Machiavelli's Republic

There is a fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic as it concerned the political entitlement of the citizenry. The citizens of a republic do not participate directly with governmental affairs. The citizens of a republic can however have a say in who does participate. The Roman republic has two prefect systems to prevent dictatorship which didn’t work.

On the heels of the Peloponnesian war, Socrates was blamed for corrupting the youth and disrespecting the Athenian gods and Athenian values. His defense or “Apology” and reaction after he was sentenced to death in “Crito” demonstrate his most basic philosophy and ideals of what a government should truly be like. Yet in a vastly different situation, Machiavelli, who lived during the renaissance of Italy experienced constant shifts of power which he wrote his book, “The Prince”. Machiavelli writes about how a leader or prince should conduct himself in order to keep and efficiently run a republic or principality. Although Socrates’ texts on the surface deal with his accusations, the texts give great insight as to how he thinks a government

While democracy has a simple definition, “power for the people”, the interpretations and means of executing that right by centers of power can vastly differ. In the ancient Roman republic, optimates and populares had vastly different political attitudes on who should play an active role in the government. In the name of democracy, leaders from both sides executed their power in different ways. However, optimates best represented the ideals of modern democracy through their attempts to prioritize efficiency and reduced conflict with qualified officials and have the people’s best interests at heart, with famous optimates such as Cato often standing up for the citizens against some populares’ attempts to abuse their power.

It is clear that the dynamics that characterized Rome’s society during the Republic were never easy. There was a constant push and pull of intentions and interests between Patricians and Plebeians. The Patricians always wanting to maintain economic and political supremacy while the Plebeians were in constant

Modern democracies give most of the power to the people, however, Rome’s democracy only gave a small

Machiavelli’s views on republics serve as the first difference between his political views and the American government. Machiavelli generally puts those in a republic in a negative light by claiming that the subjects of a republic are not used to standing up for themselves and cannot agree to give themselves a leader. Therefore, it is not a sturdy government to capture. Instead of finding the idea of no singular person being a leader a good way to ensure statewide cooperation and content, Machiavelli claims that, “In republics there is more vitality, greater hatred, and more desire for vengeance,” (Machiavelli, Chapter V). Which is a far cry to the American government’s oath to all of its freedoms and liberties. Machiavelli moves on to say that the safest way to capture a republic state is to destroy it altogether. This shows his views on republics are very much negative and that he believes they are almost a nuisance to a prince trying to maintain a state. Of course this is a drastic difference to the American government, where its subjects thrive in a republic. In other words, while Machiavelli believes no state could be maintained as a republic, the American government proves that it could still be

According to Machiavelli, there are a few situations in which a leader can take power, each with varying levels of upkeep. The first is by sheer luck or buying land, which he explains is easy to acquire but hard to maintain. In the text, Machiavelli writes, “Although, they have no difficulty on the way as they go flying along, all their difficulties arise when they have landed” (Machiavelli 28). Because the new leader has no experience or loyal army it will be extremely challenging to stay in power. On the other hand, if a state is won by the new leaders abilities and talent he will have a much easier time (Machiavelli 24). Machiavelli also mentions many times the importance of having a loyal military. Being the commander of the Army of Italy,

Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli are considered to be the earliest political thinkers of a modern state in which civilization lives coercively, being governed by an organized system of government. However, the basic differences stand where the means to acquire a state with a sovereign or princely figure are based on two differing concepts. Moreover, the two modern political thinkers’ philosophies vary significantly, resulting in diverse opinions on what a modern state ought to encompass in terms of its legitimization and motives. Even though Hobbes and Machiavelli embody different perspectives on the acquisition of power; their common end is the foundation of a modern state even though the means to satisfy this end are divergent. While

     Machiavelli is a supporter of popular rule, though in an indirect way. Rulers must please their constituents but not give them power. For if the people feel they have power they will rebel against their leader and cause chaos in the state. On page 96 Machiavelli states, “it is the populace who are responsible for innumerable conflicts and clashes in a republic.â€? Because it is difficult to satisfy the majority without upsetting the minority, people become enraged and protest, causing what the government would consider to be conflicts. That is why it is so important to create a strong government that revolves around a magistrate or council, for people fear being publicly accused of faults, let alone as a threat to public liberty. Machiavelli states that there is no authority more “useful and necessaryâ€? for leaders of a government to employ upon their citizens. “[Citizens] for fear of being accused, dare not attempt to do anything that might

While reading “The Prince,” and beginning to understand Machiavelli’s manner of thinking, many people come to mind. From Princes to Presidents, the tactics that Machiavelli outlines in his famous text are near omnipresent in any person, or institution that relies on maintained power, such as a government. Though even outside of politics, or king-hood, these same tactics are applied. “Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool” ( HYPERLINK "https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/535702-religion-was-invented-when-the-first-con-man-met-the"Twain). With this quote in mind, here is a world-class con man, who was able to enthrall many fools & intellectuals alike. L. Ron Hubbard, or simply LRH to his followers, has demonstrated his

Although written nearly two centuries apart, The Republic by Plato and The Prince by Machiavelli offer important views on political philosophies of rulers. Plato writes of a perfect society where status as ruler is naturally selected through innate abilities. These abilities are used to sustain the society, better it, and preserve it. Machiavelli writes of a society where anyone can be a prince; which for our purposes is a synonym for ruler, if they follow his instructions. These instructions are to ensure a new ruler can take control of new lands and maintain order in them for the sake of conquering and expanding power.

A peaceful and patriotic citizenry is achieved where rights and freedoms of all citizens are upheld, and where the citizens are responsible enough to obey the existing legitimate laws and powers of the land. Obedience to legitimate laws and powers are best achieved not through force, but largely through patriotism on the part of the citizens. Jean-Jacques is an advocate for a just, peaceful society. On the other hand, Machiavellian society appreciates and justifies use of force for personal gains.

In Ancient Greece, many philosophers and historians examined and illustrated details we now know as a republic. One instance, in "The Republic," noted philosopher, Plato, sets prominent stress on the value of civil power (striving for the ideal) collectively with particular virtue ('just man') on the part of the ideal rulers. Admittedly, in Book V, Plato affirms that until rulers have the view of philosophers (Socrates) or scholars become the leaders, there can be no public sympathy or pleasure.

Relying on the needs of the society of that time, Machiavelli comes to the conclusion that the most important task is the formation of a single Italian state (Machiavelli 15). Developing his thoughts, the author comes to the following inference: only a prince can become a leader capable of leading people and building a unified state. It is not a concrete historical personality but someone abstract, symbolic, possessing such qualities that in the aggregate are inaccessible to any living ruler. That is why Machiavelli devotes most of his research to the issue of what qualities should the prince possess to fulfill the historical task of developing a new state. The written work is constructed strictly logically and objectively. Even though the image of an ideal prince is abstract, Machiavelli argues that he should be ruthless, deceiving, and selfish.

Niccolo Machiavelli’s abstract work of The Prince discusses politics and government and focuses in not only acquiring power, but also how to maintain it. Throughout his work, one of the most prevalent yet disputed themes is between the acquirement of states between principalities and republics. The Prince shows a predominant and constant debate on which group will excel in acquiring power. However, despite Machiavelli’s harsh criticisms on principalities, his work does not solely praise or focus on the excellence of republics. In fact, as Machiavelli continues to speak and provide examples about the successes and failures of both republics and principalities, it becomes clearer that the lone purpose of The Prince is to merely provide tactics in political governance, instruction on how to maintain power once it is acquired, and most importantly, advice on how to become a great leader.