Machiavelli's The Prince

Machiavelli's "The Prince"

It is quite obvious that the time of kings and kingdoms has long passed. Nonetheless, Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince" remains one of the most important political writings and an essential reading for those interested in understanding the current profile of the modern political leader.

The book in itself is a concise manual for those wanting to attain political power and influence. Despite its small size, it summarized the basic and most important qualities of a leader. The actuality of its teachings has been acknowledged by various historians around the world as "in the last fifty years Machiavelli has repeatedly been hailed as the founder of political science (and) find in him one of the founders of modern historical analysis." (Gauss, 9)

Machiavelli discusses the ways in which a ruler can attain power and the means to keep it. Thus, one can become prince "by ability or by good fortune." (Machiavelli, 52) Fortune, in his use, implies the financial possibilities of the members of the family that enable one to attain power. He gives Cezare Borgia as example who "acquired the state by the influence of his father and lost it when the influence failed." (Machiavelli, 53) it is important to have a solid base before reaching a powerful position and not rely on the fortunes of the family. Virtue is yet another idea developed by Machiavelli as a prerequisite for a prince. Yet, though the example of prince Agathocles, who used his qualities to attain power, the author points out that such qualities can be considered virtues as long as they are not used in violent acts. Thus, Agathocles' interaction with the real world to impose his will, which implied the killing of his rivals, the betrayal of his friends, the lack of faith and religion, cannot justify virtue and thus he cannot be called a virtuous man, despite his personal qualities. (Machiavelli, 60-61)

Machiavelli considers the personal qualities of a ruler to be essential for the attainment of power of his kingdom and for the supremacy of his state. He takes into consideration the ruler because of his conviction that the state is not a force in itself, but an element subject to the power of the leader, and therefore in order to attain greatness for one's subject, the prince must use the state, through his own personal abilities, to reach international supremacy.

Generally speaking, according to Machiavelli, the price must have no other aim but that of war, and should focus on it both in time of peace and in times of conflict. Thus, he must be prepared to face any situation, and never remain idle. This idea is not difficult to understand, taking into consideration the turbulent times Machiavelli lived in and the incertitude the Italian states, always in conflict, faced constantly. The example of the Roman Empire, always prepared for war, is eloquent for pointing out that a good leader must always be ready to go to war for defending its interests. In the contemporary world, such a notion could be applied to the American Security Strategy during the Cold War and soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall. In the conflict with the Soviet Union, the general guidelines for the defense strategy of the U.S. revolved around the possibility of the American government to react, at any given time, to a Soviet attack, with a force double than the one of the attack. Similarly, after the Cold War, the Army had to be equipped to such an extent as to be capable of supporting simultaneously the presence of its troops in four different theater operations. This preparedness implied the constant consideration of the advent of war, which is the exact practice of Machiavelli's ideas.

A good prince must desire to be considered merciful and not cruel. Yet, the equilibrium between the two is to be the focus for the prince. Still, it is better to be seen as cruel, but just and effective, rather than good and inefficient. Cezare Borgia, he points out, "was considered cruel," yet his actions brought the unity of his state, and thus he kept his subjects united and loyal. (Machiavelli, 89) in recent history, the case of Charles de Gaulle and his opposition to the American attempt for monopoly on the European political scene can is relevant for this point. In 1966, when he applied the "empty seat" policy in the NATO Council, he chose a rebellious attitude, rather than national submission to the American military principles. Although many did not agree, the population and thus his electorate supported his choice and his aggressive attitude on the international scene. (Calvocoressi, 1987)

