Is there more truth to Machiavelli’s Prince than we like to think?
What Machiavelli can teach us about leadership today
In 1513, a Florentine diplomat by the name Niccolò Machiavelli wrote The Prince. The book was a gift for the new monarch of Florence with advice on how to lead, but the style of leadership Machiavelli advocated for has been causing controversy ever since.
In this post, I want to explore Machiavelli’s arguments on what makes good leadership, whether there is any truth to his arguments, and if there is anything we can learn from his philosophy.
What did Machiavelli say?
When Machiavelli wrote his work, the traits of a good leader were widely agreed upon honesty, courage, empathy and morality. Yet Machiavelli didn’t agree: a good ruler was one who maintained stability in their nation. There was nothing more important, and Machiavelli thought that nothing was off the table to preserve it, which explains one of the most famous quotes from The Prince:
“It is better to be feared than loved if you cannot have both.”
Machiavelli paints a ruthless, cut-throat style of leadership where the ends justify the means of maintaining stability and keeping order, though Machiavelli also points out the importance of keeping a good appearance and maintaining the support of the people, for one person can’t lead by themselves:
“Furthermore, a prince can never secure himself against a hostile people, as they are too many”
Machiavelli uses the analogy of two animals to describe the traits needed for a good leader: one must be intelligent and sly like a fox to implement effective policies and recognise the problems facing them, whilst also being fierce like a lion to keep everyone in check and prevent being undermined.
Is there any truth to his words?
Today, ‘Machiavellian’ means to be sly, dishonest or acting duplicitously to win power or control, and it is perhaps not a surprise due to his remorseless ideas on ruling.
Since its publication, most have dismissed Machiavelli’s unscrupulous and cunning ideas on how to rule, and rightly so: following some of Machiavelli’s most extreme ideas would lead to a society built on dishonesty, distrust, violence and fear.
Yet despite our widespread dismissal of Machiavelli’s ruthless means, examples of his philosophy continue to appear in the news today: this week, Joe Biden said he would defend Taiwan if China attacked, and asserted “China, Russia and the rest of the world knows we’re the most powerful military in the history of the world”.
American foreign policy rhetoric has always been fierce when the country’s authority or security is challenged, whether that’s Trump’s threat in 2017 to meet North Korea with “fire and fury like the world has never seen” or Biden’s threat this August after the terrorist attack in Kabul “To those who carried out this attack, as well as anyone who wishes America harm, know this: We will not forgive. We will not forget. We will hunt you down and make you pay.”
It is clear that politics today still revolves heavily around Machiavelli’s philosophy that it is better to be feared than loved, with nations being very careful to maintain a tough image towards anyone thinking of undermining them, despite the potential escalation and violence this could bring.
So, why after 500 years of condemnation, has humanity failed to move past Machiavelli’s guide to politics?
To answer this question, I think we must return to the context of when Machiavelli was writing. Italy in the early 1500s was divided into small city-states controlled by other European powers. There were frequent brutal conflicts over land and resources, and during Machiavelli’s lifetime, the ruler of Florence changed almost ten times. His work as a diplomat allowed him to see and experience the horrors of instability, and it is why Machiavelli became fixated by it.
Without stability, citizens are left in a constant state of war, violence and anarchy meaning living a prosperous, peaceful and fulfilling life is impossible, which is why Machiavelli deemed it acceptable to use dubious means to maintain stability.
This, I believe remains the main reason we have so far been unable to escape Machiavelli’s politics. It is why nations that pride themselves on their morals and values, such as the United States, still resort to violence and employ such a massive military to keep order and stability, which without, they argue the world will burn.
Without appearing fierce and firm, those willing to do harm and evil would have nothing deterring them from acting.
What we can learn from Machiavelli about leadership?
Does this mean Machiavelli is right then? Does this mean that to keep life good and stable for many, a leader is condemned to use disreputable means to keep the real evil in check?
If this is the case, it certainly paints a very bleak picture of the world and politics — where all we seem to do is substitute one evil for a lesser evil, but I think there is reason to believe there is more to leadership than this.
The most promising bit of evidence is that we rely on these means far less than we used to. Politics (albeit slowly) is becoming more ethical, with fewer wars, bloodshed and corruption while more peaceful methods are pursued. There is still a long way to go, but when we consider the state of the world 100 years ago, the political climate feels far less violent today, at least in parts of the world.
So what has changed over the last 100 years which has led to the reduction in violence? I believe it is that leadership has become more empathetic with those on the other side.
The only way we can break Machiavelli’s curse of using violence to stop more violence is by tackling the root causes that create the threats today. To stop future wars, we need to work on tackling the deep inequality across the globe that continues to create discontent, which can easily morph into violence. Instead, we must be more empathetic with the struggles others face and proactive to people’s problems before it turns violent.
Whilst it is still true a leader must be intelligent like a fox to implement effective measures and fierce like a lion to prevent being undermined and deter those from doing wrong — I think there is one more animal a good leader has to be: empathetic like an elephant (which is considered to be one of the world’s most empathic species).
It doesn’t matter whether you are leading a small team in a business or you are a Leader of the Free World, being a good leader means being able to help those you lead realise their full potential — which you can only do by being intelligent, firm and empathetic. By being empathetic and trying to solve the root cause of the problems, not only are you helping those you are leading become happier and more productive, but also ensuring you (as a leader) remain well-respected and keep a good relationship with those you lead.
What do you think? Are we condemned to an endless cycle of violence? What can we do to reduce our reliance on Machiavelli’s means? How important is empathy in leadership? I would love to know your thoughts in the comments below.
