Machiavelli presents a clear, coherent argument on how to maintain power as an authoritarian leader. He is undeniably objective and pragmatic when approaching this subject. In David Wooton’s introduction, he observes that “The Prince is a manual for tyrants” (xxiii). However, is this what leaders should be working towards?
Machiavelli argues that a leader must always be the strongest in any sort of political issue, in order to work towards the ultimate goal of always maintaining power. This is to ensure that said leader is never overpowered by another. However what if the conjunction of multiple areas is for the greater good of the nation-states as a whole? Would Machiavelli’s advice be beneficial? Take for example the plight of Italy during Machiavelli’s time. It was in complete disarray where each city lived under different rulers. This system debilitated the area, thus preventing the strength of Italy as a united nation-state. Therefore, Machiavelli’s advice is only beneficial from the leader’s perspective, not that of the state.
This specific piece of advice, in always maintaining strategy in political life as a leader, is cogent with the rest of his suggestions in how to keep power. He so radically states “it is better to be headstrong than cautious, for fortune is a lady. It is necessary, if you want to master her, to beat and strike her” (76). Although I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement, it sums up Machiavelli pretty well. Ultimately, he is simply a power-hungry political scientist.
So, you would describe Machiavelli's advice as illogical, brutish, and perhaps "hulkish" in nature?
ReplyDeleteI definitely think it is brutish, but not illogical. My main argument is that he focuses on the benefit of the leader, rather than the benefit of the state, which does not make his argument illogical. It is simply my opinion that it would be more beneficial to focus on the prosperity of the state as a whole, not in how a leader should maintain power. However, Machiavelli's argument as a whole is definitely pragmatic and logical.
ReplyDelete