Another important condition for being a good prince is, in Machiavelli's opinion the ability to be feared, yet not hated. (Machiavelli, 89) When fear governs the relation between the ruler and its subjects, they tend to develop respect for its authority and the leader thus gains reputation, which in turn helps him impose his will. At the same time, hate must not be instilled. Thus, he concludes, fear and the absence of hate may well work together. (90) History has shown however that most of the times, people react to their leaders' authority without loyally respecting the line between fear and hate. Thus, rulers such as Stalin did impose a regime based on fear and restriction, but in time, due to his inability to limit his actions, he gave birth to hate among his subjects. This would ultimately cause his repudiation by most of the Russian population that had previously supported him. (Calvocoressi, 1987)

The reasons for which Machiavelli draws the attention on the importance of personal qualities of the leader revolve around the realities that defined the historical background he lived in. As part of the Chancellery of Florence, he felt helpless in developing a proper political system that would be able to stand the pressures of the rival Italian kingdoms: Naples, Rome, Venice, and Milan. Thus, his attempt to instill a certain political determination in the rulers of the Kingdom in order to gain supremacy materialized in the set of principles described in the Prince. Today's political scene is also dominated by this tendency, as more and more countries try to revitalize the idea of national identity in order to face up to the atomization of the global world. Thus, Iran for instance, through its leader, tries to renew the Islamic movement, as part of the "clash" with the Western world that was predicted by numerous scholars. (Huntington, / / /)

Mahatma Gandhi is an example of leadership that combined both the percepts of the Machiavellian thoughts, in a reinterpreted version, and added the personal qualities that made him a historical figure.

According to his sayings, the qualities of a civil resister are the "truth, purity, self-control, firmness, fearlessness, humility, unity, peace, and renunciation." (Chew, 1995) This enumeration comes to show the combined attitude between a peaceful leader, that was Gandhi, and the Prince advocated by Machiavelli, always prepared for war. Thus, while Gandhi decided to react to the continuous British rule through the "salt laws" on March 12, 1930, the leader in Machiavelli's concept would have had to adopt a violent attitude and rebel against the oppressive forces.

On the other hand, firmness in decisions and in attitude is a common element for both Gandhi and the leader advocated by Machiavelli. The Italian strategist promoted firmness as a means of attaining respect and reputation. This in turn is important because it plays an essential role in trying to impose one's will and decision. He concludes that a leader "without his reputation he cannot keep an army united or disposed to any duty." (Machiavelli, 91) the example of Scipio, whose excessive kindness led to his army rebellions against him are presented as negative outcomes. In Gandhi's case, his own personal example, along with the firmness of his action created him a reputation and respect among the people around him who decided to follow his lead. Thus, his actions that defied the salt laws engaged hundreds of thousands of people, which marked the beginning of the peaceful defiance of the British occupation. Moreover, the fact that despite his arrest, Gandhi did not go back on his beliefs inspired the rest not to give up. The situation resulted in the advance of the independence talks with the British.

In addition to all, Mahatma Gandhi was a symbol of self-control and abstention. His numerous fasting periods represented both a proof of the ability to control its urges and a means for showing opposition towards the colonial rule of the English. (Manaa, 2007) Indeed, it was the proof of a great leader, similar to what Machiavelli advocated as representing an essential quality of a prince. He considered that, aside from the fact that the prince must be totally focused on war, no matter the time of peace or conflict, he must also refrain himself from being attracted by worldly belongings because, he though, these would distract his attention from the essential duty of the prince. This belief came in response to the realities of the time that saw corruption and lust for riches as the main interests in the political life. Both Gandhi and Machiavelli saw self restrain as an important quality, even though the reasons deferred.

In today's political life, there is more and more evidence of the applicability of the concepts advocated by Machiavelli centuries ago. The constant use of the notion Machiavellian is relevant in this sense. It comes to define the belief that the final outcome is the most important one in the overall process of history. In the end, according to Richelieu, who was inspired by the ideas of the Italian politician, history would eventually judge a leader not for the means he used, but for the aims, he had set beforehand. (Kissinger, 1995) the so-called raison d'etat governed international relations for centuries after the Westphalia Peace in 1648 and was the practical result of the notions presented by Machiavelli.