A Leader : A Machiavellian Leader

Niccolo Machiavelli published his famous book “The Prince” in 1513, which is considered as a “handbook” for leaders. “The Prince” explains to the reader(s) how to acquire and maintain political authority. According to Machiavelli, an ideal leader, is a person who is attentive of the men around him, believes the end justifies the means, and destroys disloyalty by trickery or falsifying his purpose. Many leaders throughout history have showed one or many traits that Machiavelli stated in his work. Therefore, Donald Trump, would fall under the category of a Machiavellian leader.

In 1513, an Italian politician by the name of Niccolo Machiavelli distributed, though privately, a political treatise called The Prince. This treatise was, essentially, a guide on how to effectively rule one's country. It's important beforehand to define exactly what a Machiavellian is, before describing one. A Machiavellian is a leader who, through his power and influence, works toward the common good of his people. This can be done through fear, through deceit, even through manipulation. It is important to understand the main principle of a Machiavellian; the end justifies the means. The end being the common good of his people. Vladimir Putin is a Machiavellian in the ways he retains power, institutes reform, and executes economic

Machiavelli recommends the rulers to follow the good qualities, unless needs to protect himself from a vice who would not lose the state for him or be prudent enough to escape a vice who would lose the state for him.

Many great leaders have ruled throughout history, but what made them great? Throughout the ages many very intelligent men have sought to enlighten the world on how to best govern their people. Many of these ideas were written down in great literary works, including: Plato’s “The Republic”, Marcus Aurelius “Meditations” and Machiavelli’s “The Prince”. Plato Sculpted his ideal society with his philosopher king at the head. Marcus Aurelius lead by example as the poster child for stoicism. Machiavelli on the other hand broke away from Plato’s ideal society and placed the strong above all others with his real politik. While these men were all very intelligent and sought the same goal of security, there can only be one victor. The best way to govern a people is the Machiavellian way, his methods are based on historical events, his methods were proven effective and they are based on realism.

stories on the news about people being killed on the street every day over drugs.

The works of Socrates and Machiavelli are as polarized as the phrases “the unexamined life is not worth living” and “the ends justify the means.” The Prince by Machiavelli and The Last Days of Socrates by Plato are both crucial texts to the discussion of what makes a good political leader. Well, what makes a good political leader? Socrates would disagree with Machiavelli’s ideation of the Prince because of the immorality that he allows this model to have in the public sphere. However, Socrates would find that Machiavelli’s Prince would lead to a political system that he would favor, because it would be one ruled by a qualified and expert leader, unlike in a democracy.

He believed the choice had to be made between being loved or being feared where being feared was the better choice. Machiavellianism is a personality trait where the use of manipulation to achieve power. According to Machiavelli, the ideal prince is meant to be ruthless and willing to achieve this power because if an individual begins to show the need for help; others will turn against you. He also stresses how a Prince should be dishonest telling his people what they want to hear, but in a manner that his people still believe he is honest. The appearance of a leader is important because the people will admire you because of your strength in character and nobility.

Machiavelli, sees this as an impractical and impossible way to lead. Machiavelli has the stance that “the conditions of human life make it impossible to exercise all those qualities” (Machiavelli 33). Machiavelli’s expresses his rational thought process on how government can be ruled. His experience working for the Florentine republic and then the Medici government allowed him to see what works and fails in effective leadership as both those governments saw failure. Machiavelli recognition that the leaders are only human and cannot be perfect.

Machiavelli 's the prince summarized the general concept behind the logic of leading, but it is hard to grasp this big idea without seeing the outcome of its appliance. Stalin, Hitler and other iron fisted leaders are often considered Machiavellian. While their motives and ambitions are widely accepted as immoral, their rise to power was absolutely genius. Hitler 's ability to unify a collapsing nation

Manipulative, courageous, harsh and wise are some of the many individualities a true Machiavellian holds. Throughout time, true Machiavellian leaders have significantly impacted not only the political world but the way people have come to live and reason. William Shakespeare’s protagonist, Macbeth, does not exhibit the leadership strategies outlined in Machiavelli’s The Prince. After analyzing both novels Macbeth had shown himself to be an incompetent leader, who could never be labeled a Machiavellian. To understand a true Machiavellian leader you must compare and contrast a failed leader to a leader who has thrived, succeeded and in the end could be regarded as a Machiavellian.

Machiavelli considers a good leader to be effective and uphold his power by preserving the respect and loyalty of his people. In order to rule a successful principality, Machiavelli believes a prince should not exercise virtue unless necessary. Through this, Machiavelli portrays a good leader as flexible and one who acts in response to his circumstances. Ethics take on a new meaning; instead of emphasizing

Overall, I agree with Machiavelli that a leader cannot be seen as weak, but I do not believe a leader has to be feared by its people. I believe that a leader can also be loved by his people. I don’t agree that Machiavelli’s opinion on being feared rather than loved applies to many current day leaders. For example, this wouldn’t apply to the president of the United States because the United States is a democracy. However, this would apply to a communist

This person is the equivalent of a king or queen without a throne; he or she may influence the people around them positively as they all work to fulfill daily obligations, but his or her reach is very limited. By contrast, a person in a position of authority who fails to recognize, trust, value, and encourage the flourishing of skills among his or her colleagues and staff will quickly lose respect and support from these people. In 1513, Machiavelli wrote, “I'm not interested in preserving the status quo. I want to overthrow it.” Therefore, in addition to having a low tolerance for dishonesty, he apparently did not buy into transactional management theory either. I hold the belief that the key ingredient that distinguishes a leader from an authority figure is power. To the traditional Machiavellian, power allows the ends to justify the means. But in a frail world where leadership consists of power grabs for the sake of power-grabbing, leadership will ultimately fall apart for, as Machiavelli wrote, "It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles." Any leader who focuses solely on the accrual of power is acting disingenuously and, when the people revolt against this behavior, this leader's employment status may meet a tragic end. To Machiavelli, true leaders strive to shatter false pretenses. "Men judge generally more by the eye than by

Based on the things that Machiavelli has written, it would be safe to say that his ideal leader would be narcissistic. Machiavelli’s ideal leader would be an individual that would rather be feared than loved, and someone who is not compelled to uphold promises if those promises are not reasonable or in his best interest. (P. 206) Machiavelli’s ideal leader would have to exercise self-control. Machiavelli states that a prince should ensure that nothing leaves his mouth that is not merciful, faithful, humane, honest, and religious. (P. 207) This ideal leader would also be willing to do all things necessary to maintain his or her power, however they would also have to ensure that they uphold a religious appearance in doing so. (P.

Another is that Filipinos have a culture of apathy and tend to use religion incorrectly and passively. People depend on religion and settle for what’s okay. In addition, the initial reaction of Filipinos to change is resistance, and this is why the country does not necessarily progress, or at least, progress at a continuous rate. Then, countries like Spain and Portugal only rode the “economic tiger” after “they realized that the only way to survive was change” (3.Y). Plus, according to another critic, the Philippines already had the experience of being under the parliamentary system during the time of Marcos which only resulted in a People Power Revolution. So why should the country bother going back to that? (4.Y)