This was my midterm paper for my final year in high school. It was written for AP English 4 on November 26, 2003. I had to research this paper for quite some time and am quite proud of it. Anyone who reads this and decides that it is inaccurate in any way, don't bother to send me email. It's not like I'm going to redo this. I'd like to point out, though, that the parenthetical citations are a little strange because I got some bad information on how to do it for this paper.

Misunderstood Machiavelli
by Brady Lewis

    "Rewards to people who fit the System best, you know. King's immediate thanes, the thanes' top servants, and so on till you come to the people who don't fit at all. No problem. Drive them to the darkest corners of the kingdom, starve them, throw them in jail or put them out to war. [ . . . ] But satisfy the greed of the majority, and the rest will do you no harm" (Gardner 118). In author John Gardner's novel Grendel, the old serf Red Horse explains to the young prince Hrothulf that a state should be run in this way. This is Gardner's way of making a reference to Niccolo Machiavelli and his political teachings. However, the majority of the people do not know what Machiavelli teaches, or if they do, they misinterpret what he writes. Because of his plain, to-the-point style of writing and the age of the philosophies, most people misunderstand Machiavelli's teachings.

    The biggest misconception most people have about Machiavelli is his stance on tyranny. People only are only vaguely familiar with his philosophies only know that he basically stated that "It is better to be feared than loved as a ruler." This is often taken to mean that Machiavelli was in favor of tyranny, in which one man runs a state through the use of fear and terror. This could not be further from the truth. Machiavelli did see tyranny as a necessary part in the life of a state, but he did not look upon it favorably.

    Machiavelli saw the state as a body that moves in cycles. It moves from good governments to bad governments and back to good continuously. The cycle starts when a group of people form the beginning of a state. Those people choose the strongest, bravest person to lead them. This person is the basis of the first form of government, which is referred to as the Good Czar. This leader puts laws in place to keep the order of the state. However, once the laws are in place, a strong, brave warrior is no longer needed to lead. A more prudent leader focused on justice is needed. This is called a Good State, with the order kept by laws rather than a single leader. Eventually, the leadership position becomes hereditary, and subsequent leaders use their position for their own gain and are corrupted. This is called a Bad State. After a while, the good people of the state rally the people and overthrow the tyrant. These people don't want this to happen again, so they form an aristocracy that will reassert the old, good laws, and so another Good State is formed. In a few generations, the new aristocrats eventually take their power for granted, positions become hereditary, and civic rights are discarded. This evil oligarchy is another Bad State. Again, the good people overthrow it and, seeing how past governments have ended in corruption, create a democracy with safeguards in place to prevent one person or group from gaining too much power. This is the third and final form of the Good State. This government ends in anarchy due to the separation of power and everyone vying for all of it. In the anarchy, a brave, strong leader emerges to restore order in the state, thus starting the cycle over with the Good Czar. This is all assuming that no enemy state destroys or conquers the state in question. So while Machiavelli does see tyranny as necessary, he sees it as a bad form of government in his cycle.

    Machiavelli also believes that leaders who come to power through force and become tyrants are not gaining glory for themselves or their state. It requires no talent or genius to take leadership by force. Not only does he see it as evil, but he also sees it as the easy way of gaining power. In The Prince, he states that, "Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory" (The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli). He also talks about the tyrant Agathocles of Syracuse, of which he says, "Nevertheless, his barbarous cruelty and inhumanity with infinite wickednesses do not permit him to be celebrated among the most excellent men. What he achieved cannot be attributed either to fortune or to genius" (The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli). Machiavelli believes that a leader should achieve glory and by celebrated, something a tyrant cannot do, for they are destined to be overthrown.

    Another thing to look at is what Machiavelli meant when he expressed the "Be feared, not loved" philosophy. Most people just assume that he means to be feared like Hitler or Stalin was feared, and so also assume that he means a leader should employ a tyranny as those leaders did. This is not what he means at all. Political analyst Michael A. Ledeen correctly translates what Machiavelli is telling us.

    In one of his most celebrated passages, Machiavelli poses the essential question about the relationship between leaders and followers: "Is it more effective to enforce discipline by rigorously applying the laws, and unhesitatingly exercising your power (making you more feared than loved), or by winning the affection of your followers by the force of your virtuous example (making you more loved than feared)? He hastens to say that it would be best to be both loved and feared, choosing one style or the other according to circumstances. [ . . . ] Unless you're very lucky [ . . . ] you'll have to choose"(Ledeen 122-123)

Using this interpretation of that famous philosophy, it is easy to understand why a leader should be feared rather than loved. By being feared, a leader is simply enforcing the letter of the law and punishing those that break it. It is the fear of the punishment that Machiavelli speaks of, not of the leadership.

