Machiavelli's 'The Prince' - Essay Sample

Introduction

In his text, "The Prince," Machiavelli writes primarily about the formation of principalities. His written work, though at the very onset, resembles a blueprint on how a prince should work, or it is about the kind of state that a prince leads. A prince leads a nation and has dominion over it. The state, as Machiavelli states, is a body in which the prince or an emperor exercises sovereign power, but the state has its complexities, most of which are asserted to the leader in some way or another. Thus, given the essence of the leadership of a prince, Machiavelli subverts several humanistic, moral, and political assumptions. According to Machiavelli, the cognizance of political problems, their ramifications, and how to address them overrides all other humanistic, moral, and political expectations placed upon the leader of the state.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Machiavelli first presents that a ruler is naturally expected to exert leadership with an explication of consideration of people's rights. He states, "For a natural ruler has fewer reasons and less need to harm others" (Machiavelli 6). While it may be considered humanistic to act that way, Machiavelli reminds the leaders that it is not the best way for them to assert authority in the state. The author induces that since the ruler may be the best there is on earth, men will always be disposed to leadership. Despite the way leaders treat their people either with or without harm, it is only necessary that they realize that men have a way of opposing leadership. The mutability of human beings also forces people to be considerate of changing their leader even when he is right. It is on that basis that Machiavelli writes, "Men are very ready to change their ruler when they believe that they can better their condition, and this belief leads them to take arms against him" (Machiavelli 7). Therefore, just being a good leader who has no reason to harm others, though humanistic, it does not count in the establishment of the state.

Skinner illustrates the thoughts of Machiavelli regarding the humanistic values and their observation in his text, "Political Philosophy." In the book, Skinner observes the values that leaders across the world have respected and states that on political thought, leaders have been finding it necessary to change such outlooks (Skinner 408). They have been "citing new authorities, proclaiming new values, all in style usually felt to be far more typical of the renaissance that anything so far discussed" (Skinner 408). Therefore, humanistic values that leaders used to observe in the past do not make as much meaning today basically because there are more pressing needs to lead states with more surety of keeping them.

The dynamics of leading the principality require more than the proper treatment of people and the issuance of their political rights. Machiavelli writes that when a ruler acquires their position, they face different forces. One is the force that opposed him before he rose to power, and the other is the force that supported him while he got into power. Therefore, upon rising to power, a leader has to be ruthless. A valuable takeaway from the text by Machiavelli is that "Anyone who becomes a new ruler is always forced to injure his new subjects, both his troops and other countless injuries" (Machiavelli 7). While it is always annexed that a ruler should treat subjects fairly, this ethical approach cannot be used by new leaders. Machiavelli thus subverts this humanistic approach and considers that it is not applicable in an ideal state. Thus, the ideal leadership is one where people are hurt because of the resistance directed towards new leadership.

Most humanistic and moral approaches expect proper leadership is one that involves the people, and the leader has almost no power without such individuals. Machiavelli, however, overlooks this humanistic approach because rebellion comes with new leadership. He writes, "The ruler because of rebellion will be more ruthless in consolidating his power, in punishing the guilty, unmasking suspects and remedying weaknesses in his government" (Machiavelli 7). Moral approaches would direct that a ruler be freer with citizens to understand their grievances after the rebellion. Seemingly, such approaches are not used in a principality. They would depict a leader incompetent, and the grip of leadership would be lost while trying to appear smart and god for his people. Skinner also supports the idea of a ruler asserting force and not agreeing to be led by moral views to lead the government. He states, "A tone of increasing pessimism can be heard about the prospects of combining republicanism with civil peace" (Skinner 409). Therefore, whereas it is humanistic and justified to allow civil peace with the values of republicanism, a leader is only forced to consolidate power and act ruthlessly lest their leadership would be ineffective.

Besides, political assumptions direct that there is a need for a ruler to devolve his powers to be ruled effectively. Political proponents direct devolution of power such that a leader, in this case, needs to give powers to some other people and act only when need be. In a vivid observation of the Roman Empire, however, Machiavelli contrasts this perspective. He observes how Roman leaders used to exert direct force over new colonies instead of delegating powers to others as equally competitive individuals with a vivid explanation. The author sums up the idea by stating that under direct rule, the country will not be exploited by officials, and the subjects will be content when they can access the ruler directly. And, "if the state is ruled directly, it is very unlikely, indeed, to be lost" (Machiavelli 9). The idea of delegating powers to officials though being viewed as quite transformative, is subverted by Machiavelli in his view of leading principalities.

