Fear, to a great extent, breathes life to a story we tell ourselves. The power to demand loyalty by inducing fear is one that holds advantages over love. Machiavellian values tend to take shape in our lives whether from politicians or people in our daily commute. Niccolo Machiavelli, while not Machiavellian himself, it remains arguable that the qualities of Machiavellianism extend out to all manners of people put under stress from the real world.
In retrospect, historians and philosophers alike point out the human nature of shifting sides when situations turn unfavorable. Machiavelli does not shy away when exhibiting “how historians and philosophers often fault the people for inconstancy” (McCormick, 724). “For pledging allegiance to a prince one minute and then cheering for liberty the next” (McCormick, 724). “People may claim to want one thing or another -in taverns, in their homes or on the street- but that they often choose something quite different when they are formally empowered to deliberate and decide within the bounds of assemblies.” (McCormick, 725). “Institutions that formerly empower the people to make decisions themselves, Machiavelli suggests, allow the people to clarify their preferences and moderate their impulses.” (McCormick, 726). “Machiavelli insists that the people both freely discuss and directly decide legislative and judicial matters in their assembles” (McCormick, 724). This expands on Machiavelli’s claim that a non-democratic government frequently causes people to grow indecisive. When people eventually settle on a certain side, they immediately proceed to the opposition in a matter of short notice when everything goes south. With democracy, people can freely communicate their opinions without worrying about the choices of their peers.
From history to modern times, some contemporary leaders may act with no regard for ethical norms. The article “The Machiavelli Measure: Which modern Leaders Fit the Definition?” challenges how today’s politicians fit “some Machiavellian criteria, but falls short on others.” (Barnard, 2). “Trump doesn’t mind a bit of deceit when it suits his purpose, and he certainly doesn’t apologize for telling lies.” (Barnard, 2). “Rodrigo Duterte has embraced at least one element of Machiavellianism. His zero tolerance policy on drugs and other crime is nothing short of ruthless.” (Barnard, 2). “Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and China’s Xi Jinping are clever politicians… They’re ambitious, exploit opportunities, and have managed to manipulate the systems under which they work to their own advantage.” (Barnard, 2) A manipulative leader “rises to the top political position. He lets nothing stand in the way of his ambition and yet he turns out to be an effective leader, enabling good things to happen economically and socially, charming his constituents along the way.” (Barnard, 1). Today’s modern leaders do possess Machiavellian characteristics. By way of illustration, when any political position brings with it a set of responsibilities, they can accede to opportunities for abuse in power. Politicians can follow unorthodox methods when leading their country with some of their actions ranging from questionable to downright illegal to remind people how to fear. The same systems used to elect a leader in some of these instances hold loopholes or can become manipulated to a politician’s liking to ensure that they stay in influence for an extended period of time.
Looking past the leaders of modern times, humans since their existence have remained tempted to display Machiavellian values when left unchecked. Under circumstances, everyone displays Machiavellian values from time to time; the human nature of committing immoral deeds exists, but with moral guidelines established within society, people choose to remain civil. Humans fall susceptible to healthy practices as much for faulty ones when “so many things unite” (Machiavelli, 2532) appearing beneficial, but healthy practices, for the sake of social acceptance, remain held onto. Free will exists, and everyone exhibits the capabilities of either keeping to ourselves or inflicting harm on adversaries “revered and worthy of admiration” (Machiavelli, 2533). Detachment is a part of everyone’s lives; people need solitude every now and then. When left to their vices, people can constitute invidious schemes that befall naturally and thus “unable to resist” (Machiavelli, 2533) temptation. The existence of society emboldens us to fall align with traditions and societal norms that mold us into acting civil attributable to a system of checks and balances. Jealousy, a normal human emotion, oftentimes becomes bottled up for two reasons: reputation and stability. Whenever certain individuals receive credit for anything, their actions introduce the option of bystanders to feel envious and could choose so to sacrifice their social standing for the purposes of inflicting harm on the same individuals. Whenever people carry on their lives alone, they’re receiving a lack of judgment and therefore can come up with ill-intent plots, unless surrounded by daily social interactions.
Thus, humanity showcases susceptibility to both the good and the bad, or else we wouldn’t remain human. To take away from this, people in political positions hold the power to commit immoral deeds that qualify as Machiavellian, but the same remains said for the everyday person. What society can take away from this is one’s capabilities to unethical tendencies; channeling Machiavellian virtues into practice can cause adverse effects, namely, inhibiting positive growth, and inviting unwanted attention from adversaries.
Works Cited
Barnard, Loretta. “The Machiavelli Measure: Which Modern Leaders Fit the Definition?” The Big Smoke, The Belleford Group Pty Ltd, 2018, 1-3, thebigsmoke.com/2018/05/24/the-machiavelli-measure-which-modern-leaders-fit-the-definition/.
Machiavelli, Niccolo “The Prince.” Norton Anthology of World Literature: Second Edition, Ed. Peter Simon, W.W. Norton & Company, 2009, 2532-2534
McCormick, John “Subdue The Senate: Machiavelli’s “Way of Freedom” or Path to Tyranny?” Political Theory, Vol. 40, No. 6, Sage Publications, Inc., 2012, 714-735