Analysis of The Nature of Power in The Prince

Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince explores the nature of power and his views of power which are still somewhat in existence today. This essay will discuss and examine the principals of Machiavelli's theory. Machiavelli emphasis power over the people and dictatorial power, and power with people. It is possible to use power to attain greater acceptance in society, as there will always be people who have power over them.

In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses, on how to obtain power and keep it this has been said to be seen as the creation of tyranny as Machiavelli is not obliterating the difference between tyranny and principality. As the common meaning for tyranny is a cruel, oppressive government or rule (Collinsdictionary.com, 2019). Yet it can be said he is aiming to permanently educate the statesman on how he can furnish a vision in the correct aim to pursue his/her idea, at the same time enable him to master the quality of the times (Giorgini, 2008). Which can be seen as compatible, with his idea in the Discourse on Livy. Machiavelli is stressing the idea that society should be run as a republic, and with that, he states power should only rest in the hands of one person. Demonstrating, Machiavelli notion of tyranny is ambiguous as it is not based on moral or legal consideration, which modern day tyranny is known for. Before beginning the analysis on whether Machiavelli’s ideas in The Prince often described as a handbook for tyrants and whether it is compatible with his republican views in the Discourses on Livy this essay will highlight the significant ideas presented in the Prince.

In the Prince, Machiavelli explores the different ways that people acquire and maintain power. as the intent of the book is to give advice to prince Medici, the king of Florence for the unification of Italy as his method is up to political reality. With that Machiavelli commences the book by categorizing the different kind states: republics, hereditary princedoms, brand-new princedoms, and mixed principalities. As his prime focus was new states as those states are the hardest to deal with. He goes on to add, a conquered state whose original sole ruler is a monarchy is difficult to conquer, yet it is easy to maintain. However, a conquered state in which the prince shared power with the nobles easy to conquer, but difficult to maintain. Throughout the book, Machiavelli, states a prince aspire to rise to power on his merits and uses the example Cesare Borgia who rose to power through the connections of his father but also used his own niche, however, his reign fell short which lead to Machiavelli explaining that princes who rise to the power through crime are another matter altogether.

Machiavelli denounces people who gain power through this way as wicked but yet he contradicts himself as he states cruelty well used can be justified due to his appreciation for cleverness. Furthermore, Machiavelli goes on to add that the prince should not rely on advice. As they are likely to be disloyal as they are easy to divide and obey someone else which makes them dangerous to have around a prince. Which leads to Machiavelli idea on reputation and how it is an important element. As prince’s need to put on façade when dealing with the public, as Machiavelli notes; the better the liar, the better the prince. Machiavelli ends The Prince making the reader ponder the power of luck and the effect it has on human affairs. The prince gives an insight of power and politics as the book provides the reader/leader with a compass of moral judgment. However, it is debated on whether Machiavelli has a good moral compass.

Machiavelli is famous for the idea that it may be a necessity for a leader to do immoral things to maintain order in society as ethics need to become comprised. Which why Machiavelli takes up the question “is better to be loved or feared” (Machiavelli, Ricci and R. P. Vincent, 1935) even though having both is desirable he goes on add if prince has to choose between one “it is much safer to be feared” (Machiavelli, Ricci and R. P. Vincent, 1935). this due to Machiavelli having a very cynical viewpoint on human nature as humans will always be deceptive and seek to harm others. By placing priority on fear rather than love it is a way of the prince maintaining their power. Machiavelli uses Annibale Bentivoglio as an example of what happens when a bit of fear is not installed in the populous as it can lead to your life ending/career. However, he does stress there needs to be a balance of love and fear. As he advises that leaders should “ read the signals and adapt their styles accordingly” (A. Snook, 2008) to respond to threats they may come across. As Machiavelli states in the prince “Therefore, it is necessary for a cautious man to act expeditiously, he does not know how to do it; this leads to his failure. But if it were possible to change one’s character to suit the times and circumstances, one would always be successful” (Fiedler, 1958). This form of adapting to meet specific demands to the situation is seen as the most effective form for leadership (Fiedler, 1958).

