Although The Prince
has elicited a largely negative reaction and has forever cast its author
Machiavelli in the role of a power hungry villain; the fact that it is still being
widely read and talked about in various contexts is a testament to the depth of
the moral arguments it brings up. One of the most controversial arguments that
Machiavelli makes in this book is “one ought to be both loved and feared; but,
since it is difficult to accomplish both at the same time, I maintain it is
much safer to be feared than loved, if you have to do without one of the two"
(The Prince, p. 35).
This small quote has sparked much debate about whether it really is better to be a leader
that is beloved or a leader that is feared. I think the answer to this depends
a lot on the context of the leader’s situation. The time period that
Machiavelli lives in what very different from modern American society and kings
and princes are very different political entities than presidents, senators,
governors, etc. Not to say that the advice that Machiavelli gives in The Prince is not worth being examined
today, it is just important to look at how the roles of rulers have changes
when applying his advice to our own system.
In
Machiavelli’s time it was not uncommon for a leader to come into power using
force or to inherit their position. Given this context I agree with Machiavelli,
fear would be much more of a deterrent to potential challengers than the love of their people would be,
although both do have their merits. In more modern times, at least in
democratic countries where leaders are elected by the people, I believe it is
more beneficial for leaders to be loved than feared since people are unlikely
to vote for candidates that they are scared of.
The
question “is it better to be loved or feared” is therefore not as cut and dry
as it usually is presented. There are many types of leaders and the context of
who they are leading, how they came to power and their ultimate goals are very
important aspects in making a final determination.
As a
result, this book is such an important part of political science because it
forces people to think about how rulers should interact with their societies, how we ourselves want to be ruled, and confront questions that are not easily answered. It’s important not only look at the advice
that Machiavelli offers but it should also be taken with a grain of salt when
applied it to our own modern society which is drastically different from the
one in which he lived.
He explains why fear is more reliable in keeping one’s subjects in line because the fear of punishment is stronger than the obligation that love brings. This works only in moderation and to a limit because he also says, “the best fortress is to be found in the love of the people, for although you may have fortresses they will not save you if you are hated by the people. When once the people have taken arms against you, there will never be lacking foreigners to assist them.” This undermines his statement that it is better to be feared if you were able to choose only one. I think he speaks from experience when the Medici came to power and his friends who loved him were too fearful of the punishments the Medici doled out. He saw the effectiveness of fear but at the same time the hatred it caused when the Medici were repeatedly overthrown. I believe Machiavelli works with many specifics and he applies different rules or guidelines for each of the different scenarios he describes, but he does not offer many general rules. Though he does say fear is better than love, it obviously can be excessive.
ReplyDeleteAs far as looking to our own societies, our government is far more focused on protecting the liberties of its citizens, as many other governments and nations have moved towards since the Renaissance and the rise of Liberalism. I agree with you that today’s elected officials are more likely to be chosen out of love than fear, but that’s just the scenario we are used to. Imagine a world where we still elect our officials, but out ballots aren’t anonymous and there is a real chance of a corrupt government imposing punishments or mafia-esque intimidation. You might very well change your mind and think people would elect the feared candidate instead. Then it could be debated whether, in this hypothetical situation, fear or love would be better. But I digress…
Like it was brought up in class on Thursday, his advice might be more relevant to warring states in Africa, or a cut-throat executive company, but the fear of invasion and violent revolts/power struggle in America is not a thought that lingers in our minds. This makes Machiavelli’s advice a bit out of place as we are in a stable social condition, comparably.
Generally, I believe that in our current society that focuses on popular support and democratic ideals, it is quite necessary for elected officials to ‘woo’ the people and earn their affection. This can be seen as any negative actions, like the situation circulating around Gov. Christie, asking he had anything to do with the abuse of power regarding the George Washington Bridge traffic (a very watered down version of torture from Machiavelli’s day), is met with a backlash from the people. The fact that Machiavelli’s association with being a ‘power hungry villain’ still elicits such a strong negative reaction in today’s society also supports the statement that his theories of power and fear are not congruent with today’s thinking.