The Prince by Machiavelli - Essay Example

The Prince by Machiavelli The Prince presents Machiavelli’s advice to rulers based on the different methods of achieving power and the need for princes to preserve authority over their people. Written during the renaissance period historical era characterized by intense political rivalry and violent conflicts, Machiavelli sought to highlight areas of weakness and strength that had made ancient and leaders of the time fall or preserve their rules respectively. To present his blueprint on how to maintain power effectively, Machiavelli partitioned The Prince into sections that address major attributes of successful rule. Firstly, the theorist identifies types of principalities, which he believes existed during the time. These principalities include those acquired through inheritance, mixed principalities, which are those annexed into pre-existing territories, new principalities and ecclesiastical principalities, which are under Papal States and ruled by the church (Machiavelli 84). Further, the types of armies that can maintain the reign of a prince are also highlighted with the author also highlighting how the prince can use these armies to his advantage given the risk that each might have on the preservation of power. Based on his analysis of the past and situation prevailing at the time of his authorship, Machiavelli presents Lorenzo de Medici prince of Florence with a well-thought-out plan of how he could reverse the political situation in Italy. The advice aimed at elevating the position of Italy amid continued conflict between powerful city-states such as, Milan, Naples, Venice, Florence, and those who had sworn allegiance towards authority such as the Papacy, Spain, France and the Holy Roman Empire. The situation resulted cities positioning themselves for protection and domination over the others leading to blackmails, violence and heightened political intrigues that occasioned Machiavelli’s quest for Italian unity and end of foreign intervention into local affairs. This essay presents an analysis of ideas presented by Machiavelli in The Prince in order to gain a perspective on his understanding of the political situation in renaissance Italy. The Prince focuses on the issue of power and how to preserve it by firstly highlighting the different types of governments, or what Machiavelli refers to as principalities. Machiavelli accepts the existence of governments established as either monarchies or republics; his focus is on the former. However, what I perceive as the most controversial is Machiavelli’s concept of what it takes for a prince to preserve power and lead a successful principality (Machiavelli 84). Instead of advocating for propagation of benevolent rule that takes care of the subjects, Machiavelli advocates approaches that lean towards being brutal and unforgiving towards perceived enemies. Machiavelli’s argument is based on his assertion that there are virtues which princes should be perceived by the subjects as embodying. However, the survival of a prince will not depend on these virtues, but this is not the case in reality. While virtues are perceived as being important, Machiavelli argues that there are some vices that could lead to survival of a prince and preservation of his principality, while having the virtues would lead to destruction (Machiavelli 110). Therefore, my perception of what Machiavelli recommends is that rulers should extend their perceived morality only to such a level that their position is not threatened. However, when a ruler’s authority over the people is threatened, there are no limits as to the extent that one should go to keep or acquire more power. This perception of authority is what motivates Machiavelli’s notion that it is “safer to be feared than to be loved” as one cannot enjoy both (Machiavelli 113). Such perception of leadership goes against modern principles of concepts such as democratic rule of the people where leaders are supposed to show qualities of fairness and justice. I perceive Machiavelli’s the advocacy of cruelty towards the subject as one that supports the installation of tyrannical rules in society. In De clementia, Seneca presents an analysis of cruelty perpetuated by those in leadership noting that, cruelty is a vice for tyrants, which makes it evil and something every wise ruler must avoid even when some situations call for adoption of such means of preserving leadership (Stacey 60). However, I think Machiavelli’s arguments in support of tyrannical rule is based on him blame on human nature for providing ground for the development of such forms of leadership. Consequently, it is failure of humanity to take full charge of their higher nature and preside over their affairs based on rational capabilities that necessitates and makes possible and necessary the ruling of a princely tyrant. Based on different perspective on the nature of human beings, I believe that human beings possess the capacity of being evil or good and that human nature cannot be generalized as being either good or evil. In this case, I see the environment playing a significant role in modelling the nature of every human being as one raised to be good based on moral principles of the society has a high probability of being good in subsequent life. The same can be said for those raised in a corrupted environment where different vice are encouraged as they will use this upbringing in determination of their future actions. However, Machiavelli has a single perception of human nature “man is evil”. Machiavelli’s support for brutal and ruthless leadership is based on his generalization of human nature, which he summarizes as being “ungrateful, fickle, deceptive, and deceiving” (Machiavelli 113). This perception of humanity forms the basis of Machiavelli’s conviction that rulers must prefer being brutal and to be feared than looking to attract love from the subjects. However, I believe that leaders can still achieve greatness by demonstrating love and affection towards the subjects. Moreover, other scholars from this era have opposed Machiavelli’s perception and concept of a successful ruler. Cicero is one such scholar as he advocates for acts of generosity towards the subjects as being among the pillars of successful leadership. According to Cicero, those in leadership should seek to offer their best to the subject noting