Relevance of Machiavelli's The Prince for Today's Political Leaders - Essay Example

RELEVANCE OF MACHIAVELLIS THE PRINCE FOR TODAYS POLITICAL LEADERS Submitted by s: Introduction The Prince, which is the work of Niccolo Machiavelli, did not undergo publication until half a decade after the author died in 15321. Among the remarkable things associated with this literature is the fact that Machiavelli was able to write as ten months prior to writing The Prince, he had gone through a “strappado” where his hands had been tied behind his back, and his whole body plunged to the floor after being strung to a ceiling. The Prince was intended as a persuasion to Lorenzo de Medici, who had ordered Machiavelli’s torture, that Machiavelli was a friend who was experienced in politics making him a priceless advisor. The book can be used as a manual for the politicians who yearn to win and stay in power as in his literature, Machiavelli guides a prince on the manner to act towards his enemies and applying both force and fraud in the course of war2. Regardless of the perceptions people have concerning politics, the book goes straight to the reality of how things work in what Machiavelli considers as effectual truth. It demonstrates that allies who exist in politics at home and across boarders are never really friends. Among the principles that are championed by Machiavelli is that leaders are always supposed to cover up their real intentions, make sure they cannot be predicted, and regularly act in a manner that is against mercy, faith, humanity and religion, so that they may be able to preserve the state, making ,Machiavelli’s name synonymous with the tyrants who are cunning. Relevance of The Prince on today’s political leaders When the dismal perception of Machiavelli in regard to humanity is understood, it becomes easy to appreciate the ethical universe that he operates in as he begins his discussion that touches of virtues that a prince should have by discarding them immediately. According to him, virtues do not have utility and are simply products of a person’s imagination. In Machiavelli’s terms, truth is a factor of the effect or outcome associated with a specific action from the dictator’s perspective but not any intrinsic or rigid standard of value and obvious liberty or freedom is not among them. This creates the definition of the term effectual truth and Machiavelli defines himself as a relativist who adjusts to the situation why favoring dictatorship. This is the same kind of discourse that has been associated with the liberals as well as democrats; it has also been seen and heard in the self-proclaimed conservatives as well as the republicans. The introduction of a new approach in relation to the traditional political science by Machiavelli founded on the thought of unethical means as a political method led to possible inaccurate illustrations of the philosopher that he was and all the principles that are associated with him. So that he can be understood, he should be considered as a political realist since he was a creative thinker who assessed the political discipline in its natural and real setting. When Machiavelli was nominated as the second chancellor of the republic of Florence, the structure of Italy’s politics was heavily characterized by an increasing influence of humanist perceptions. The humanists who were praised for their intellectual prowess in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, wanted to execute the ideas of glory as well as integrity into the Italian administrative setting so that they could be able to maintain independence and deal with tyranny along with corruption. Since Machiavelli’s father was a humanities student, it is considered as a contributing factor to Machiavelli’s entry into the political arena. Regardless, the experiences that Machiavelli met in the department of foreign affairs in Florence demonstrated to him the weaknesses that were associated with the political structure of Florence in comparison to the great powers of the time such as Spain and France. In Machiavelli’s view, Florence did not possess core elements such as a strong military and an authoritative, persistent political administration. Consequently, he developed a considerable objection towards humanist influences in the political setting, discarding the values that were proposed by the Humanist leaders including virtuosity and Christian connotation accorded to the specific principles. When Machiavelli’s theory is considered, it becomes important to place emphasis of appreciating how he defines fortune so that the needed tools to assess his view of the perfect prince may be possessed. In The Prince, Machiavelli states that there is an ultimate force that goes further than the jurisdiction of the typical man and this force has the capability to put a political leader in unforeseen and complicated situations that may compromise the success of the agenda along with the position he holds. Machiavelli stresses the influence of fortune in the political setting through ascribing a feminine and destructive importance to it. Regardless of his acknowledgement in history men have attained wonderful accomplishments as a result of the force of fortunes, he goes further to claim that a successful prince shall never depend fully on the influence of fortune if his main purpose is becoming successful. Since it comprises of both external and powerful authorities, political leaders must not make themselves subordinate to unclear and unreliable paths, as this will threaten the required security in regard to maintaining a state. Thus Machiavelli emphasizes that, regarding fortune as a female, it is important that she should be pinned down, beaten and struck, and this is with the consideration that fortune is responsible for almost half of the outcomes associated with the actions of a leader. Therefore, the leader has to take the chance of influencing the other half so that he can achieve a larger self-dependence. Thus, instead of following the path that has been carved by fortune and remaining at its mercy, one is supposed to focus on the attributes that are needed to decrease the control of fortune and at the same time increase the intensity of the independence associated with the ruler. Since Machiavelli believes in the self-centeredness that is inborn in men in regard to politics, the tussle for the greatest type of power is impending and he continues to develop the argument that clear-cut self-indulgence with be the genesis for chaos as well as destruction in the political state. As he does not give notice to any assumptions linked to the evolution of humans, he perceives history as being simply an endless process that is characterized by deterioration and renewal and only countable men who have who possess a specific set of attributes and appreciate and accept reality that exists in political life will have the ability to save the state from collapsing. These particular men with particular virtues will thus exhibit determination, robust skills in regard to leadership as well as instill fear if necessary, so that they may be able to achieve and maintain their power as leaders. Nonetheless, if the ideologies associated with Machiavelli are to be appreciated, it is of utter importance to emphasize that his