The belief that rulers must do whatever it takes in order to maintain power will not always ensure the success of a ruler. With regards to President Barack Obama, his power is secured through the political form of government, democracy. In a democracy, power is derived from the people. In Machiavelli’s world, power is to be gained and utilized solely by the ruler. In Machiavelli’s world, the people essentially have no power. In fact, they are supposed to live in fear of their ruler (hopefully love and respect will accompany this fear, but is not guaranteed) and know their place in society. In a democratic system, like that of the United States, there is a certain expectation among citizens for their rulers to do what is in the best interest of the nation. This concept greatly conflicts with Machiavelli’s principles. Machiavelli is not always concerned with what is best for his state, but rather, his prime concern is what is best for his power, for his rule, for his legacy. His advice repeatedly emphasizes a ruler’s authority, a ruler’s necessity to be secure in power, and a ruler’s reputation. For example, “A wise ruler will seek to ensure that his citizens always, no matter what the circumstances, have an interest in preserving both him and his authority.” (34), “No ruler is secure unless…,” “So a ruler must not have all the positive qualities, but he must seem to have them.” (55), “Ensure that whatever he does it gains him a reputation as a great man, a person who excels.” (68). Clearly, the interests of Machiavelli’s ideal ruler contrast significantly with those of a democratic leader.
There are certain aspects of Machiavelli’s advice that would be beneficial for rulers to follow. To begin with, it is important to maintain support of your subjects for many reasons. Loyalty and respect will lessen the likelihood of an uprising against you. Most importantly, cooperation between subjects and ruler will enable efficiency when working towards a common goal. Another aspect of Machiavelli’s advice that I believe should be followed by rulers is to avoid being hated by your subjects. Hatred breeds tension, disunity, discord, and fighting- all of which should be avoided.
There are also aspects of Machiavelli’s advice that I do not believe rulers should follow under contemporary conditions. Machiavelli states, “People should either be caressed or crushed. If you do them minor damage they will get their revenge, but if you cripple them there is nothing they can do. If you need to injure someone, do it in such a way that you do not have to fear their vengeance.” (9). He also advises, “If you take control of a state, you should make a list of all the crimes you have to commit and do them all at once. That way you will not have to commit new atrocities every day, and you will be able, by not repeating your evil deeds, to reassure your subjects and to win their support by treating them well.” Rulers should not be planning how to “injure” their subjects, nor should they commit “evil deeds,” regardless of how they will compensate in the future.
I think you are completely right that the Machiavellian ideals are not conducive to modern society, but I think that there are certain situations like Kim Jong Il whom I discussed in my blog, that are an example of the Machiavellian system working, just without the condonation of the rest of the sane world. I also agree that rulers should "not be making plans to injure their subjects" but in some circumstances, maybe not in the United States, that fear proves to be a very effective way to rule.
ReplyDelete"This concept greatly conflicts with Machiavelli’s principles. Machiavelli is not always concerned with what is best for his state, but rather, his prime concern is what is best for his power, for his rule, for his legacy." I agree that Machiavelli is writing primarily for the benefit a ruler rather than a principality. But what of the argument that states pursue power not for entirely selfish or self-promoting reasons but in order to protect their citizens' well-being in an environment of international anarchy? This is the premise of the representative democracy that characterizes much (though not all) of the contemporary world. If the people have given their consent to be ruled by a government in exchange for its protection, does that change the acceptability of the state's (rather than a ruler's) pursuit of power? Is it perhaps the case that power is an acceptable motivation today for states but not for rulers? What arguments could be made either way?
ReplyDelete