Is it better to be loved than feared, or vice versa?
I disagree with Machiavelli on the topic of love and fear. It is not better to be loved and it is not better to be feared. It is better for a state to have more than one leader to maintain a strong society. It is better to make other states fear you rather than to manipulate your own people to love you or to scare them by using scare tactics.
 |
| http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GCvK5I0_epg/ UVkNNus57yI/AAAAAAAAAMc/CGnMdUBkpMg/ s1600/kim-jong-un-number-un.jpg |
 |
| http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9XxJHCF3b_U/TPr-kLnBZ2I/ AAAAAAAAAgM/Lsfe1psnwo4/s1600/1.jpg |
The love strategy can work for a long period of time, but it will not last. For example, the majority of people of Thailand used to love their current king, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, but eventually the Thai people started to question their love for the royal family. Why? Well, Thailand has both a prime minister and a king. The royal family has no political power, but they still have a great influence on the Thai society. In 2002, the economy in Thailand started to rise significantly. That was when Thailand's former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was in charge. In 2006, Shinawatra was overthrown for stealing a huge amount of taxes money. Shinawatra has lived in exile ever since and is not allowed to go back to the country. As the Thai economy was struggling after Shinawatra was overthrown, a group called “The Red Shirts” was formed to protest, asking for former Prime Minister Shinawatra to come back and run the country again to fix the economy. The Red Shirts acknowledged that Shinawatra’s administration was corrupted, but at least no one was starving. The Red Shirts group gradually became more aggressive and accused King Bhumibol Adulyadej, of living a luxury life without having to work hard like the people. Thus, this created a major conflict within the country because half of the Thai population are still loyal to the King and they eventually formed a group called "The Yellow Shirts" to support the king and to protest against "The Red Shirts." The structure and the political order within Thailand are completely ruined.
When power is handed to a single person, people tend to question it. A state needs more than one single leader for the purpose of maintaing a well-structured society. It is not about whether or not a leader should be loved or should be feared by his or her people. It is not about how a leader can maintain his or her power as Machiavelli argues, in my opinion, it is about what the people want. After all, society as a whole, has the power to completely destroy one single leader.
So what do you all think? Is it better to be loved or to be feared? Is power just about love and fear? Or is there more to it?
*Note: For more information on the protests in Thailand (the Red Shirts and the Yellow Shirts) please click on this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13294268
There will always be exceptions and outliers with any theory or example but I agree that both love and fear have their flaws. Looking to your example regarding North Korea, I would argue that the little power they have is also due to the economic sanctions and general attitude the rest of the world holds towards North Korea. It’s because Un leads his country by being feared that many of his policies and actions are denounced by most of the world, but I am not sure the people will revolt, as Machiavelli warns.
ReplyDeleteWe live in a dramatically different world than Machiavelli did and it would be interesting to compare his theories applied to nations on the global scale. For instance, does the United States benefit more from other nations fearing it, or loving it. I will return to North Korea to expand my question. Why does North Korea get away with its stunts? Is it because we love Kim Jong Un or do we fear the ramifications of hostility, either from China’s intervention or simply from the North Korean military forces? So, does North Korea hold international power from being loved or feared? It is certainly not what Machiavelli had in mind when writing The Prince, but I think the discussion is still relevant when analyzing the balance between love and fear.
I would say neither love nor fear should have a place in politics, and should be replaced with trust. There will be some who argue love has a place, which isn't so bad, but I feel there will be more who argue fear has a place and should be used, which is bad. This so-called trust would come from a general acceptance of public opinion by rulers and their policies/behaviors, as you argue for. This is the foundation for any long-successful state. As for your call of a state with multiple rulers, I would say the inner politics would soon become a larger danger to progress than putting trust and final say in one ruler (who would act with public opinion/interests in mind). This ruler should have some checks and balances, and be held accountable to the public's trust -- but also, more importantly, be given a certain amount of room to maneuver. Therefore, love and fear are merely two emotions that politicians use to take advantage and control of the public -- and should not be used as a pillar, or model of government.
ReplyDeleteI agree that love nor fear should belong in politics. Trust is the most important thing. However now-a-days trust is so hard to come by especially in politics. Love and fear are emotions that take the better of many of us. Whether or not you believe it is better to be loved or feared really depends on what you want to come out of specific relationships. Some people believe that being loved is the best way where others believe that being feared is far better. If you are feared there are not as many people who are going to take advantage of you most likely they will leave you alone whereas if you are overall loved by people I believe it is easier to take advantage of those people. In the end I don't believe that power is just about love and fear, I believe that there are many more aspects like trust. However love and fear still do no matter what have an impact on the power of people. If you are a trusted person its typically because people "like" you are maybe "love" you but hardly are there people who I fear but also have trust for.
ReplyDelete