Machiavelli's The Prince

When evaluating the political leaders in modern times there is one leader that wields his power the most like Niccolo Machiavelli’s Prince, from his book The Prince, that leader is President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation. Although, Putin does not hold the title of Prince, he has held influential positions throughout the years, i.e. Prime Minister and Acting President, that hold power similar to the Prince. Every position that Putin has held in Russia he has acted as if he were a Prince. Putin has held such all-consuming control and influence over Russia that some would say that Putin is “the state”, a position that Machiavelli strongly suggest that all Princes should have. Although, there are infinite examples showing Putin acting similar to Machiavelli’s Prince throughout the years, the current interaction between Syria and Russia exemplifies Putin’s similarity to Machiavelli’s Prince. In the interaction between Russia and Syria, Putin mostly resembles the trait of the Prince that Machiavelli describe in chapters 14, 18, and 21

In The Prince, Machiavelli’s primary focus is on how a prince should act when exercising his political power. Machiavelli argues that a prince should first separate his public and private life. Therefore, a prince must be willing to deceive his people in thinking he is the best suited leader. Although a prince may need to act immoral at times, he must not abuse his power. A prince must only practice acts of manipulation, coercion, and deceit, to protect his power.

For many centuries, there have been many leaders and rulers around the world making their own rules and decisions. In the Book “The Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli, Machiavelli describes ways that leaders can be successful if they follow his advice. One leader that shows Machiavelli’s advice by the way they rule is Adolf Hitler.The way he ruled was by fear, violence, and by conquering other countries. Although Hitler had some failures during his lifetime, he shows how Machiavelli’s advice is relevant in today's leaders.

Machiavelli makes it clear throughout his novel that the Prince or ruler of any group of people cannot solely be good nor bad in order to maintain his rule. In times of need a leader should use these attributes for the betterment of his visage by the people. In the fifteenth chapter of his book Machiavelli mentions the fine line a ruler must maintain “For it is so far from how one lives to how one should live, that he who lets go of what is done for what should be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation. For a man who wants to make a profession of good in all regards must come to ruin among so many who are not good. Hence it is necessary to a prince, if he wants to maintain himself, to learn to be able not to be good, and to use this and not use it to necessity.”

Niccolo Machiavelli’s most famous book, The Prince, contains the most valid information for a prince, a president, and even a king, to keep hold of their own power. Machiavelli tells about the importance and power of political action, his opinions, and most of all philosophy at it’s finest. Throughout the twenty-six chapters of this book he describes the bold, brave, practical, and powerful prince and how the prince’s life should be lived. Machiavelli’s view of human nature is used as justification for his political advice to princes. Niccolo Machiavelli was very intelligent, motivated, and dedicated while writing this book, he attempts to inform princes how to come to power by being powerful; he determines if nature and the environment a prince lives in is the cause of their failure and success.

Written be Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince (1503), explains Machiavellian theories of maintaining and ruling political power. Although The Prince was written over 500 years ago, the theories and context within the book resonate in today’s society (). These theories that have been carried over from centuries ago contain a relevant idea that if the goal of the government’s actions are based on the good of the people, then it is justifiable if the government’s action is immoral. Such examples include Invasion of Iraq, increased security measures in airports, and global monitoring prove that Machiavellian logic has been carried into today’s society ().

Machiavelli wrote The Prince trying to ingratiate himself with the Medici princes who had recently taken over the government in Florence in the early sixteenth century. He envisioned this book to be a short, concise handbook for princes who have acquired power and wished to keep it. Accordingly, it begins by dividing all governments into two kinds: republics and "principalities" (those ruled by a "prince," or single ruler). Machiavelli swiftly dismisses the first kind of government as being outside the scope of his argument. He then goes on to subdivide the latter kind. Principalities, he writes, are of two kinds: there are those which have been ruled by a family for a long time, and those which are newly conquered. It is this last kind, obviously,

