He acts as a mentor, a follower, an instructor, a motivator and a peer (Tucker, 2007). With regards to authority, both Machiavelli and Socrates believed that power should rest to a limited number of individual since political wisdom is not distributed evenly across the population. Machiavelli also believed that authority and power are equal and power does not only belong to those who are morally good (plato.stanford.edu). Socratic Method defined an ideal citizen as an ideal questioner and a life-long-learner while Machiavelli promoted a republican model of citizenship.
According to Machiavelli, a good leader has no room for weaknesses, thus, he should enhance and utilize virtues including risk taking, confidence and aggressiveness (Fuentes, 2008). This argument might not always be true since being a leader does not mean that one is invincible. A leader should always know the right time when to take risks and when to collect intelligent advices. With this, Socrates’ argument has a different point of view. For him, a leader should co-work with his subordinates. Rather than fully depend on him, a leader should let his subordinates be independent. He can empower selected individuals to do minor decisions and thus, lessening his burden (Tucker, 2007).
Machiavelli believed in strong political leadership founded on the concept of fear and system of coercion. A leader should do anything to ensure and sustain peace and order and do any measure to achieve security and stability. He should do constant planning and preparation wherein even in times of peace, he should not turn his mind from the study of war. He should always be on guard when it comes to his subordinates engaging in meaningful interactions among them in order to avoid problems that will later threaten the status of the organization (Fuentes, 2008). These arguments of Machiavelli may not hold for long. For one, fear is not a very good motivation for subordinates. As illustrated