The Lord Of The Flies: Machiavellian Leadership

For centuries, humans have tried to identify the personality traits that should belong to a successful leader. When Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince in 1532, he addressed this issue. William Golding did the same in Lord of the Flies by illustrating Jack and Ralph’s grapple for power over the boys on the island. Jack’s generally violent and cruel disposition, as well as his lack of concern for the other boys and the island itself, makes it seem strange when he becomes chief. However, in Lord of the Flies, Machiavellian teachings can be used to explain Jack’s personality and rise to leadership on the island, as well as his creation of a totalitarian government.

There are three main characters in Lord of the Flies that have the potential

to be Machiavellian: Ralph, Roger and Jack. However, only one of them is truly Machiavellian. This can be proven with a test by Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis that was based off of text from The Prince. After the test was completed for every major character in Lord of the Flies, Jack was identified as the epitome of Machiavellian. This sentiment is echoed throughout the book, as it is not difficult to see the extent of his cunning, resilience, and willingness to do anything in order to become and remain chief. As Olukayode Oyenuga, a member of the Department of Philosophy at Olabisi Onabanjo University stated, “When the pursuit of power came to the fore, Jack became ruthless. Through his ruthlessness, certain key figures in the novel were eliminated,” (Oyenuga 81). This ruthless aspect of Jack’s personality is exactly what allowed him to dethrone Ralph.
Much of Lord of the Flies is a fight for power. Jack, who, because of his personality, inadvertently follows Machiavelli’s teachings, ends up being the leader of the boys. Machiavelli stated that, “When the entire safety of our country is at stake, no consideration of what is just or unjust, merciful or cruel, praiseworthy or shameful, must intervene” (Machiavelli 41). This only means that, when it is necessary, a leader may take actions that are typically regarded as immoral in order to maintain power and control over a country or state. This same sentiment is echoed by Richard Christie, a social psychologist, who claims that a Machiavellian personality is typically seen as, “someone who views and manipulates others for his own purposes” (Christie 1). It becomes very easy to see Jack’s Machiavellian-ness early on in the book. Not only is it easy for him to persuade the boys to follow him, but he also is very eager to kill Ralph in order to remove his only competition for the role of chief, despite the fact that killing other humans is generally regarded as bad practice. Jack’s willingness to do anything that allows him to become the leader is seen throughout the book, and is one of the traits that allowed him to reach that goal.
Ralph consistently tries to gain the people’s favor instead of their respect.

Jack, on the other hand, is purely trying to achieve success. That is, he spends all his time on the island trying to gain control of the group in order to be able to do what he wants. Jack is also very willing to use fear to get these things, while Ralph is trying to keep everything peaceable and friendly, which eventually makes him lose control of the boys entirely. This follows one of Machiavelli’s teachings, which states that if a leader must choose between being feared or loved, they should be feared. However, Jack does not only use fear of himself to gain control, but fear of outside forces, as

