Machiavelli and Plato: political philosophy comparison

Philosophy

Leadership According to Plato and Machiavelli

The qualities of an ideal leader are not as clear as we might immediately think. In fact, if it really were all that easy to determine out the characteristics of the ideal leader, then there probably wouldn't be so many books published each year on the subject. Understanding the best qualities of a leader, and what makes them so, is not an easy task. How we define the best types of leadership is indicative of the kind of society and world in which we want to live, as well as the degree to which we are willing to accept the realities of human nature and human society. The demands placed on the individual in a leadership by these factors will influence the degree to which the individual is capable of living up to the idealized version of leadership that we lay out for him or her. In fact, even consulting some of Western philosophy's greatest minds leaves us with wildly differing opinions as to what constitutes the perfect leader. Contrasting the viewpoints of Plato's philosopher-king with Machiavelli's prince suggests that extreme variation that can emerge when we attempt to characterize the ideal leader.

Plato's views on leadership can largely be derived from the Republic, arguably one of the most significant works in the history of Western philosophy. In the Republic, which describes the creation of an idealized city, Plato discusses the principles that would make such a political entity so ideal, including the nature of its leadership structure. For Plato, the role of his republic's leaders was to reduce civil strive through concerted effort. By acting impartially and fairly, the leaders of Plato's imagined realm would work together to promote harmony in the land for all people (Korab-Karpowicz). In Plato's estimation, then, the role of the leader in society is to equitably create a better and more harmonious condition for all citizens.

But the path to this style of leadership is more complex than simply expecting individuals to naturally act so virtuously. Plato recognized that few individuals are ever really wise or prudent enough to lead. He suggested that these skills be cultivated in those few individuals that display an innate ability to master them. In other words, Plato believed that leadership required leaders who possessed highly developed skills and morals that could be applied to the needs of society. He argued that managing a nation -- or business, or university, or local club -- was a craft that required a very particular skill set. Leaders needed to be well trained in order to fulfill the demands that their position would inevitably place upon them (Korab-Karpowicz). For this, Plato suggested that the entire educational structure of society be designed to gradually weed out those individuals who were unable of meeting the high requirements of leadership roles. Only those with the ability to develop Plato's kind of practical wisdom could advance to become a kind of philosopher-king that would rule through impartial intellect and fair concern for the good of society.

Plato even suggested the severe restrictions be placed on the scope of the leaders lives -- such as a prohibition against owning private property (Korab-Karpowicz). His notion was straightforward: remove as many temptations and possibilities for corruption as possible so as to preserve the idealized rule of the philosopher-king. Plato recognized that the accumulation of power could have the effect of corrupting leaders and turning them from benevolent leaders into cruel and self-serving despots. This was the danger that all leaders faced and one that Plato felt could be controlled through strict education and social restrictions on the power afforded to those leaders. Leadership, then, for Plato was a powerful tool that could be used for the good of society, but which had to be carefully controlled lest that leadership be turned against the interests of society.

Unlike Plato, Machiavelli had a much less idealistic view of leadership in mind. or, rather, his view of leadership was not wrapped up in a personal view of ethics and virtue. Plato obviously believed, after all, that the best leader would be the wisest and the most moral. It was these qualities that should be encouraged and these qualities that would make said individual a superior leader. Machiavelli argued implicitly that this was an erroneous understanding of human nature and the characteristics that constitute excellent leaders. At the heart of Machiavelli's description of the perfect leader, his idealized prince, is the argument that personal virtue and ethics are completely unrelated to public success (Kemerling). Hence, from this we see that the good leader will not necessarily be the same as the virtuous individual. This assertion stands in stark contrast to Plato's argument about the nature of leadership and highlights the way in which leaders generally operate in real world situations, instead of how we would like them to act.