More handpicked essays just for you.
Compare and contrast leaders and followership
The leadership of Nicholo Machiavelle
Leadership qualities identified by Machiavelli in the Prince and Discourses
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Compare and contrast leaders and followership
In virtually every Western nation, people elect other people to play crucial roles for our countries. These crucial roles can include creating new laws and even starting a war with another country if it was necessary. In the past, though, leaders such as, Niccolo Machiavelli ran many areas. In “The Qualities of the Prince,” Machiavelli defines and defends those qualities, chief among them an awareness of the state he rules and the potential enemies that surround him. When ruling, Machiavelli warns his Prince not to misuse his power, and to have high confidence in himself. While Machiavelli’s sixteenth-century Italian Prince might have profited from such qualities, would they help a modern day politician win a presidential election in the U.S.? According to Machiavelli, a good leader “must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war, its institutions, and its discipline” (221). Wars can harm the country if you are not prepared for the worst or if you are unaware of others plans around you. Such can be seen in the United States, because the president is the Commander and Chief of the armed forces. For example, the President of the United States is the one that says yes or no to the start of a war. When someone is the leader or the one in …show more content…
If a prince wants to maintain a good reputation Machiavelli states that, “he must not neglect any means of lavish display,” and this excess will “begin to make him hateful to his subjects” (225). With the way social media spreads gossip around today, presidential candidates have to be careful with the things they say and do. Machiavelli is stating that the act of being too generous towards others can affect the way others view you. This can then affect the results of a presidential election between leaders. Having a good reputation can show the voters of the election who would be a good
In the many sections Niccolo Machiavelli writes he constantly compares to extreme qualities, one of which is ideal, the other real. These extremes include love(ideal) vs fear, clemency(ideal) vs cruelty, generous(ideal) vs stingy, and integrity(ideal) vs lying. In comparing these different traits Machiavelli highlights the merits of opposing characteristics and (specifically)when it is effective to act in certain ways. He argues that a balance of both are vital as to prevent a prince from dipping too far into a pool of inescapable extremism. The following excerpts display the author’s contrast-centered style: “ Thus, it's much wiser to put up with the reputation of being a miser, which brings you shame without hate, than to be forced—just
Machiavelli believes that a government should be very structured, controlled, and powerful. He makes it known that the only priorities of a prince are war, the institutions, and discipline. His writings describes how it is more important for a prince to be practical than moral. This is shown where he writes, "in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion" (47). In addition, Machiavelli argues that a prince may have to be cunning and deceitful in order to maintain political power. He takes the stance that it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. His view of how a government should run and his unethical conduct are both early signs of dictatorship.
The Anglo-Saxon standards of a good leader can be further seen in the modern American political process. The quotation referring to the good prince who "by giving splendid gifts while still in his father's house makes sure that later in life beloved companions will stand by him, that the people will serve him when war comes" ( Norton p.27 ) provides a formula for political success. People tend to favor and vote for candidates who seem to offer the greatest rewards, such as tax cuts or needed legislation. Furthermore, those who support a candidate expect favors in return if that candidate is elected, just as gifts and bribes have become a way of retaining loyalty and trust. Even the idea of a smear campaign existed in Anglo-Saxon culture and can be seen when Unferth twists the truth about Beowulf's competition with Breca: "for he would not allow that any other man of middle-earth should ever achieve more glory under the heavens than himself." ( Norton p.33 )
Machiavelli's realization of the penultimate import of the people is probably most significant reason his book holds so much influence on realpolitik. He writes, "it is essential for a prince to possess the good will and affections his people, otherwise he will be utterly without support in time of adversity." (Chapter 9). Clearly, Machiavelli understands the source of power within a princely republic lay with the people, whom the prince must constantly court. No other political philosopher before him had ever given much significance to those being governed. The reason that Machiavelli felt that the subjects were vital to the prince maintaining his rule was because the implications of earning the hatred and ill will of the people are dire for the political future of both the state and the prince. Of the two sources of attack the prince must fear, one is a conspiracy from within inspired by the hatred of the people (Chapter 19). Additionally, the prince must be aware that actions of his intermediaries can reflect upon himself. That is, if his army is cruel and brutish towards the people, the people will turn their hatred upon the prince, who is seen to tacitly condone the actions of the army. ...
After five hundred years, Niccolo Machiavelli the man has ceased to exist. In his place is merely an entity, one that is human, but also something that is far above one. The debate over his political ideologies and theories has elevated him to a mythical status summed up in one word: Machiavelli. His family name has evolved into an adjective in the English language in its various forms. Writers and pundit’s bandy about this new adjective in such ways as, “He is a Machiavelli,” “They are Machiavelli’s,” “This is suitable for a Machiavelli.” These phrases are almost always the words of a person that understands more about Niccolo’s reputation than the man himself. Forgotten is that Machiavelli is not an adequate example of the ruler he is credited with describing; a more accurate statement would be to call someone a “Borgia” or a “Valentino.” Most of the time they are grossly mistaken in their references. All these words accomplish is to add to the legend, and the misinterpretation, of the true nature of Niccolo Machiavelli.
Although Machiavelli gives numerous points on what it takes to excel as a prince, he also shows some raw examples of how he feels a prince should act in order to achieve maximum supremacy. First, when he says, "ought to hold of little account a reputation for being mean, for it is one of those vices which will enable him to govern" proves Machiavelli feels mighty adamant about his view that being mean will help a prince achieve success (332). It is absurd to imagine the meanest prince as the most successful. Also, when Machiavelli states, "our experience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft" revealing his attitude to manipulate people into fearing and respecting the prince (335). Also, Machiavelli shows that for a prince to be successful, he must not think about good faith.
