The Prince: Machiavelli's Unscrupulous Guide to Politics & Psychology - Essay Sample

Introduction

Psychology is the science that deals with the study of the mind and its behaviours. It is a topic that has had many reviews of many centuries. Niccolo Machiavelli was an Italian philosopher, writer and diplomat. He wrote books and his most famous one was The Prince, which he wrote after being exiled from Florence in Italy. In the book, he encouraged politicians to be unscrupulous and engage in some social evils like murdering the innocent and deceiving their people all in an attempt to retain power (Dovidio et al., 2017). The book looked at all the 'survival tools' needed to survive and how the human mind thinks on specific issues. This paper is going to examine Nicollo Machiavelli's perspective on psychology and analyse them and how they can be used in the current existing time.

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

Save 25%

Attainment of power has been a driving force for so many people over the many centuries on earth. Many have gone to great lengths just to be robust and to be at the helm of it. Niccolo Machiavelli was a politician in Florence Italy where he served his people and fought for the Republicans, from 1498 till 1512. He had a fall out with the Medici family which led to his subsequent torture, imprisonment and his eventual exile from Italy. During the exile, he came to terms of how the world operates. He wrote the book, The Prince, to advice the current ruler of Florence at the time. Niccolo advised that for a ruler to gain power and to maintain it, he had to use all the necessary tools in his possession which included immoral behaviour such as oppression on the people. The leader needed to be fierce and to be in control of his territory.

This approach invoked the use of hypothetical personality traits, where one used a social conduct strategy to manipulate his subjects through oppression, lies and deceit and to be outright devious to maintain the rule over the territory (Vivanti, 2019). This approach gives the person an advantage over the others by exploiting the weak in society. Such tactics have been seen to work primarily in cases of dictators who walked the face of the earth. A good example is Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union. After acquiring power, the Soviet Union faced a reign of terror as there were many arrests, murders, extortions, unjust hearings all in an attempt to restore the power which he had gained. He did everything in his power to stay in charge until his death. Due to the people's fear of their leaders, they could not go against them; hence their leadership would remain intact.

Niccolo Machiavelli also advocated for a ruler to stay in charge, it would be good if he keeps up the appearance of virtues such as being honest, generous to his subjects by occasionally giving food to the poor. However, by doing this, the leader needs to be ready to abandon such traits if ever the leader feels that their interests are under threat. He argued that such a show of compassion and generosity if not kept in check; the people would start having many expectations from the ruler. These expectations may hinder his ability to stay in power. The act of generosity would also mean that the ruler would have to spend a lot of money in doing so.

The only option left was that the ruler had to say outright, to be truly generous. This act would instil fear in the subjects. Indeed, it was noted that for a ruler, it was better to be dreaded than loved to rule the subjects as one would have wanted. Niccolo Machiavelli also felt that too much sympathy by a leader to his subjects would eventually lead to public disarray, robberies and killings that would be hard to tame if set in motion. This move left the leader with one option only, which was to be cruel to his people to be kind. The logic behind this reasoning was that fear is more comfortable to control than love. The main agenda was to avoid being hated by the people because it could easily lead to overthrow the leader from power.

Machiavelli discussed the topic and generosity and miserliness in greater depth. He states that as it is suitable for a prince to be generous to his subject, the prince needs to realise that it will end in grief at some point in his leadership period. For a prince to be generous, he must be lavish in his spending so that he can capture the attention of his followers. In so doing, he will squander a lot of the resources which will force him to impose high taxation rates on his people.

His people will hate a prince who spends too much. So, for a prince to maintain relations with his people, he must not be afraid to be called a miser since he does not spend too much (Jackson & Grace, 2018). The people will eventually view this as generosity because he will not impose high taxation burden to pay for his lavish lifestyle. Machiavelli tries to explain the chain reaction that will lead to a generous prince to become a hated one by his people. A prince should avoid overtaxing his people so that the people start hating him. One who over taxes will not be protecting his people; hence he will earn their anger instead.

However, Machiavelli encourages leaders to maintain the appearance of generosity by avoiding actual liberty to the people. As time goes by, the people will regard the prince's misery to be generosity since it preserves their property by protecting their prosperity and that of the entire state as well. Pope Julius II used his reputation of being generous to obtain the papacy. After winning, he did not make an attempt to preserve this heritage he had created and returned the people to the ways of miserliness. He became a miser so that he could finance the church's wars. The virtue of miserliness allows leaders to finance wars and defence without changing taxation. This act strengthens the state and keeps the people satisfied as well.