perception of a perfect prince does not limit his actions to carrying himself as a lion in a determined and unrelenting manner3. Machiavelli considers the ideal leader to be one who is able to come up with his own intrinsic perceptiveness of a fox so that he can command respect and if the circumstances permit, loved. Bearing in mind that the people who are members of the state do not have unlimited access to their leaders, they develop their perceptions on him from the only means that is accessible to them which is the image the prince wishes to exhibit to his subjects in terms of appearance. Accordingly, since the members of the state are always fascinated by appearances, it is important for the effective leader to be a meticulous liar and deceiver. Even though a leader might be considered as unethical and deceitful if he is unrelenting, unscrupulous and a liar, Machiavelli states that is a political setting that is characterized by struggles to amass power, it may be unmanageable for the ruler to entirely pursue a path that is characterized by ethical actions and choices as they may have negative outcomes for the entire state. Therefore, it this justifies the statement that no one has the capacity to succeed in politics without soiling their hands4. This statement carries the idea that encourages utilizing immoral means in the pursuit of greater ends that will be advantageous to the entire state. Machiavelli states that a prince should be able to make adjustments to his agendas so that they can match the political requirements he faces without paying attention to the ethical element associated with his decisions5. It is also clear that the necessary evil stated by Machiavelli is totally justifiable if the outcome is total success and prosperity, and it is more beneficial for a ruler together with the members of the state to embrace the methods that influence the evolving realities and resolves instead of coming up with hurdles of the decision making procedures and thoughtlessly sticking by the rules of ethics. If the realm of the modern politics is considered and the actions associated with it assessed, there is the possibility of identifying a Machiavellian influence in relation to their political initiatives. The definitive basis of political power has always remained the same, but the preparedness of the leader to consider the use of violence in the event that need arises is what changes. Even though majority of the political leaders do not publicly acknowledge the need to choose violence of other immoral means, the reality is that particular occasions require special measures that will assist in the preservation of the harmony of the state; in some instances, the prince has to abandon the ethical values. In the midst of the Civil War, Lincoln was forced to make deviations of a number of his decisions from the guidelines that had been outlined in the constitution. Nevertheless, since the outcomes satisfied a greater percentage of the American people, these particular deviations have always been overlooked as they are concerned with the welfare of the majority. Hugo Chavez and Alvaro Uribe who are leaders in Venezuela and Colombia in that order demonstrate the dissimilarity that may exist between Machiavellian politics and real politics associated with the philosopher. Both leaders developed policies that may be considered as Machiavellian in terms of the dictionary definition. Even though the word is considered to fit Hugo Chavez its usage in regard to Alvaro Uribe elicits different reactions considering the fact that he is synonymous with good repute. The engagements associated with both leaders replicate the approaches that have been clearly demonstrated in The Prince, but the leader who demonstrates a following of the principles of Machiavelli between the two is Uribe. This is demonstrated in the fact that if the words of Machiavelli are used in the correct way, they have a potential of being beneficial to a nation. In addition, the use of Machiavellian tactics has also been seen in the George Bush administration, particularly the implementation of Machiavelli’s interpretation in regard to the significance of a lion and a fox as far as succeeding as a prince is concerned6. In numerous occurrences including the war in Iraq as well as the Vietnamese war or during the period that the war on terror was in progress, Bush demonstrated a firm hand in regard to the demonstration of his authority at both the legislative and rhetoric level as well as through the utilization of violence, subjugation and criminal conduct. Nonetheless, Bush had the capability to conceal his unethical behavior behind a disguise of magnanimity and allegiance, which in clear way made most of the citizens of America admire and appreciate his form of political leadership. Conclusion It is correct to develop the argument that even though Humanism was the key principle that is pursued in the political setting during the Florentine Renaissance, Machiavelli can be perceived as the founder of the contemporary politics through his success in the introduction of a significant unparalleled approach to the discipline of politics7. He appreciated that it was the obligation of the prince to consider fortune as misleading factor of political life and instead use his own efforts as this stood for components that he could be able to manipulate. Through disregarding the significance of Christianity in terms of conceptualizing the moral values, Machiavelli created a lot of confusion as a totally new notion of virtue was created. Machiavelli emphasizes that leaders are supposed to make sure they conceal their true intentions and make sure they cannot be foretold. Regardless of the fact that he outraged numerous academics with the moral convolution associated with is ideology; the reality is that Machiavelli’s perspective has always existed in a number of political agendas throughout history8. It is among the palpable approaches as far as politics is concerned since it gives the rulers a theory that may be applied to reality rather than an exploration of normative likelihoods. Therefore, since the political world exists in a setting that is uncertain and suspicious, where true power lies in reality, the perfect prince will in the end be the one who considers his state as the main and most critical body even if the prince is forced to embrace unethical means. Bibliography Crockett, David A. The Opposition Presidency. College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 2002. DAnieri, Paul. International Politics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2010. Donskis, Leonidas. Niccolò Machiavelli. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2011. Hoopes, James. Hail To The CEO. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2008. Riemer, Neal, Douglas W Simon, and Neal Riemer. The New World Of Politics. San Diego: Collegiate Press, 1997. Von Dehsen, Christian. Philosophers And Religious Leaders. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2013. Walzer, Michael, and David Miller. Thinking Politically. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007. Warburton, Nigel, Jon Pike, and Derek Matravers. Reading Political Philosophy. London: Routledge in association with the Open University, 2000. Read More