22. Machiavelli, continued
Anderson reminds us that Machiavelli was writing a politics for hard times, not the easy job of leading in a democracy in full flower. His prince in many ways is written about from the perspective of the Roman Stoic tradition. Machiavelli notes that, no matter how secure the people’s support for a leader may seem to be, other potential leaders are always competing (and, in fact, the people’s support is fickle). Machiavelli offers much advice about the ruler-subject/citizen relationship. He cautions against changing too much of a polity’s accustomed patterns of politics, laws, and morality, and is very cautious about revolution. But, if circumstances require major changes, make them all at once and ruthlessly take out all of your opponents. Halfway measures force a leader to always live with a knife in one’s hand. Is this cynical or sound leadership strategy for the more extreme circumstances Machiavelli describes?
Then, Machiavelli turns toward leadership in more normal times for a republic, where leaders are selected more routinely either by their peers (the aristocracy) or the mass of the people. Assessing these two cases, he suggests it is better to be elected by the people than selected by one’s always critical and interfering peers. Anderson again compares this with leadership selection decisions in the modern corporation, in university academic departments, and in state politics.
Like the Stoics, Machiavelli looks at the qualities needed for leadership. But, unlike someone like Marcus Aurelius, he says it doesn’t matter whether the prince has these actual virtues but it is essential that he appear to have them. Machiavelli is suggesting that politics is as much stagecraft as statecraft. The end is the focus of all of the leader’s actions: the independence, freedom, stability and continuity of the life of one’s state that matters. All things being equal, a leader should seek to be loved by his or her people, but, looking realistically at the malleability of public opinion and its results, Machiavelli concludes it is better (and the attitude is more lasting) if your people fear you than love you.
Then, Machiavelli turns toward leadership in more normal times for a republic, where leaders are selected more routinely either by their peers (the aristocracy) or the mass of the people. Assessing these two cases, he suggests it is better to be elected by the people than selected by one’s always critical and interfering peers. Anderson again compares this with leadership selection decisions in the modern corporation, in university academic departments, and in state politics.
Like the Stoics, Machiavelli looks at the qualities needed for leadership. But, unlike someone like Marcus Aurelius, he says it doesn’t matter whether the prince has these actual virtues but it is essential that he appear to have them. Machiavelli is suggesting that politics is as much stagecraft as statecraft. The end is the focus of all of the leader’s actions: the independence, freedom, stability and continuity of the life of one’s state that matters. All things being equal, a leader should seek to be loved by his or her people, but, looking realistically at the malleability of public opinion and its results, Machiavelli concludes it is better (and the attitude is more lasting) if your people fear you than love you.
Local Events
- Twin Cities - Buy the Red Shirt! - September 2
- 2009 Badger Football Viewing Parties - September 5
- Twin Cities - Football Viewings - September 5
- Green Bay Packer Viewing Parties - September 13