    Another way of thinking of the fear vs. love problem is this: When a leader is loved, it is usually because of his generosity towards the people. When he must do something ungenerous, like raising taxes, the people turn on him. However, if the leader is feared, and is enforcing the tax law in a very hard way right from the start, the people will see it as just doing his job. Then, if he does something generous for the people, like lowering taxes, then they love him for the momentary relief. It's all in the way the people perceive the situation, and Machiavelli knew this well.

    People also think that Machiavelli was in favor of tyranny because of the nature of his masterful work on leadership, The Prince. He states everything so bluntly and to the point with no fanciful language. He also praises some dictators in places. In order to understand why this is, you must know why Machiavelli wrote The Prince.

    The Prince was written for the new leader of Italy, Lorenzo Di Medici, also known as Lorenzo the Magnificent, in 1513. This was a time of great chaos in Italy. Violence was all over the country, political wars and blackmail added significantly to the corruption in the government, and the people were frightened. Foreign nations were constantly invading and controlling parts of Italy. So when Lorenzo came to power, Machiavelli wanted to help get the country back on track. He sent a paper that had practical advice on how to fix the state of the country, as well as maybe get his old political office back. Unfortunately, Lorenzo did not take The Prince seriously.

    As for the praising of some dictators, namely Caesar Borgia, Machiavelli believes that sometimes a good leader must do evil things in order to preserve what is good. The key is to be able to come out of that evil. Any leader that is not willing to cross over to evil in order to help his country is not doing his job properly. But tyranny is simply not the answer, and Machiavelli absolutely does not condone a lasting one. Anyone who says that Machiavelli is nothing more than a tyrant or a dictator doesn't know what he or she is talking about, and is making some large generalizations.

    People also have the misconception that Machiavelli did not believe that women are capable of being good leaders. This idea comes from how Machiavelli describes some of the weaker characteristics of leaders as "effeminate".

    What people don't realize is that languages change. What means one thing now could have meant something else hundreds of years ago. There are many words in the English language that have evolved over time. For example, the word "effeminate" in the way that Machiavelli used it is meant in the physical sense. Females just are not as physically capable as males are, so they are "weaker" in that regard.

    Machiavelli does believe that women are capable of becoming effective leaders. While he does say that women are physically inferior to men, he also claims that they make up for that by being less susceptible to corruption and evil than men. Women are also as psychologically tough as men are. Machiavelli also feels sorry for anyone who crosses a capable woman.

The one who offends woman
Wrongly or rightly is mad if he believes
through prayers and weeping to find mercy in her.
As she descends in this mortal life
with her soul she brings along
pride, haughtiness, and pardon to none;
trickery and cruelty accompany her
and give her such help
that each enterprise increases her desire;
and if contempt bitter and ugly
moves her or jealousy, she acts and handles it:
and her strength exceeds mortal strength (Ledeen 73).

Indeed, Machiavelli sees women as leaders to be reckoned with. He is anything but anti-women. He is, if anything, ahead of his time.

    Perhaps the misconception that annoys Machiavellians everywhere is that Machiavelli's philosophies are of no use in this modern era. How could political philosophies written almost 500 years ago be of any use today? The political landscape is so different now, right?

    Wrong. Machiavelli is still very relevant today. He is just as relevant now as he ever was. He will also continue to be relevant until the whole world becomes one giant utopia. The reason for this is that Machiavelli's thinking is based on board games and card games that he played in his spare time, both of which have been around forever, and will continue to be around forever.

    Politics is one big game. The way you play the game is based on your way of thinking. Machiavelli bases these ways of thinking in two ways. First, there is the board game mentality. In pretty much every strategic board game (i.e. Chess, Checkers, Go, etc.) everyone starts out on equal footing. All players can see everything the others have and where they have them. Then the game is all about maneuvering. The first person to either make a mistake or be outmaneuvered is going to lose. This is the passive way of looking at politics, because playing this way usually relies on others to make a mistake in a maneuver that will end the match. Second, there is the card game mentality. In strategic card games (i.e. Bridge, Hold 'em Poker, some versions of Rummy, etc.) the players only see a small percentage of the cards around the table. Then the game is all about information or, in most cases, misinformation. Bids are placed to give information on what the other players have, or players simply say what they have in order to spread what they want. The player who does not decipher the information given correctly is going to lose. This is a more aggressive way of playing politics, as it you attack the others with the information you want, and they must sort it out or lose. This is a very different way of looking at politics, and yet it is very realistic.