that generosity combined with justice were the two most important virtues that could result in leaders being loved by their subjects. Cicero adds that subjects are attracted to leaders who have a reputation of being generous, while those known for miserly are hated. Nevertheless, in The Prince, Machiavelli seeks to dispel such notions by arguing that it is actually the practice of generosity, not miserly, that ultimately leads to subjects expressing contempt and hatred towards their prince (Skinner and Price xvii). Erasmus also shares Cicero’s perception of a suitable prince noting that they should be “a living likeness of God who is at once good and powerful” (Spielvogel 353). Erasmus viewed such goodness as important attribute of suitable princes as it makes them always want to help others. Leadership formed based on cruelty against the people is therefore propagating evil as the leaders have great power that is combined with wickedness. However, a good prince is one whose power is used for the good of all the society and is ready to sacrifice his own life for anyone of the subjects. Even with Machiavelli’s advocacy of some form of cruelty and miserly in preserving power, he does not underrate the importance of support from the citizens (Machiavelli 119). The arguments propagated by Machiavelli in chapter XIX conforms to that of earlier philosophers such as Aristotle as expressed in Politics. According to Aristotle, principalities (monarchies) that collapse are those that have failed to establish a positive relationship with their subjects leading to a situation where the leaders are viewed with contempt and hatred. Machiavelli supports the position on seeking the support of subjects by noting that “wise rulers have always been very careful not to exasperate the nobles and also to satisfy the people and keep them contented” (Boer 50). However, my perception of Machiavelli’s support for measures to keep subjects contented is that this does not stem from a conviction that it is an end to itself, but as a mean to an end. I do not see Machiavelli advocating keeping the subjects contended as being directed towards satisfying the needs, which should be the role of leadership, but as a bridge for the leaders to preserve their power and continue controlling the lives of their subjects. Machiavelli’s call for leaders to be careful in handling subjects stems from the need to protect the leadership in Florence where the threats of conspiracies against the rulers were high (Machiavelli 119). This threat was already a reality in Florence as seen from the assassination of Giuliano de’ Medici by members of the Pizzi family (McIntire and Burns 113). Machiavelli is therefore not advising leaders to be good to their people for the sake of it but due to the realization of the dangers of conspiracy, which are in many cases perpetuated by those who are sure of popular support. Further, the dangers of hatred of princes by the people are also presented in Machiavelli’s discussion on whether or not to build fortresses (Machiavelli 125). Machiavelli contrasts the fates of princes such as Sforzas and Florentines who chose to build fortresses and Duke of URbino and the Bentivogli in Bologna who preferred burning them down. Therefore, it is evident that although princes who fear popular revolt can build fortresses, these does not mean they are fully protected an uprising in future (Machiavelli 126). When one takes control of a free city, the only method of holding for a longer period is to destroy it so that the subjects will not have any landmark on which to base their rebellion in the name of liberty and of its ancient. Machiavelli uses chapter eighth to underscore the rule on how a prince should deal with perceived enemies. I think the author does not believe in giving those who had previously work with the enemy a chance to declare their allegiance. Not everyone who worked with the regime being replaced should be deemed as holding similar beliefs to senior officials of that regime. However, Machiavelli notes that in order to avoid carrying a knife every day the prince should take the initial chance to wipe out all the members of past regime (Machiavelli 113). This is a drastic move as it disregards the possibility that one can find an ally even among those who worked with past leaders. This belief is also a contradiction as Machiavelli had already pointed out that in some cases, the friends that one starts the process of acquiring power with are not necessarily the once that will surround the prince afterwards. This implies that those that are perceived as enemies can turn out to be important servants while friends involved in the initial process of acquiring power might end up being later enemies of the prince (Heuser 18). Machiavelli’s advice concerning how to deal with perceived enemies can therefore be perceived as stemming from his fear that the prince will in future have to deal with vengeance if he does not deal with all the enemies in one instant. Machiavelli’s perception of punishment is further highlighted in chapter XVII where he emphasises the importance of being severe instead of merciful when a prince punishes the subjects. Support for severity of punishment stems from the belief that penalties such as death sentences can be passed on a small group of people but with implication for the whole population as it acts as deterrence against future acts of rebellion. Machiavelli also warns that while punishment should be severe, princes must be careful to prevent hatred from developing amongst the subjects (Machiavelli 114). Machiavelli advices princes to adopt a flexible approach towards punishment depending on whom it is directed towards. Severity of punishment works when dealing with subjects but might it negatively affect the ruling of a principality when rulers extend such to his partners in leadership. When punishment is directed towards subjects, it is better for the prince to rely on punishment than compliance to prevent them from turning “insolent and trample on you because of too much ease on them” (Walker 523). Punishment is the remedy for expression of discontent among the subjects as its severity will even make the ringleader of any plot against the prince fear being seen as perpetuating opposition against the authority. However, for punishment to be effective it must be moderated to avoid