“The Prince” is an extraordinary work by Nicolo Machiavelli that is timeless in its discussion on ruling nations. The fundamental question branches out to much of the discussion in “The Prince” is whether it is better for a ruler to be feared or loved. According to Machiavelli, it would be desired for a ruler to be able to balance his or her level of love and hatred from the country. However, Machiavelli believes that the nature of man is “ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, [and] covetous.
Therefore, Machiavelli says that it is safer to be feared. Yet, he does still give tremendous merit towards being loved. The final matter is that no matter what approach a ruler decides to take, he or she must remain faithful to that approach, make necessary adjustments, and follow the teachings of Machiavelli. There are two notable leaders that should be examined in discussion of Machiavellian ideals: French ruler, Napoleon Bonaparte and Syrian President, Bashar Al-Assad.
It is expected that Napoleon Bonaparte would eventually be deemed a Machiavellian ruler because he himself read “The Prince. ” Upon reading “The Prince”, Napoleon would have been exposed to the numerous characteristics that Machiavelli believed that although unnecessary to exhibit all of them, are “very necessary to appear to have them. ” There were three Machiavellian principles that Napoleon exhibited very well that allowed him to have the prosperous reign that he had. The first characteristic is that he was man of war.
Machiavelli writes, “A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank. ” Indeed, Napoleon was a military genius, one of the greatest the world has ever seen. In the modern age, military commanders still study his strategies. Napoleon had an extensive reach on the dynamics of the battlefield.
He would have made actions that a division leader would have made for his group for the entire battlefield. Furthermore, Napoleon developed great emphasis on speed and flexibility in his army. Because his army exhibited these qualities very well, he was able to keep opposing forces in state of uneasiness. These two features of Napoleon’s military deemed to be successful for his campaigning. The second characteristic is he maintained the respect of his people. For example, Napoleon’s personality allowed him to inspire his military. He understood the importance of morale.
His military system consisted of addressing the interests of the soldiers and the bestowing of awards and honors. The last characteristic, which is connected with the previous one, is that Napoleon was constantly aware of the people who he surrounded himself with. Machiavelli suggests “there will always be in doubtful times a scarcity of men whom he can trust. ” Napoleon’s system of rewards kept his officers whom were integral to his reign loyal to him. Napoleon could be assured that the men he kept around him could be trusted as he tried to fulfill his personal ambitions.
On the subject of ambition, this is why Machiavelli stressed that rulers should at least seem to possess the characteristics he outlined. Napoleon was a greedy and ambitious leader. His eventual decline in his success in conquering land can be attributed to the way that he exhausted France’s resources to support his military. Despite of this, because he was a man of great ingenuity in military combat and he maintained a desirable amount of love from the nobles, he was able to rule like a successful Machiavellian prince would.
In the modern day, there is no greater example of a ruler that violating Machiavellian ideals other than President Bashar al-Assad. It is due to his actions that one of the worst civil wars seen in history is unfolding. In 2011, pro-democracy protests surfaced in Syria after the detaining and torturing of a group of teenagers who painted revolutionary slogans on a school wall. Immediately, the people of Syria demanded the resignation of al-Assad. Machiavelli wrote that subjects should either be loved or crushed.
However, he also mentioned that rulers should “avoid being hated by every one, and when they cannot compass this, they ought to endeavour with the utmost diligence to avoid the hatred of the most powerful. ” He should have resigned as the people demanded him too or peacefully respond to an initially peaceful protest. Assad had brought unnecessary hatred on himself when he chose to quell the Syrian protests and crisis the way he did. For example, it is presumed that Assad gassed his own civilians in Ghouta in 2013.
Additionally, since the beginning of the civil war, Assad has been releasing terrorist prisoners to delegitimize the movement. Thus, the Assad regime has lost one of the most important aspects according to Machiavelli—the support of the people. Moreover, Machiavelli specifically warned against the introduction of foreign powers. Assad has allowed what started as a civil war to a sectarian war between the Shiites and the Sunnis and a proxy war between the United States, the Gulf States, Hezbollah, Iran, and Russia.
With these multiple foreign powers in play in Syria, how can peace ever ensue? Each of these entities are also backing and attacking different groups in the sectarian war. Sometimes, these backings and attacking are unclear themselves. For example, it has repeatedly been brought into question of who Russia is siding with, the Assad regime or the U. S led coalition. Ultimately, the Assad regime has left Syria in a perpetual state of distrust and confusion. “The Prince” has been considered to be a work of satire.
However, history seems to suggest that the teachings that Machiavelli presents in it have legitimate effects to them. Those that adhered to them, like Napoleon Bonaparte, have profited well. However, those that disregard the instruction end up creating unintended and unprecedented consequences similar to the debacle of the Assad regime. Therefore, though written in 1513, “The Prince” is timeless in its advice to rulers as its ramifications are clearly seen.
