Machiavelli The prince - Essay Example

Although some scholars perceive his theories as real and well grounded, there is a lot of opposition to the kind of power that Machiavelli advocates for. In reality, Machiavelli, in his political theories, propounded a doctrine of evil, contrary to the expectation of the contemporary political democracy. Machiavelli claims that naturally political leaders are bound to offend those who they govern to gain power over them and be able to control them. He explicitly states that there is a natural and ordinary necessity that “… one must always offend those over whom he becomes a prince…” to express his regard for the need of offense to exercise power over the citizens in a political sphere (8).

Many critics have argued that these words of Machiavelli point out to a domineering kingship which ensures that the subjects of political systems are subdued to the worship of the king. In other words, the best king is one who is able to induce fear among his subjects to make them obedient and abiding to his leadership strategies. In the contemporary political systems, there is more criticism of autocratic leadership and use of force, torture or cruelty to suppress the opinions or ideas of the public.

Democrats have advocated that leaders be more considerate of the public opinions to formulate a more integrative leadership and better governing principles. Reflecting on the words of Machiavelli, he is a proponent of evil leadership, a leadership that has no place in the modern political systems. Another reason why Machiavelli has been criticized as a preacher of evil is because of his advocacy for use of brute force rather than diplomacy in conquering enemies. He employs an analogical reference of the leadership of Moses and Cyrus who were both, in his opinion, armed with a force to drive their nations to success.

Machiavelli provides that leaders have two options, either to beg to use force, yet he warns that “In the first case they always come to ill and never accomplish anything….” (23). Here, he suggests that leaders have to use force while handling their enemies otherwise they are doomed to fail. The evil that Machiavelli preaches here is that all nations rise against their enemies, engage their armed forces to conquer their enemies. Contemporarily, diplomacy is perceived to be a superior tool in initiating crisis management between rivalry countries.

In modern political systems, the principles of Machiavelli seem to be completely inverted version of successful leadership. Today engagement of forces among rivalry countries is an in formidable evil that cannot be tolerated in the political spheres. From his theory, mercy, faith and love are sources of weaknesses of in political leaders and hatred, cruelty and exploitation are admirable in leadership. Machiavelli points out that the combat skills of a leader depend on their ability to use force and laws to maintain faith in the public domain.

While recognizing that use of laws is more human and that use of forces is meant for animals, he proposes that both be engaged in political leadership. He commends that it is best to choose “…the fox and the lion…” because a prudent leaders should not show faith to the people (69). Critics have found a lot of evil in this statement that presumes that a