Niccolo Machiavelli lived in Florence, Italy in the 1400’s. The country of Italy was divided into city-states that had their own leaders, but all pledged alliance to their king. In time in which great leaders were needed in order to help the development of a city-state and country, Machiavelli had a theory that man needed a leader to control them. In his book The Prince, he speaks of the perfect leader.
George Bush and Niccolo Machiavelli are two very influential political figures that share some similar ideals. Machiavelli's work was never intended to be applied to republics, or a democratic government. The advice written in The Prince would have likely been applied in the time of absolute government, when countries were ruled by one leader. It is a work which, as Machiavelli himself says that his philosophy is only applied to principalities, or what we call dictatorships in modern times.
“The Prince”, by Niccolo Machiavelli, is a series of letters written to the current ruler of Italy, Lorenzo de’ Medici. These letters are a “how-to” guide on what to do and what not to do. He uses examples to further express his views on the subject. The main purpose was to inform the reader how to effectively rule and be an acceptable Prince. Any ruler who wishes to keep absolute control of his principality must use not only wisdom and skill, but cunning and cruelness through fear rather than love. Machiavelli writes this book as his summary of all the deeds of great men.
Machiavelli had advised the prince not to trust anyone, but his own ability; More on the other hand believed fully in equality among the people. When governing a state, Machiavelli advised the prince he can rule directly or through magistrates. However, the prince is more vulnerable if he chose the latter because he is dependent on the magistrates. Machiavelli thus further explained in Chapter IX that when there are times of trouble, the magistrates may dispose him through actions against him or by disobeying him. If the magistrates do revolt, the prince will be unable to assume absolute power, because the people are used to obeying the magistrates’ orders rather than the prince’s orders. Machiavelli also argued that people will always try to advise the people for their own interests only, such as the magistrates; this is why the prince should only trust in his own ability. Machiavelli did stated that the prince has the choice to take advices from wise magistrates and listen to their opinions, however, they must do that on his own terms in which the prince must constantly questioned them and also form his own conclusions. The prince should also be cautious of flatterers because they may be a danger to him since “He [the prince], who does otherwise is either overthrown by flatterers, or is so often changed by varying opinions that he falls into contempt” ( The Prince, Chapter XXIII, pp. 1). This
For all of Machiavelli’s ruthlessness and espousal of deceit, he knew the value of authenticity and relying on his administration. A true leader cannot achieve greatness alone. Machiavelli says that the prince is the state, and the state is the prince. This means that whatever vision and principles the leader holds in the highest regard, they must be known to the state so that they can be realized. He believed that no matter how a prince was elected, his success would depend largely on his ministers. Collaboration between a prince and ministers would create an atmosphere of harmony and camaraderie, highly reducing the chances of rebellion. Without the support and cooperation of the people, military action is not possible, expansion is not possible and most importantly, governance is not possible. If a leader does not satisfy the needs of the people, they have the power to overthrow him through strength in numbers. Thus, a leader depends just as much on the people as they do on him. A leader must be able to convince the people to buy into his visio...
Both Niccolò Machiavelli and Plato, in their works The Prince and The Republic (respectively), address the concepts of seeming and being in relation to political power and leadership, however they do so in two distinct manners. In the Republic, Socrates insists that seeming is bad, and being is good. Using a parable of people in a cave, he states that the only way to know the difference between what seems and what actually is reality is to experience it in its purest form, instead of through images. Machiavelli, on the other hand outlines the different ways that a prince could rise to power, and justifies any and all means that a prince could take. He states that a prince only has to seem good when it fits his purposes, not actually be good. He encourages an aspiring prince to be deceitful and conniving in order to gain and maintain power. Before concluding which political theorist is correct, it is interesting to examine whether it would be better to remain in the cave with Machiavelli or see the light with Socrates.
However, the prince cannot possess all of the characteristics that can be praised by others. Some of the characteristics that do not earn praise are necessary in order to maintain a peaceful nation and ruling power for the prince. In regards to politics, Machiavelli states that a prince must act accordingly to gain the most practical benefit for his region, and cannot be influenced by the negative opinions of
Being a successful leader also means being able to anticipate trouble even when everything seems fine, and this forethought is what so many fail to consider. Using Italian rulers as an example of why Italian princes have lost their estates, Machiavelli writes, “ Their own indolence was to blame because having never imagined when times were quiet they they could change (and this is a common failing of mankind, never to anticipate a storm when the sea is calm), when adversity came their first thoughts were of flight and not of resistance. (page 78). A successful prince needs to be skilled in the art of war, but Machiavelli would agree that this skill is very useful for affairs aside international ones, such as domestic affairs. At one point or another a leader is faced with an arduous decision that involves hurting a part of the population. Machiavelli realizes that there is no realistic way of governing a group of people and keeping them all content at the same time, therefore a prince must systematically make tough decisions, keeping the majority content as the minority can not overthrow once you've taken everything they have. It may seem immoral to hurt the minority simply because they can not rebel, however, it makes far much more sense than causing hurt upon the majority, as that would make a prince contemptible, therefore staggering his political
... to the times of kings and princess, however it must be noted that the underlying human emotions and their motivations can only be dealt with decisiveness and deep plotting. The concepts discussed are applicable to all leaders and politicians holding offices. Bottom line is, some things never changes. Even though a lot has changed, principles of Machiavelli’s Prince are adapted and used widely yet secretly in a complex world of growth and prosperity with a greater demography and geography.