Posting 1: Machiavelli's the prince
Two passages from Machiavelli’s the Prince standout
in particular from the readings that I would
like to talk about in specifically. The first is when Machiavelli speaks to the
readers and in a way ask us to truly define what it is we consider to be cruel
or even for that matter merciful. An interesting example that Machiavelli gave
was that of Cesare Borgia. Machiavelli states that “Cesare Borgia was
considered cruel; notwithstanding, his cruelty reconciled the Romagna, unified
it, and restored it to peace and
loyalty. And if this be rightly considered, he will be seen to have been much
more merciful than the Florentine people, who, to avoid a reputation for
cruelty, permitted Pistoia to be destroyed”. The concept that being a cruel
ruler could actually be a form of mercy is intriguing to say the least. Cesare
Borgia inflicted harsh punishments and rulings down on his people and because
of that was feared and love, is it possible that through the citizens fear of
Cesare that he showed mercy. The idea
that mercy can be obtained through cruelty is one contrary to what one would
usually expect. Machiavelli then presents how the Florentine people actually
were merciless when they did all that they could not to show their people
cruelty. Machiavelli proposes that through cruelty a prince, shows mercy
through uniting them and preventing their destruction.
The second passage is that stands out is when
Machiavelli presents the natural question that comes from the argument that he
presents earlier in the passage. If a prince does in fact show mercy through
his acts of cruelty, then is it better to be a prince that is loved by his
people or feared? Machiavelli states that “It may be answered that one should
wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed
with”. Machiavelli went on to say that basically people are untrustworthy, when
you are kind they will easily betray you when it is in their best interest, but
when people fear you they will not betray because the fear you.
Machiavelli makes a compelling point and after
reading and analyzing his point, I am inclined to agree with him, when it comes
to princes. Though a prince may want to be kind hearted to his people and do
what is best for them, he may find that what is best for the people is for him
to reject his wanted to be kind hearted and treat them with cruelty. The people will fear him and in some manners
hate him, but the people will be less likely to suffer destruction, and that is
the ruler duty to his people.
I agree with you on the case of the virtuous appearances of a prince the author views as ignorant and easily manipulated. But let us not forget the time. Rarely did they start revolt and demand freedom; most of them were far too disinterested and craved stability more than change in government. Since war broke out too often, even though he states that the Prince should not disregard his people, he also states that he should be ambiguous with his emotions to cause fear rather than love from them. This sort of ambiguous statement is common throughout the chapter as he doesn’t specify an ideal behavior but the best way to go about achieving good leadership.
ReplyDeleteTimes have changed people are easily fed up with their leaders this days and can decide to rebel. An example is that of the Arab Spring where most nations in the Middle East revolted and demanded a new leadership. They were fed up with their leader whose cruelty led the people to hate him. Machiavelli stated that a Prince should be able to adapt to a situation and show both sides of his personality when the situation demands it. Sometimes, these leaders adopt only one side of the qualities Machiavelli mentioned. This brews hatred in his people and it allows wither a usurper to gain the people’s attention since their leader acts in his self interest and not of his people.
In many ways your comment, Nusirat, hits on Machiavelli's emphasis on particular situations. There may be times when cruelty is actually a form of mercy. Those times may not be now.
DeleteThere is an interesting balance mentioned here between seeming kind and being a revered ruler. I'm curious how, on a subconscious level, people respond to a ruler with a heavy hand. There is such a fine line between being steadfast and being considered despotic.
ReplyDelete