In regards to honour, Niccolo Machiavelli acknowledged that honesty and being truthful would be a commendable trait that is so desired by the people coming from their leader. He believed that honour and probity were acceptable to some extent. For a ruler to effectively lead his people, he thought that a true ruler should not keep his word, and by doing so, the said ruler would be putting themselves in mortal danger. Such acts of continual honesty would make the leader lose sight of being in charge and make them concentrate on the people, and this move would automatically weigh them down.

Niccolo Machiavelli also brought to light the fact that a leader, in this case, a prince, was expected to maintain a certain level of moral standards in society. This expectation is especially real for people in authority because they represent the entire society. According to Niccolo, this should not be the case for a leader in the 'real world' (Jackson & Grace, 2018). He further clarifies that for a leader, many of the people surrounding them would quickly stop following the righteous and the intended set rules of ethical conduct if they stood in a position to gain. This change in behaviour he explained was human nature, and people can go to great lengths just to get what they want. Machiavelli writes in his book, "A man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among many who are not virtuous". Princes are regarded to a different set of standards, but in the interest of securing and protecting their positions, they should be ready to abandon these morals when need be to attain their desires. In a literal sense, the princes are advised to fight fire with fire.

In another aspect, it observed that princes live a public life which is exposed to everyone in society. In so being, people can judge them according to various behaviours and qualities expressed that would either earn them glorification or criticism in the eyes of the public. Princes shouldn't live a life that is fully riddled with good deeds but should also avoid being labelled as an 'evil ruler'. The prince should strive to strike a balance between the two. Machiavelli insists that a leader should not recoil from being blamed for evils that bring about defending the society, "...not flinch from being blamed for vices which are necessary for safeguarding the state' (Jackson & Grace, 2018). He also continues by saying that some of the evils done for the good of the nation will destroy the prince, whereas others will bring growth and security to their territories. Machiavelli tries to show that in the world, the relationship between good and evil is exchanged and this will make immoral actions to bring security and stability.

In contrast, the good and virtuous actions will lead to the destruction of the nation. Being that many people in the world live immoral and evil lives, the prince must also have his own set of evils to combat these, hence the phrase fight fire with fire. The princes should be allowed individual moral liberties that would be condemned in the eyes of the public they live in the public life that requires particular demands.

The conquering of new territories was a huge trend back in olden days, and it required great strategy to acquire and maintain the new land. Machiavelli knew the great lengths a leader had to make in doing so. He advises that a prince should consider three scenarios on the governance of the newly acquired countries. The prince can wreck the country, the prince can go and live there himself, or he can permit the country to sustain their regulations and hence inaugurate an oligarchy so that they can remain under the law of the prince (Konig, 2017). Machiavelli states that the only sure way of totally securing a new territory is by the use of oppression. In states like republics, the people may be given a chance to be governed by rulers from their own countries. After being conquered and allowed to rule themselves, the people of the new territory will continually yearn for the freedoms that they experienced in the past.

This desire to be free will lead them to rise against oppression and lead to the removal of the prince, who is the leader. Machiavelli encourages the use of ruthlessness in managing the new territory as it is the surest means to seize complete control of rebellion-prone countries. The use of ruthlessness is because the people will never adapt to the new ways imposed on them hence the prince will have to save himself by being harsh to his new subjects to avoid a chance of an uprising.

Such cases have been witnessed in more recent times, like in the case of China and Tibet. The Chinese invaded Tibet and were able to acquire the resources that they so needed. It also enabled them to secure their border against that of India. But the acquisition did not come at a low price, the Tibetans resisted. Still, by the use of brute strength and a show of might by the Chinese army, they were able to acquire the much-needed territory because they did not leave a chance for their opponents to fight back after they had taken over. Approximately 1.2 million Tibetans were killed, and thousands more imprisoned (Konig, 2017). This example shows that for a complete and successful acquisition, rulers must govern with an iron fist if they are to defeat if they are to end the people's constant hate.

Machiavelli says that there are only two laws for combat; by law used by man or by force used by animals, which are used in battle. Machiavelli proposes a prince should fight like a beast because fighting by law does not achieve the required results on its own. He gives an example of Achilles who was coached by centaurs, beasts which were half-human and also half-animal. They got to know how to fight in both ways so that they could get the required results when in combat with an enemy to survive.

Machiavelli tries to explain why a prince should be able to use laws and...