Introduction
The Prince, written by Niccolo Machiavelli, is a controversial book that challenged the traditional view of leadership during the 16th century. The book was banned by the Catholic church and heavily criticized by many of Machiavelli’s contemporaries due to its unsavory methods for gaining and maintaining power.
Machiavelli believed a successful leader should not be tied down by ethics and morals but rather be cunning and ruthless. He argued that a leader must be prepared to act immorally when necessary and avoid being overly generous, as it can incite anger and resentment among the people. Although at first glance, the postulates in the work about how society should be truly governed violate the norms of generally accepted morality and humanism, behind them lies a broader and deeper thought aimed at establishing justice in society. Machiavelli shows that a leader must be strong and capable of confronting factors that destabilize society.
A Case for Machiavellian Leadership
Machiavelli’s Vision of Leadership in The Prince
Machiavelli’s ideas about how the state should be organized are presented in the pages of The Prince. The society of that period of time considered the book a source advocating for ruthless and cunning tactics to gain and maintain power. He argued that a leader must not be too generous, as this would lead to anger and resentment from the people: “A leader must be ready to deceive and betray”. Machiavelli also believed that a leader should use violence and ambition to win fortune to their side. However, Machiavelli’s views on leadership contradict the principles of morality, ethics, democracy, and humanism, according to which a true leader should be kind, merciful, and caring towards their subjects while maintaining integrity and honesty in their actions.
However, Machiavelli’s harsh advice must be interpreted in the context of the dangerous conditions present in Renaissance Italy, where a lack of the rule of law allowed the strong to exploit and harm the weak. Machiavelli tended to show the necessity for establishing justice, using all possible means, even if it meant carrying out harsh actions that may be considered “not good” in times of lawfulness and peace. These actions should become the least bad alternative among other choices that may have produced even worse outcomes.
Autocratic Power as a Response to Social Instability
Another important reason why leadership, from a Machiavellian perspective, is considered a justifiable concept is the presence of autocratic regimes at different periods of society. Often, the organization of the state according to the authority of one man and with limited pluralism is a geopolitical necessity. This was true during the Renaissance when Italy needed to shed its sovereignty. In various unforeseen cataclysms and threats to the stability and security of society, a bond of trust must be established between the leader and those for whom he is responsible.
The author states, “the best way to win and keep the love of subjects is to bestow benefits upon them”. Consequently, the leader has to apply coercive force to the factors that pose a threat to the implementation of such a regime of power. Finally, authoritarian leadership is necessary in cases where there is a fragmentation of society, and more privileged groups of people are trying to enslave and humiliate the marginal classes. In such cases, only a set of decisive, radical, and sometimes coercive actions can provide protection and justice in social policy.
Evidence from the Book
This idea is confirmed by the fact that the first two chapters of the work are positioned as a practical guide to the management of autocratic regimes. The first chapter creates the necessary conceptual apparatus, including a definition of principalities and the various social relations prevalent at the time. The author then makes recommendations on how to maintain stability in different parts of the state, shifting the focus from the idea of the people’s role in governing the processes of society to unquestioning leadership. Although this part of the book attempts a multifaceted analysis of the theory of governing an autocratic country, the central idea is still that without rigidity and elements of violence, it will be impossible to maintain the stability of such a system.
Finally, listing all the necessary characteristics of a leader, the author notes that rigidity and lack of alternatives in decision-making should not be the leader’s goal in itself. The starting point on which all political decisions must be layered must be the idea of the good of all inhabitants of the state and the desire to establish justice. Machiavelli insists that, in his contemporary era, there are many conditions under which the goal of maintaining the stability of society can be justified by many means that run counter to the ideas of morality and ethics. Indeed, the contradictions within medieval Italy are a great challenge for a state leader who must make a massive effort to unite the people and defend sovereignty. Based on this thought, the ideas on leadership presented in this book can be considered valid and adequate to the era described.
Conclusion
Thus, The Prince shows the reapers a picture of someone who sought to craft a map whereby one person could lead their city out of chaos and foreign rule to a state where all could live with laws and justice. This work laid much of the groundwork for modern management and leadership theory, but his ideas on leadership remain flawed and contradict basic principles of morality and ethics.
Reference
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The prince. California: Jiahu Books, 2013.