well.
Jack is able to achieve leadership, but not without help. The beast is a huge factor in Jack’s aggrandizement. First, when the “littluns” begin to talk about the beast, instead of dismissing their concerns, he makes them worse. Although at first Jack does not believe in the beast, he later tells them, “‘If there’s a beast we’ll hunt it down! We’ll close in and beat and beat and beat--!’” (Golding 79). Instead of completely shutting down the children’s fears he strengthens them, and makes them think that the beast is something that they need to get rid of. Machiavelli has an opinion related to this: “A capable and courageous [leader] will always overcome these difficulties, now, by holding out hopes to his subjects that the evil will not be of long continuance,” which is exactly what Jack does (Machiavelli 28). He strengthens his position as a protector by telling them that whether there is a beast or not, he can -- and will-- be the one to kill it. Not only that, but around this same time, Piggy is already very afraid of Jack because of his way of being. As the end of the book comes closer, all the boys become more afraid of Jack than any other outside force.
Roger also plays a huge role in keeping Jack’s position as the chief strong. Although Jack makes the boys feel safe from the beast, Roger makes the boys fearful of abandoning him for other reasons. Roger, sadist that he is, is happy to torture, beat, and kill in order to keep the children in line. Because of this, the boys will not even consider leaving the tribe. This can be seen when Ralph speaks to Samneric after Jack’s tribe takes them away. Primarily, they tell him that they had no choice but to join the tribe, and later Sam admits, “You don’t know Roger. He’s a terror” (Golding 171). They even inform him of Roger’s plans in a very simple way, “[he] sharpened a stick at both ends” (Golding 171). Admittedly, without context that line seems entirely unimportant. What they are trying to tell Ralph, though, is that Roger is not only planning to kill him, but to cut his head off and put it on a pike as an offering to the beast. To top it all off, Roger also kills Piggy in cold-blood. These components come together to create a situation in which the fear of what may happen if the boys attempt to rise against Jack is stronger than any moral issues they may have with what he is doing as chief.
Jack’s refusal to follow the rules that Ralph sets is one of the many actions he takes that causes a stir among the boys. Although at first glance it seems like he simply does not wish to abide by Ralph’s rules (which may very well be all it is), Jack’s unwillingness to adhere to the regulations set out for him could also be explained by text found in The Prince. Machiavelli maintains that it is better to break promises if keeping them would be against one’s interest, which is exactly what Jack is doing when he infringes upon Ralph’s laws (Oyenuga 82). Jack’s refusal to follow leads to Ralph having a difficult time as leader. His disregard of the rules creates an example for the younger boys, and makes it seem less impossible to go against the only leader they have known on the island.
From the beginning of the novel, what Jack wants to do is hunt.

This is first seen when he misses his chance to kill a piglet, and then vows to spill blood the next time he comes across one. His thirst for blood becomes an obsession with the hunt, which leads to his tribe being based around hunting and the rituals involved with it. His “hunters” evolve into his army, and later are the driving force in the eradication of any competition for chief. This aligns with Machiavelli as well, who claims that a prince must keep a close eye on military affairs if wants to maintain his power. Jack seems to agree with this sentiment, and actually focuses almost all of his energy on his “military”. Their tribe, however, is basically only that: an army being lead by one leader, who is directing all of the army’s energy to removing the only enemy

present.
In Lord of the Flies, an army with little to no training is focused on a singular enemy. When that enemy is present, the army is strong, united, and a force to be reckoned with. Without a place of focus, however, what would happen? If the naval officer had never appeared and Ralph had been killed, the boys would have lost their one true enemy. This would lead to one of three events: they would either turn against each other, go after the beast, or obsessively kill pigs. All three of these actions are taken by the boys within the novel and lead to an extreme devolution in their makeshift civilization that can be found on the island. However, during the book this shift is a sort of side effect of a transfer of power, and is the result of one clear goal being accomplished. It is safe to say that without a goal or enemy to shoot for, Jack’s totalitarian government would have crumbled into a free for all.
In conclusion, Jack’s personality and innate ability to manipulate is what allows him to gain control over the boys, and maintain it. Additionally, his following of Machiavelli’s teachings, however accidental, gives him the foundation to become a chief. Jack’s use of fear creates a situation in which the boys had no choice but to follow him. Plus, Roger, as an extension of Jack, strengthens the sense of danger that comes with deserting the tribe. This, alongside Jack’s willingness to do anything to be the leader and his consistent weakening of Ralph’s image as a leader gives him the perfect chance to seize the role of chief. All of the tactics Jack uses adhere themselves to Machiavelli’s writings. However, despite the fact that Jack is able to achieve complete leadership over the boys on the island, it is unlikely that the society he creates would remain even remotely successful without a tangible enemy on which they could focus.

Works Cited
Golding, William. Lord of the Flies. Penguin Books, 1999.
Machiavelli, Niccolo, and Peter Bondanella. The Prince. Oxford University Press, 2005.
Oyenuga, Olukayode. Elements of Machiavellianism and Situationism in William Golding's Lord of the Flies. Olabisi Onabanjo University.
Wilson, Eric. “Warring Sovereigns and Mimetic Rivals: On Scapegoats and Political Crisis in William Golding's Lord of the Flies.” Law and Humanities, vol. 8, no. 2, doi:10.5235/17521483.8.2.147.