development of hatred, which Machiavelli adds can be accomplished by not seizing property and women belonging to perceived opponents since “men more quickly forget the death of their father than loss of their patrimony ” (Machiavelli 114). Those in the position of leadership are constantly under scrutiny to ensure they live by the principles of a given society. Such close observation of conducts of leaders might require those with least to hide to hold such offices, as they will be able to deal with their regular responsibilities without the fear of being branded a charlatan. I perceive such principles as being important or leaders especially in contemporary political situations. However, Machiavelli has a contrasting view of leadership and how leaders must carry themselves. He does not advice leaders to be transparent in their actions and dealings with maters of the principality. Instead, Machiavelli offers them lessons of how they can deceitful in order to perform acts that are suitable for preservation of their authority. According to Machiavelli, when the situation calls for it leaders must not appear deceitful but continue to demonstrate virtues such as being “merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright...” that are important in building the image of the prince (Machiavelli 116). The Prince also addresses the question of how religion and politics should relate noting that each addresses different spheres of human existence and must therefore be kept apart. I think this perception of religion and politics is what makes the Machiavellian principles appear immoral. The author was not concerned with contribution of moral guidance offered by religion, which could also act as a ceiling against acts of aggression that might be detrimental to the development of the human species. I think religion offers check and balance to what leaders can do especially since their position elevenths them to a position where they can even determine who lives and who dies in society. Therefore, religion provides moral integrity that leaders should possess for them to judge what is wrong or right in different situation affecting the subjects. However, Machiavelli opposes the combination of religion and politics due to his perception of religion as an aspect of humanity that can help a prince be united with the subjects but can also be an undoing force. To Machiavelli religion is a tool that can be used by princes to attain and perverse power as it can be used in controlling the masses (Walker 149). It is evident from Machiavelli’s principles that he does not wish his prince to be concerned with the preservation of spiritual integrity or moral good. The main focus for Machiavelli is that the prince must attain and preserve power in the principality with less regard to moral responsibilities of those in leadership. Therefore, Machiavelli seeks to solve leadership problems by taking here and now approach to acquisition and preservation of power while relegating the worldly quests for blessings of God. These perceptions are also contrary to what prior scholars, political thinkers and philosophers in Greece, Rome in addition to Hebrew politicians and writers who saw leadership as being God given therefore dispelling any notion that religion and politics can be separated. According to the perceptions of these minds, leaders were an embodiment of God, acting on earth as His representatives (Mukherjee and Ramaswamy 149). From the foregoing analysis of Machiavellian principles based on his ideas contained in The Prince, it is understandable why commentators have vilified the author. Machiavelli’s ideas of how leaders can attain and preserve power encourage the rise of tyrannical rule, as he does not advice princes to high moral esteem. In The Prince, Machiavelli goes as far as advocating violence against subjects as a means of preserving attained powers. The advice to princes does not seek to make them more accountable to the people but is focused on making the people fear and therefore compromise all their aspirations in order to satisfy those in authority. Adoption of Machiavellian principles, especially in contemporary era where leaders are accountable to the people, might not lead to a successful reign as leaders now work for the people and not the other way round. I think Machiavelli’s dedication to the issue of uprising by the people implies more than the author willing to admit. Although, a ruler might instigate untold ruthless acts against the people, power always remains with the masses regardless of how effective one is at crashing opposition voices. I believe the subjects have a limit on what they can accept from their leaders even when they are in hereditary principalities, which have lasted many generations. This is especially true of free cities, which are likely to overthrow their tyrannical rulers for protection of their liberties. Therefore, I think the advice contained in Machiavelli’s The Prince does not have a place in contemporary world as it only advocates achievement of power as an end to itself but not as a means of protecting and providing optimum environment for the subjects to achieve their aspirations. Works Cited Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Texas: Randy Dillon. 2009. Print. Boer, Roland. Marxist criticism of the bible: a critical introduction to marxist literary theory and the bible. Vol. 87. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2003. Print. McIntire, Suzanne, & William Burns. Speeches in world history. New York: Infobase Publishing, 2009. Print. Mukherjee, Subrata, and Sushila Ramaswamy. A history of political thought: Plato to Marx. New Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2011. Print. Skinner, Quentin & Russell Price (ed). Machiavelli: The Prince. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Print. Spielvogel, Jackson. Western civilization: alternate volume: since 1300. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2011. Print. Stacey, Peter. Roman Monarchy and the Renaissance Prince. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print. Walker, Father Leslie J., ed. The discourses of Niccolò Machiavelli. London: Routledge, 2013. Print. Heuser, Beatrice. The strategy makers: thoughts on war and society from Machiavelli to Clausewitz. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2010. Print. Read More