The construction of an ideal ruler is a simple task. An individual simply needs to choose characteristics and traits of their ruler to possess. However, reality is immensely different from these hypothetical models for a ruler, and require alternative criteria for a successful leader. In Petrarch’s Letters of Old Age, his description of a ruler falls in the theoretical category because it is the formation of a picturesque ruler, but this ruler is unattainable because of chance and uncertainty in the real world. In Machiavelli’s The Prince, he illustrates many different characteristics that could potentially lead to success as a ruler, but his work differs from Petrarch because Petrarch’s advice tended to be morally good, while Machiavelli promotes

A leader makes decisions for the people under his or her control. Back in the 1500s, kings or princes ruled most countries. In Niccolò Machiavelli’s “The Prince,” his interpretation of the power of princes in the 1500s is explained through a series of references to rulers whose decisions either benefitted or harmed them. Machiavelli explained the qualities and abilities he felt were necessary for a prince to have in order to be a successful ruler.

Machiavelli’s, book the prince has been the centre of debate since its inception. There has been a prevalent stand-point among the philosophers of political science that there ought to be an interplay between morality and legitimate control/ authority. Many philosophers during the course of middle ages leaned towards believing that the authority held by the rural/ leaders was only legitimate, if he was righteous. Thus for the rulers who wanted a long reigns and aimed their heir to acquire the office had no option but to make sure that they behaved well in accordance to normative understanding

In this paper, I will examine Niccolo Machiavelli’s claims in The Prince that dictatorial power drives most princes. Machiavelli discusses the differences between shared and dictatorial power. The dominant power is to never be conquered, even with the possibility for people to attain greater status. In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses two groups of people: the public and the upper class. This paper will uncover more of how Machiavelli creates the distinctions between powers.

Niccolo Machiavelli in his novel “The Prince” (1532) claims that in order for a prince to attain a successful reputation, he must be prepared to abandon virtuous qualities to ensure security and control (1582). He supports the claim by explaining the controversial importance of liberty (“without it his soldiers would not follow,” become “ an object of contempt and hatred” (1584)); by illustrating the idea of being feared over being loved (bond of love “is broken . . . for . . . selfish profit,” “fear is secured by a dread of punishment” (1585)); and by describing how to approach fortune with rashness than with caution (fall to ruin through conservative ways, adapt to the situation to be harmonious with fortune (1590)). Machiavelli’s purpose

While Machiavelli emphasizes power over in relations between the political elite, he discusses a different kind of power in the relations between a prince and the general public. Machiavelli notes that a prince can share power with the people, since a prince can trust the people much more than he can trust the nobles. Nobles "can not be satisfied if a ruler acts honorably but the people can be thus satisfies, because their aims are more honorable than those of the nobles are: for the latter only want to oppress and the former only want to avoid being oppressed" (p.35). The people are not unforgiving and greedy so the prince can place more trust in the people. Since the public can be trusted, the prince can empower the people. An empowered public will protect the ruler rather than overthrow him. Machiavelli suggests providing people with power in terms of arms, since "when you arm them, these weapons become your own" (p. 72). In this way power is an increasing resource, sharing power with the people can result in greater power for the people and for the prince.

When reading Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince, one can’t help but grasp Machiavelli’s argument that morality and politics can not exist in the same forum. However, when examining Machiavelli’s various concepts in depth, one can conclude that perhaps his suggested violence and evil is fueled by a moral end of sorts. First and foremost, one must have the understanding that this book is aimed solely at the Prince or Emperor with the express purpose of aiding him in maintaining power. Therefore, it is essential to grasp his concepts of fortune and virtue. These two contrary concepts reflect the manner in which a Prince should govern while minimizing all chance and uncertainty. This kind of governing demands violence to be taken, however this

Machiavelli conveys many qualities and sets rules that a prince must possess to keep his power. First, he makes it clear that in order to obtain and uphold power one must be willing to do anything to preserve power. This includes tough decisions and choices that go against your moral compass. Chapter fifteen of “The Prince” states that