The reason why Machiavelli opposes the delegation of powers is based on the idea that a noble prince understands the problems facing his people and nation early. Officials are not as effective in the political scope as they have always been assumed to be. Machiavelli considers the view of Romans and the way they exerted leadership above even renowned communities such as Ancient Greece. The reason they did so is that they did not just deal with the existing troubles but even troubles that were likely to develop. According to the author, diagnosing affairs of the state early enough is necessary for the proper establishment of leadership. He writes, "If one recognizes political problems early, they may be resolved quickly, but if they are not recognised, and left to develop so that everyone recognises them, there is no longer any remedy" (Machiavelli 9). Skinner also writes in support of the view where he considers the way the leadership of Italy was undertaken by the emperor with full authority. He concludes that "Complete trust must be placed in the emperor as the sole authority capable of ending the prevailing strife" (Skinner 410). Direct leadership by the leader is therefore expected for the nation to be run in the beneficence of all as opposed to the popular delegation of duties.

Although, some of the basic virtues such as mercy, love, and compassion are expected to be carried out by princes and rulers, Machiavelli, in opposition, writes that in many cases, they are not applicable in leadership. He considers one of the leaders called Agathocles, whose leadership was full of the deaths of close friends, scores of citizens were maimed and killed, and he was overly merciless and irreligious. With a clear understanding of the steps that he needed to take to keep his leadership, Machiavelli supports the actions of the leader, claiming that, "His appallingly cruel and inhumane conduct, and countless wicked deeds, preclude his being numbered among the finest men. One cannot, then, attribute either to luck or favor or ability what he achieved without either" (Machiavelli 31). Therefore, although he did not display the right values which are considered by men, Machiavelli opines that he achieved much more as a leader. He was thus a cruel leader who transformed his society, which shows that his redress of political problems overrode the idea of being a leader with values.

A political leader is also expected to be generous and rewarding of the people. Indeed, most of the popular leaders of principalities are considered to be the ones who are generous and reward their people. Machiavelli, however, opines that this outlook of leadership has been so misleading and has seen many leaders become subjects over the people they lead and not acting as the leaders they should be. Considering the idea of leaders and generosity, the author states, "There is nothing that is so self-consuming as generosity: the more you practice it, the less you will be able to practice it" (Machiavelli 57). Being mean is, however, not a moral virtue that is considered in the modern world. Machiavelli subverts this outlook as he believes it has been misleading, and it is unsustainable for leaders. In a like manner, Skinner believes that the glory of generosity cannot be attained and states that it is "lust after a form of greediness that is generous and beyond reproach" (Skinner 414). The value of generosity thus is a political assumption that Machiavelli so much detests in the sense that it hinders real political development.

Some leaders believe that it is better to be loved by their citizens, while others believe that it is better to be feared. Therefore, Machiavelli delves into trying to understand whether a leader should be cruel or should be merciful. Mercifulness is one of the humanistic assumptions that are expected to be showcased by leaders. But Machiavelli states, "A ruler must make himself feared in such a way that, even if he does not become loved, he does not become hated" (Machiavelli 59). The author, therefore, calls for a mix of cruelty and mercifulness. In like fashion, Skinner states that a leader should follow justice, but even though he could induce some cruelty and violence, he must have attributes that "will always be loved and admired" (Skinner 416). Thus, it is not always expected of a leader to be merciful and not cruel, lest he would lead the state in the wrong direction.

In a rather unexpected twist also, Machiavelli opposes the idea that leaders should respect their promises and should always feel answerable to the people they lead. In a rather cynical twist, the author speculates that "leaders who have done great things are those who have set little store by keeping their word" (Machiavelli 61). The author, therefore, overlooks the prudence of the leader keeping their word. It is also on this basis that Machiavelli assumes that a leader is offered a chance of power fortune over human affairs, and it is based on this reason that keeping his word is not possible. Most promises are based on foreseeable fortune; hence Machiavelli states that "fortune is the arbiter of half of our actions, but that it lets us control the other half" (Machiavelli 85). Therefore, it is only necessary for leaders not always to meet their word as expected.

Many humanistic, moral, and political assumptions are placed upon a leader. Machiavelli opines that these assumptions are not always right. The author feels that it is not always right for a leader not to harm his subjects. He also thinks that the issuance of political rights is not always correct. The author also opposes the delegation of power and opposes values of love and compassion, substituting them with some level of cruelty. Finally, the author concludes that it is not always right for a leader to honor their word as expected. The need to address political problems and offer the right direction for leadership overrides all the humanistic moral and political assump...