Yesterday when we were asked to think about whether we generally agreed with Machiavelli's points or not I found it very difficult to pick a side as he has points I agree and disagree with.
I agree with Machiavelli that a leader needs the favor of the people. It's the whole concept of consent of the governed that the United States was founded on. If the people are unhappy, there's a higher risk of a coup or being voted out of office in the next election. It's also just harder to govern when the people aren't happy as there will likely be more protests and bad reactions to various policies.
On the other hand, a lot of Machiavelli's point are simply not relevant anymore. We live in a world that has outgrown monarchies, with only seven absolute monarchies in existence. This means that a lot of Machiavelli's points about hereditary states and how princes come to power don't really matter anymore. There are a few instances in which some of his points about coming to power may apply to current dictators, like Nicolás Maduro, but for the most part they are old-fashioned. Additionally, leaders don't really conquer territories anymore as most of the world is already spoken for, so Machiavelli's points concerning newly conquered territories and how to actually conquer a territory aren't relevant.
Machiavelli does make a few points that can be looked at from both points of view. He claims that it is important for a leader to not be too generous so that they don't exhaust their resources. While I agree with not exhausting a country's resources, I think that it's still important for a leader to provide certain public services, such as trash collection and infrastructure. It's a balancing act of providing these services while not going into too much debt. Machiavelli also says that as a leader, it's important to be feared and loved, but if one triumphs over the other, it's better to be feared than loved. Being feared definitely has its perks, such as other countries being less likely to take advantage of you, but with being loved comes respect from one's citizens, playing into the importance of a leader having the favor of the people.
Machiavelli makes many different claims concerning how to be a good leader and I think it's up to each individual to decide which points are most relevant to each situation.
I agree with your conclusion Kiran. I think the founding principles of The Prince are based on adjusting to the circumstances. In current times we shouldn't throw out the whole book, but gleam what is relevant to today's circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI also like your point on being generous. I honestly hadn't applied it to internal generosity. I only thought about it between countries. Thinking about it internally, however, can create an argument on modern day topics of socialism and state-run programs.
Can The Prince be looked at as a living document? You say that with times changing, views on the book are different. If so, what did the book mean when Machiavelli was alive? I just commented on another post that was a lot like this one. I find it interesting that you both believe that the context of the book is changing with time. In 100 years are people going to read it differently?
ReplyDelete