My Views on Machiavelli’s Theory on Political Leadership
Nicholas Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 1513. It is ostensibly a manual for rulers to help them maintain their power. Still, many contradictions within the text make it unclear whether Machiavelli was ironic or serious. Understanding Machiavelli’s perspective requires one to analyze the time he lived. Machiavelli was born during the reign of the Borgias and the Medicis and studied the power struggles of the warring principalities of the Italian Renaissance (Shumer, 1979). During this period, dynastic families emerged. The period was also characterized by chaos; princes made and lost fortunes overnight. The understanding forms the basis for my support of Machiavelli's theory on political leadership.
Vatter (2013) notes that Machiavelli lamented Italy's intolerable state of affairs. To Machiavelli, a prince could not lay the foundations of a state without exacting the means to hold on to power and legitimize it. He believed that this aggressive nature is inherent in humans, and the only way for a prince to succeed is to embrace this nature to maintain power. To illustrate his point, Machiavelli used historical examples to demonstrate what he deems good political leadership (Shumer, 1979). He divided historical leadership into three categories: hereditary Prince, new Prince, and hereditary duke. He noted that if one wanted an enduring state, one must apply force with prudence.
The Prince was seen as immoral and an advocate of tyranny. However, I differ from the scholars and argue that Machiavelli objected to the notion of moral objectivism and viewed politics and religion as separate entities. Rather than applying religious ethics in politics to achieve goodness, Machiavelli stressed that moral virtue is unnecessary for a leader (Von Vancano, 2006). I support Machiavelli's stance that a leader should focus on defending, enriching, and bringing honor to a state rather than striving to be good in the people's sight.
Machiavelli notes the challenging task of being a good politician and a good Christian. He advised the Prince to defend the state from attack (Cosans and Reina, 2018). To achieve this, the Prince must be feared rather than loved. He argued that sometimes, love is unreliable and can be a soft spot that others might use to exploit another. The ability of a leader to inflict fear in his subjects keeps them in check. In addition, “criminal virtue” is necessary to stop violence and provide security in the state. However, Machiavelli said that when it comes to morality, what is good and what is evil are subjective.
Modern society views politicians as selfish and corrupt individuals who are constantly chasing subjective interests rather than the common good of people. In this context, ethics play a vital role in fostering peaceful societal living. The machiavellian argument does not highlight the differences between 'just' and 'unjust' leadership but explains how leaders use power for the state's greater good (Vatter, 2013). In The Prince, Machiavelli provides an ideal way a leader should behave, especially considering his subjects' behavior (Cosans and Reina, 2018). Machiavelli advises the Prince to rely on good use of power and instill fear in his subjects. In this case, Machiavelli presents a very pragmatic approach and lays out what the Prince needs to do to succeed. I support Machiavelli’s notion that a leader should be feared rather than loved because the latter is unpredictable.
Modern public opinion is also very cynical of politicians who are considered dishonest and self-serving. In this context, Machiavelli's notion of moral virtue is called into question. A leader can defend a state with his power. Still, if the leader is corruptible and evil, he may make the state vulnerable through fear of punishment or even leave the country in favor of another leadership (Vatter, 2013). Therefore, I disagree with scholars who believe that Machiavelli advocated for evil leaders by focusing on power. On the contrary, I believe that his work points to the dangers of empowering a leader over morality to achieve success.
In conclusion, I recognize the importance of Machiavelli's ideas to different individuals, including non-political players. Modern political advisors use Machiavelli's theory on political leadership. Contemporary society entails making tough decisions which may mean trading off some ethics. Sometimes, it isn't easy to make decisions that everyone likes. As a result, moral objectivism becomes an impossibility; hence people must make tough choices involving ethical trade-offs. In this regard, Machiavelli's work can help guide people to make the right decisions based on the circumstances. However, a case that invokes Christian and political ethics should be exempted from this rule.
References
Cosans, C. E., & Reina, C. S. (2018). The leadership ethics of Machiavelli's Prince. Business Ethics Quarterly, 28(3), 275-300. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-ethics-quarterly/article/leadership-ethics-of-machiavellis-prince/315847F82C4EED2B1E642D6A34974812
Shumer, S. M. (1979). Machiavelli Republican Politics and Its Corruption. Political theory, 7(1), 5-34. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/009059177900700102
Vatter, M. (2013). Between form and event: Machiavelli's theory of political freedom (Vol. 2). Springer Science & Business Media. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-015-9337-3
Von Vacano, D. A. (2006). The art of power: Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and the making of aesthetic, political theory. Lexington Books. https://philpapers.org/rec/VONTAO-6
