Leadership in Plato and Machiavelli: A Philosophical Contrast

Introduction: Defining the Ideal Leader

The qualities of an ideal leader are not as clear as we might immediately assume. If it really were easy to determine the characteristics of the ideal leader, there probably would not be so many books published each year on the subject. Understanding the best qualities of a leader — and what makes them so — is not a simple 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 an individual in a leadership role by these factors will influence the degree to which that individual is capable of living up to the idealized version of leadership we lay out for him or her.

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 reveals the extreme variation that can emerge when we attempt to characterize the ideal leader.

Plato's Philosopher-King and the Role of Virtue

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 ideal, including the nature of its leadership structure. For Plato, the role of his republic's leaders was to reduce civil strife 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, the role of the leader in society is to equitably create a better and more harmonious condition for all citizens.

The path to this style of leadership, however, is more complex than simply expecting individuals to act virtuously by nature. Plato recognized that few individuals are ever truly wise or prudent enough to lead. He suggested that these skills be cultivated in those few individuals who 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 a business, or a university, or a local organization — 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 reason, Plato suggested that the entire educational structure of society be designed to gradually identify those individuals unable to meet the high requirements of leadership roles. Only those with the ability to develop Plato's kind of practical wisdom could advance to become the philosopher-kings who would rule through impartial intellect and fair concern for the good of society.

Education, Corruption, and the Limits of Power

Plato even suggested that severe restrictions be placed on the scope of 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 corrupt leaders, turning them from benevolent rulers 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 it be turned against society's interests. This vision of governance — rooted in virtue, wisdom, and structural safeguards — stands as one of the most ambitious frameworks for political leadership in the history of political philosophy.

Conclusion: Two Models, One Contradiction

The differences between Plato's and Machiavelli's models of leadership are striking and significant. The former argues in favor of individual virtue as the guiding principle of the ethical leader who places the needs of followers ahead of his own. The latter flatly argues that such an approach misconstrues the very nature of leadership and its uses in society; one must instead maximize his or her own power at all times in order to enhance the odds that the leader's specific goals will be achieved.

This schism between two of the greatest philosophers in the history of the West highlights our own contradictory feelings about leadership: at once we want effective leaders who will produce results — like Machiavelli's prince — but who are nonetheless revered paragons of virtue, like Plato's philosopher-king. The tension between these two ideals remains as unresolved today as it was in the ancient and Renaissance worlds in which these thinkers wrote.

Works Cited

Kemerling, Garth. "Machiavelli: Principality and Republic." Philosophy Pages. 27 Oct. 2001. 17 Nov. 2007.

Korab-Karpowicz, W.J. "Plato's Political Philosophy." The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Bilkent University. 2006. 17 Nov. 2007. http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/platopol.htm.