    The two ways of thinking are how politics seem to work, but Machiavelli goes one step further. He also brings the most fickle of mistresses, Lady Luck, into the equation. Machiavelli is one of the first political philosophers to really deal with luck, and he definitely puts a high regard on it. Like in the games mentioned above, a master player can lose to a beginner due to luck. Just like in politics, an experienced leader can sometimes lose to a younger one because of events he cannot foresee. Machiavelli, in The Prince, even devotes a section to Luck, in which he claims, "[ . . . ] I hold it to be true that Fortune is the arbiter of one-half of our actions, but that she still leaves us to direct the other half, or perhaps a little less" (The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli). That is a powerful message indeed.

    As further proof that Machiavelli is still relevant, take a look at some modern examples. George W. Bush is a prime example. He is a man that takes what Machiavelli says to heart. He did not give the majority of the people a tax break, and eventually they will love him when he does. He is feared rather than loved. He is focusing on the armed forces primarily, and Machiavelli teaches that any leader not concentrating on war is not a leader, for war is more prevalent than peace. He even attacked Iraq at a time of his choosing, which is another thing that Machiavelli preaches: attack on your terms. Do not wait for the enemy, bring the fight to them. For as much as people make fun of George, at least he understands his Machiavelli.

    Bill Gates is also a rather brilliant Machiavellian. Not only is he a very, very good Bridge player (something Machiavelli would applaud), but he also showed the flexibility and ability to change that Machiavelli teaches those principles. Flexibility is needed to get to the top of the mountain, and Gates definitely had that, as his programming language, Basic, was developed to work for all computers available. The ability to change is important to stay on top, because the times change, and if the leader does not he will fail. Gates continues to develop and update his business as time goes on, and that is the key to his success.

    Bush and Gates are not just coincidences. Those who do not follow Machiavelli's teachings often fall out of power. Bill Clinton is an example of one who did not take his Machiavelli lessons seriously. Clinton used his position for his own satisfaction, as evidenced by the whole impeachment ordeal. He also did not think of war at all. Sure, he attacked Iraq, but he didn't finish the job. This is because he ordered his military to fight in way that would avoid casualties. This eliminates the chance of winning a fight. He even sold our advanced supercomputer technology to China, a foreign nation. Clinton just didn't know how to be a good leader.

    Newt Gingrich also falls into this category. He was a leader of the Republican Party that denounced the corruption of the Democrats. His winning of major office seemed inevitable until Bill Clinton (of all people!) used his own strategies against him. After this defeat, several Republican Party members were caught trying to get Gingrich out of the leadership position. Newt should have shown his power by kicking them out, but he let them stay. A leader must demonstrate his power sometimes in order to keep his power. Machiavelli teaches this, and so eventually Newt was voted down by his own party. How humiliating. All he had to do was listen to Machiavelli.

    Niccolo Machiavelli was a great man with some great ideas. Most of the predictions he made about politics have proven to be true. Unfortunately, most people do not understand what he is saying to the world. The key to understanding Machiavelli is seeing his teachings in action in the real world. He is not limited to politics. What he writes affects anyone in a leadership position. So do not misunderstand what he says, for if one wants to be a successful leader, one should read up. When one does that, he or she will see that Machiavelli has been right for the past 500 years.

Back to PsychoNoble Articles
    Back to PsychoNoble Home

Works Cited

Botha, Alwyn. The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli. March 3, 2002. November 22, 2003. www.the-prince-by-machiavelli.com
Gardner, John. Grendel. New York: Vintage Books, 1989.
Hundersmarck, Lawrence F. "Niccolo Machiavelli." Great Thinkers of the Western World. 1999. 133. InfoTrac. Online. Thomson  Gale. 1999.
Ledeen, Michael A. Machiavelli On Modern Leadership. New York: Truman Talley Books, 1999.
Rath, R. John. Machiavelli, Niccolo. The World Book Encyclopedia. 1960
Sun Tzu Art of War Strategy Site. November 22, 2003. <WWW.SONSHI.COM>
Thomas, Steve. Discourses, by Niccolo Machiavelli. The University of Adelaide Library Electronic Texts Collection. June 4, 2003. November 22, 2003. <ETEXT.LIBRARY.ADELAIDE.EDU.AU m m149d>