As Machiavelli is not Is articulating that a leader be tyrannical or oppressive, Machiavelli argues that the most effective leader shows leadership based on an analysis of the needs of the situation yet it is easy to understand why others may interpret it as tyrannical as 20th and 21st century this is seen as ethically appalling which is why the prince can be seen as tyrants handbook. From face value, the prince looks like a book promoting totalitarianism yet it has been debated by scholars that the prince was a book written to denounce the Catholic church. As Machiavelli found the relationship between the church and the state problematic and opposed it. As he believed they were an annoyance to the state. however, morality and religion are heavily mentioned in the prince, as religion played a significant role in government during Machiavelli time which can be seen even today with laws that have been put in place. As religion can shape laws, meaning it can determine justice for this reason laws do not only attend to issues of morality but also address “political goals that were religious in nature” (Klosko 2014). Due to this Machiavelli advocate for the separation of the church and the state, as this stops the government from perusing religious agenda. Keeping the state and government separate will allow the leader to focus on what is important which is to maintain the safety of the state and its continuity. However, Machiavelli does state the princes should have “embodiment of mercy, goodness, faith, integrity, and religion.

And there is no virtue which it is more necessary for him to seem to possess than the last” (Machiavelli, Ricci and R. P. Vincent, 1935). Machiavelli places emphasis on only seeming religious. “Within a nation, we were told, conventional morality should be upheld” (Hulliung 2014) As the reason is that people look for commonality when identifying with other people and religion is a widespread system. Hence why it is important to have an open proclamation to religion as a ruler to retain populace support. Religious organizations must be used to keep the populous pious in order to instil the fear of God rather than a fear of the state for the leader to avoid being hated, in turn allowing a prince to be both feared and loved. This also stops the religious organisation from being too powerful and become corrupt. So, it is understandable why people will interpret this opinion as advice for dictators however, it does demonstrate that this is not the aim of the book but to show the people the control religion has over the government and the people. Furthermore, it can be said on the intentions of Machiavelli ’s the prince book besides appearing to be a book for tyrants. However, it has been debated it is a book for him to further advocate his preference for republic state. “The lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place Order

One must, therefore, be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves” (Machiavelli, Ricci and R. P. Vincent, 1935). Machiavelli is promoting civil liberties for its citizen, as it the duty of the government to protect and serve its citizen. While also advocating citizens to work together with the government to maintain cohesion within the state as this creates a united front. However, Machiavelli does advocate for a “republican government and the free and civil way of life it facilitates” having said that there is “difficulty and emphasized the necessity of keeping prominent citizens from overstepping their bounds” (McCormick, 2007). He adds leaders need to have a check and balance between their citizens and that no-one is above law no matter their title in society to maintain a healthy government. If the populous and other citizens of states have access government rule it can make it complex. As the main goal for everyone is that the government is just for all and provides protection. The government needs to have a check and balance and protect the establishment. As “Machiavelli’s republic is a classical mixed republic. It is not a democracy… but is characterized by social equality, popular liberty, and political participation” (Doyle,1986). For Machiavelli for society to be longstanding and free, it needs to be a republican government. This requires the government not to be undivided and meet the needs of the people.

A republican government must represent the will of the people. It is the job of the leader to find an understanding between the government the people. Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy main focal point is on republican government as he focuses on the structure and development of them. It also contains the theorist’s analysis of the famous Roman historian Livy’s history of the Roman Republic. However, it can also be said that it is a hybrid of Machiavelli’s The Prince and the contemporary ideas of good and virtuous government. The discourse is divided into three volumes. With the first book, Machiavelli, discusses the why different political societies can deteriorate, agreeing with Aristotle who argued that the problem could be counteracted by mixing the different forms of government. Machiavelli argued for republics, as he stated that republics preserve liberty and promote the general welfare. The second book examines the growth of the Roman Empire, which Machiavelli believes was essential for the growth of Roman political order. As Machiavelli believes that conquest and government are required by many social circumstances to protect a republic's integrity. Book three draws eternal truths from the example of the great men of the Roman Empire.

Righteous leaders have a crucial function in maintaining a flourishing society. Both forms of virtue are necessary to prevent republics from being destroyed from without and decaying from within. Machiavelli indicates his lack of trust in the people, often stating that the people are wiser than princes, though leadership is required in cases of danger. When looking at the parallels between the discourse and the prince, at the beginning of the discourse Machiavelli discusses the birth of Rome as he is trying to demonstrate the importance of a good foundation is to a state. As he states that “early institutions, even if defective, did not, none the less, deviate from the straight path which could lead them to perfection” (Machiavelli and Bondanella, 2008). As these laws set the foundations for changes “combined kingly and republican aspects…thus creating almost a system of checks and balances between the Senate and the people” (McAleer, 2016). Which is similar to the prince who discuss the beginning of the state as well. “The actions of a new prince attract much more attention than those of a hereditary ruler… Thus the new prince will have a twofold glory, in having founded a new state and in having adorned and strengthened it with good laws” (Machiavelli, Ricci and R. P. Vincent, 1935). This quote has a similar notion to the Discourses, for in it Machiavelli advising that the foundation of a state is essential for its success later on.

