961, 75). An effective state is the one which with powerful administration to deal with the weaknesses, corrupt tendencies, and selfishness of men. The powerful aspect of the states administration is quite crucial in order to bring harmony to the society. Additionally, such a government will be able to control people’s behavior as well as excessive desires of these people. He as well goes on to articulate that a state should regularly prepare its military forces for protecting the state. This means that a state’s army should be consistent and strong enough in defending the state (55). Further, he advises that apart from the state’s army being consistent and strong, it should be faithful to the state as well as exercise independency. The army should include only its citizens and not those of other states. A part from being relegated with the role of protecting the nation, it should also be prepared to expand its territory (Machiavelli, 1961, 68). Another interesting view he puts across is that it would be good if policies were set to subject the citizens, especially for those who are able on compulsory army training. In essence, Machiavelli’s views on human nature and political aspects were so much deviating from the existing humanistic views. For instance, the humanistic had a feeling that an individual was very much significant in the development of the state of which Machiavelli was opposed to. According to Machiavelli, men were so much self-centered and could not be trusted to care for the state’s interests (47). However, it should be noted that he had presented his views after careful studying the political situation of Italy, which was unstable at that time. According to his perceptions, the suggestions he provided could act as a basis for Italy’s prince or rulers to bring political stability. Although this type of government may have appeared to be unrealistic at that time, it practically appeared in Italy some years after writing the book. It can also be experienced in the modern day politics of many states around the world (Heilbroner, 1999, 55). Aristotle In politics, Aristotle explains that the polis or city is a political association. He goes on to explain that by nature, man is “a political animal” (1253a8). According to him, slavery is a necessary institution for the well being or prosperity of the society. He goes on to claim that similar to all deliberate acts by humans, such associations are established with the objective of achieving a common good (1252a3). Machiavelli supports this notion by articulating that, the state and the ruler is mandated to ensure that the people in his or government’s jurisdiction enjoy the common good. Both theorists acknowledge that a political association is the most sovereign type of association since it incorporates all other forms of associations and has an aim of achieving the highest common good. According to Aristotle, there are three kinds of households making up the household. These include husband-wife, parent-child and master-slave. The “art of acquisition” as he noted is the fourth element of the household (1253a19) According to Aristotle, a master should be able to utilize slaves in order to secure his livelihood. Similar to Machiavelli, Aristotle also notes that a ruler must be able to enslave the minds of the citizens since in essence; nature is constituted of “ruling and ruled elements”. While some leaders are born to be leaders by nature, others are also born to be slaves by nature (1256b25). Aristotle however, deviates from Machiavelli’s notion that rulers should not do injustices to their subjects by stating that those who were born by nature have a right to be enslaved. He however agrees with Machiavelli on this aspect when he says that a just slavery is when the master’s rule benefits both him and the slave (1254b16-23). We should remember that Machiavelli also affirms that the state is there to meet the interest and needs of the citizens. In contrast to Machiavelli on the significance of man in a political grouping, Aristotle believes that man can only be regarded as fully human if he gets to associate himself in the political association of the city. If not so, he will be disconnected from the state and therefore, he will fail to accomplish his ultimate purpose (1275a22). In this perspective, Aristotle is arguing on two aspects, that the laws of the state should be designed in such a way that they restrict the freedom of man. In addition, he as well opines that man cannot live effectively outside the state confines. Although Machiavelli is also arguing that, a ruler should be able to capture the minds of the subjects, he goes to the extent of claiming that such a ruler is free to use deception, lies or intimidation in doing so. Aristotle argues that for a state to prosper, the ruler must exploit slaves fully. According to him, slaves were just born to be slaves and do not have any rationality, hence a ruler has to instill some form of rationality they lack through this enslavement (1254b16-23). As he points out, a good constitution is established through the principle of distribution. By this, he means that equal people should be equally treated while unequal people should be treated unequally. Machiavelly however refutes this assumption claiming that a ruler is expected to protect and serve all people alike, and not necessarily enslave them or some group of them. Slavery according to Machiavelli is great injustice to citizens. Aristotle points out that individual’s significancy in a society are determined by the contributions they make to the city. This deviates from Machavelli’s notion who utterly mocked human nature. For instance, according to Aristotle, any person develops to maturity both morally and intellectually through “involvement” in the state’s operations. Apparently, Machiavelli does not trust any citizen to be “involved” in the state. Instead, he argues that, men are untruthful and ungraceful lot. They are “fickle, ungrateful, deceivers, liars and greedy”. He goes on to articulate that men are self-centered who would act for their own and not the state’s interest given the slightest opportunity. He posts that men cannot care even in the case when the prince lands in danger. An ideal city according to Aristotle is where all citizens experience happiness. Again, it is the mandate of the city to ensure that all citizens are happy (1274b4). This statement is also echoed by Machiavelli who also argues that the state is responsible for maintaining order and law, protecting people’s life and ensuring the well being of citizens. However, while this according to Aristotle depends on the free exercise of speculative reasoning, Machiavelli observes that in protection of the state, a state’s ruler has a mandate of employing instruments of conspiracy, lie, deception, massacre and even killing to achieve this goal (Machiavelli, 1961). While Aristotle envisioned that a state could become more effective if its citizens were enlightened through being educated on writing, reading, music, drawing, physical training in achieving a common good, Machiavelli’s view of an effective state is one where citizens were made to fear the ruler. He observes that men are wreaked creatures, and they will break the existing bond of love no matter what level it was for their own interest if an opportunity arose. In another spectrum, Aristotle also concurs with Machiavelli with the claim that man is a self-centered figure. For instance, he says, “mankind always acts in order to obtain that which they think good.” The phrase on what “they think” is an indication that humankind seeks “good” based on their subjective definition of the term. If man seeks what he thinks is good to him, this translates that individuals will strive to seek what they think is good for themselves. This will subsequently lead to the accumulation of wealth for material comforts (1259a16). Machiavelli also note that men are self-centered who would act for their own and not the state’s interest given the slightest opportunity. Self centeredness of men is the reason why Aristotle advocates for education as a form of enlightening subjects on why they need to engage themselves with the development of their state as well as following the laws and stipulations. He argues that it is through education that the state’s laws could be made popular (1310a13). In essence, the political theories put forward by Machiavelli and Aristotle only supports the idea that “the most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.” While Aristotle argues that acquisition of this mind is through education, Machiavelli observes that it is through creating fear and deception. Works Cited Aristotle. “The Politics”. Translated and with an introduction by Carnes Lord. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. Bock, Gisela; Quentin Skinner and Maurizio Viroli, “Machiavelli and Republicanism”, Cambridge University Press, 1990 Bondanella, Peter, and Musa Mark, “The portable Machiavelli”, Penguin Books, 1996 Biko, Steve, “ Write What I Like”. San Francisco: Harper & Row. 1986,pp. 103–104. Dennett, Daniel, “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life”, Simon and Schuster, ISBN-13: 978-0684824710. 1996. Heilbroner, Richard, “The worldly philosophers: the lives, times, and ideas of the great economic thinkers", Touchstone, ISBN-13: 978-0684862149, 1999. Heilbroner, R.L and Milberg, W, “The Making of the Economic Society”, Prentice Hall, ISBN-13: 978-0136080695, 1996 Machiavelli, Nicolo , “The Prince”, London: Penguin, ISBN 978-0-14-044915-0. 1961 Read More