In Machiavelli’s “The Qualities of the Prince,” many interesting issues are presented—issues that could take pages and pages to thoroughly discuss. In short, Machiavelli puts forth a practical guide for princes on how to maintain power. Some of the over-arching ideas Machiavelli presents in his piece are that one, a prince should know how to wage war and succeed at it, know how to deceive and manipulate his subjects, and know how to be feared but not hated. Some argue that this piece is pessimistic while others argue that it is realistic. Either way, different leaders throughout the world and time have studied Machiavelli. In the very least, “The Qualities of the Prince” provokes thought.
Our discussion in class brought up some very interesting comments and ideas, but one that was not brought up that I have been thinking about is whether or not Machiavelli himself would make a good prince. The way in which he writes makes it sound as though Machiavelli really could pull off a role as a prince, but is being a prince really as simple as following an instruction manual? Machiavelli says that a good prince needs to be adept in war, yet what about peace negotiations or compromises? Machiavelli implies that a good prince must be tough, must be feared. But where do compassion and admiration come into play? And how much is experience worth? Or being able to read people, to communicate, to get people to want to follow you—not out of fear, but out of respect and veneration.
Personally I think that Machiavelli would not be able to pull off being a good prince. There is so much more to it than following instructions. Don’t get me wrong—there are some very relevant points that are brought up, and I think that everything in this piece should be taken into consideration. But should it be followed? Good leaders and princes have a passion to change what’s under their control for the better. They learn from experience and from mistakes, and even if they manipulate and deceive for the greater good, this is not their ultimate goal. Instead of acting as prince, I believe that Machiavelli would serve better as a prince’s advisor. He has some very good ideas, but I feel that his approach to such an important job is too pessimistic and mechanical to really be effective (at least in a positive way).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
As a "practical guide", "The Prince" sets up a number of premises but the main claim is that this practical advice versus ideological. While compassion and admiration may be "nice" they are not needed to be an "effective" leader.
He discusses communication, but may be in a dfferent way than how you are looking at it. Presenting yourself in a way, even if untrue, is ocmmunicating. Lying to people is communicating. Manipulating is communicating, but you seem to want to explore this idea of "compromise" which Machiavelli may say is weakness and not a good characteristic of a leader.
He also says it's nice to be loved, but it's more important to be feared; fear will be more important in successfully running your state.
Post a Comment