Machiavelli also dismisses the idea of hereditary rulers necessarily being better, stating that a new prince can establish a stronger state if he uses the right laws at the beginning. As this is in reference to his admiration for the founding of Rome. As the goal of both The Prince and Discourses is to serve as a framework of how to best run a state, and while of course meant for already established rulers. As both books, Machiavelli shows Machiavelli’s preference of starting a state as a new republic or new prince as a way of establishing good laws for the future. When comparing, whether Machiavelli ideas in the prince are compatible with his republican views in the Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli in the prince never used the word tyrant in the prince even though he illustrates many with tyrannical behaviour and calls their deeds tyrannical in the discourse and in his other works. As the prince was written in a traditional style of specula principis as it was dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici as it is written to suit Lorenzo as it is addressed to him. Why some scholars believe the “tyranny” should not be used as it is too “harsh” to describe this piece of work as its dedicated to a prince (Strauss, 1958). As Machiavelli in the discourse and the prince highlights he agrees with classical idea tyranny as long as it differs from despotism.

This form of government is distinguished by the prince keeping all his subjects equal in the condition of servitude (Machiavelli, Ricci and R. P. Vincent, 1935). In the Discourse Machiavelli distinguished tyranny and despotism by giving the example of oriental princes by calling them “barbarians” (Machiavelli and Bondanella, 2008) and the “destroyers of countries” (Machiavelli and Bondanella, 2008). As Aristotle believed that eastern Asians servility when it comes despotism is what prevents them in excelling in virtu and doing any good. Due to this their form of the governess is lacking moralistic judgement which is why Machiavelli is not interested in a despotic form of government. Virtu and Fortuna are constantly mentioned in the prince as something every prince needs to keep their power.

As virtu in the prince is described as the ability to do whatever is needed to succeed and fortuna is personified as women who controls fate which intertwined with luck which can be manipulated. With Machiavelli stating in the “ for fortune is a woman and the man who wants to hold downbeat and bully her” (Machiavelli, Ricci and R. P. Vincent, 1935) as he believes virtu is necessary to attribute to have when dealing with Fortuna as its unpredictable like life. However, Machiavelli states it does not have to be a singular ruler who can possess virtu to control Fortuna; according to Machiavelli a collective body can possess virtu (Lahtinen and Griffiths, 2009). Demonstrating, that Machiavelli believes in a power structure that respects Fortuna. As he sees political systems and civil communities as a means to end a way of pooling resources in purist od wealth and riches when virtue is implemented correctly. which can be seen in the discourse as Machiavelli comments on the ‘wonderful examples’ of the prodigies of virtu and wisdom displayed by kings captains, citizen and legislators who have sacrificed themselves for their country demonstrating, he views in the prince are parrels to his views in the Discourse as book was not meant to be seen as handbook tyrants. In both Discourses and The Prince, Machiavelli suggests that action is the best way to combat fortune and that ability is always more important than luck, believing that accepting events as determined by God would not create a strong state. This also reflects his well-known pragmatism, claiming that actions should be determined by the different situations given by fortune, rather than following one set ideology no matter what is occurring (McAleer, 2016).

To conclude, as readers we will never be sure the exact aim of Machiavelli on whether it was an open document on how to control the masses for a deceitful leader. As Machiavelli did say “men are so simple, and governed so absolutely by their present needs, that he who wishes to deceive will never fail in finding willing dupes” (Machiavelli, Ricci and R. P. Vincent, 1935) . As he laid the foundation for modern management and leadership theory. However, it needs to be remembered that Machiavelli was writing this at the pinnacle of the Italian Renaissance where people were also questioning religion and how religious leader was being corrupt. As this book could have been an open document to the masses on how government state should be separated. However, the prince which is compatible with his views Discourse, as both books he advocating for a republic. As the job of the government and leader in power is the common good that results from a government that secures the lives, families, liberty and property of its citizens. Machiavelli advocates fully democratic purpose for government. Even though does not believes that a purely democratic process or even adequate way of achieving this he does add leaders who understand that the best way to fulfil their own desire to rule is to satisfy the desires of their people for security. Machiavelli’s work has lasted through the years, and it has proven to be a classic piece of literature by standing the test of time just because of controversial it is but assume his only aim was to promote tyrannical behaviour demonstrates a closedminded view of the book.