In the written work “The Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli the author elaborates on how a prince can only be a strong leader if he engages in duplicity. Machiavelli focused on a more realistic and immoral strategy to keep the people of his time unified, realpolitik a system based on practical rather than moral considerations. The author, Niccolo Machiavelli, goes through great depths to explain why it takes rulers who are “cruel, dishonest, duplicitous, and manipulative.” There are many great examples to prove his ideology, however, the writing is very subjective and bias as Machiavelli does not give a rebuttal to the different kinds of ruling. He writes “The Prince” after the current leading family of his time falls in order to keep the stability
…show more content…
Machiavelli dives into politics with a very aggressive and pure mindset suggesting kings and princes to only worry about the end result without caring for the means of achieving it. Informing the readers that they should do anything it takes to get into and stay in power, the ends justify the means ideal. Machiavelli states that “Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result.” essentially saying even if the means are unjust the people only see and judge you by the results. However, the “few” mentioned by him will eventually lead to a breach in society. If the ruler leaves behind any amount of dissatisfaction through his means there will always be a certain level of dissatisfaction among the people, creating a rift amongst them. Hence, if the current leader follows through Machiavelli’s theories and practices duplicitous acts of dishonesty he is generating a volume of instability. For example, Muammar Gaddafi, the autocratic leader of Libya, ruled with an iron fist. He would swiftly take down any opposition to his dictatorship and ruled through kleptocracy and fear. While he was unopposed for a long time, eventually the dissent leftover from his ruling caught up to him and he was executed after a successful coup
Machiavelli dives into politics with a very aggressive and pure mindset suggesting kings and princes to only worry about the end result without caring for the means of achieving it. Informing the readers that they should do anything it takes to get into and stay in power, the ends justify the means ideal. Machiavelli states that “Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result.” essentially saying even if the means are unjust the people only see and judge you by the results. However, the “few” mentioned by him will eventually lead to a breach in society. If the ruler leaves behind any amount of dissatisfaction through his means there will always be a certain level of dissatisfaction among the people, creating a rift amongst them. Hence, if the current leader follows through Machiavelli’s theories and practices duplicitous acts of dishonesty he is generating a volume of instability. For example, Muammar Gaddafi, the autocratic leader of Libya, ruled with an iron fist. He would swiftly take down any opposition to his dictatorship and ruled through kleptocracy and fear. While he was unopposed for a long time, eventually the dissent leftover from his ruling caught up to him and he was executed after a successful coup