Relationship Between Machiavelli And Socrates

1429 Words6 Pages
Essay 1
History has proven time and time again that leaders are constantly being challenged by the very population they govern. The population challenging the ruling party has been a constant throughout political history. The relationship between a ruler and his subjects is a fragile one, and it is a relationship that has sparked constant debate for thousands of years. Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince and Plato’s Crito and Apology this relationship and discusses their views on proper governance. Machiavelli and Socrates propose two very different sorts of rulers. Machiavelli advocates for a strong feared ruler who takes pragmatic steps to ensure unity in the state. In both Crito and Apology, Plato portrays Socrates as a “social gadfly” whose purpose to challenge the power of the state. The views of Machiavelli and Socrates are opposing views, and indeed Socrates would be an opposing force in Machiavelli’s idea of how a “prince” should rule.
In Machiavelli’s The Prince, Machiavelli’s theory on how a prince is to rule exudes absolutism. In order to maintain this absolutism Machiavelli underlines the importance to crush dissent among both the populace and the ruling class. Machiavelli asserts that in order to be an effective leader, a prince needs to be feared and respected father than loved and admired. This is a pragmatic view taken my Machiavelli because inevitably a ruler is responsible for making difficult decisions that will not be popular among the populace. Being
Get Access