Are modern politicians likely to succeed by following all or most of Machiavelli’s recommendations? Why or why not?
Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’ survived through the centuries since the day it was first written. Suggesting the features that Machiavelli believes that a prince should have, his recommendations on a leader’s qualities can still be applied to modern politicians. Of course there are some points in which it’s inappropriate for modern politicians since his words are not absolute.
Machiavelli’s idea of a leader/prince is still being discussed and educated to a majority of people. Especially as today’s education tends to mainly focus on leadership, Machiavelli’s perspective of a leader is one of the essential materials that should be covered in one’s class curriculum (especially subjects such as ethics or social studies). Thus it is surely crucial to go over whether or not the principles that Machiavelli stated can be applied to modern politicians.
“But it is necessary to know how to disguise this nature well and to be a great hypocrite and a liar…” noted Machiavelli as he illustrated a comparison between a lion and a fox. Accordingly, lions are capable of frightening the wolves while foxes are capable of noticing traps, which is why a wise leader should be able to make use of the both features considering the mutual relationship. This concept applies similarly to modern politicians. One who only has the characteristics of a fox has a high possibility of being accused for his or her involvement in immoral action such as trading money for more advocates or for strengthening political power. On the other hand, one who only has lion-like features will offend the mass by overly emphasizing his or her rights by justifying the power. Thus it is certainly a significant feature that a leader should keep in mind: to act both like a lion and like a fox.
On the other hand, Machiavelli’s mention of, “A prince must nevertheless make himself feared in such a manner that he will avoid hatred, even if he does not acquire love; since to be feared and not be hated can very well be combined…” there are several points that is disagreeable depending on different circumstances and environments. It’s true that a leader’s power should be respected. Plus, the leader’s positions should enable the people to have a certain degree of fear toward him or her because or else there could easily be a rebellion, a coup d’etat, or even an impeachment; however, this should not be one of the major features of a leader. Receiving love is as important as avoiding hatred. Not being hated and being feared can sustain the leader’s position and power only temporarily. For leaders to endure its social status, he or she should be elated of being in that position, which is why one should acquire love from the mass. If the mass do not respond to the leader with love, he or she will soon fall into a slump that will exacerbate the general politics and the society. Moreover, a sufficient degree of hatred can actually provoke the leader to improve his or her performance because he or she would eventually strive to change the people’s hatred to love.
Although the principles of Prince that is provided by Machiavelli does explain a vague concept concisely by directly issuing the necessary features of a leader, it has survived through years of historical eras and has settled down as one of the must-read writings. In order to gain wide knowledge of being a leader, individuals should lucidly compare and contrast the authenticity of Machiavelli’s idea on leader’s values by estimating whether or not it fits the modern leaders.
Joo Yeon 