(iPoster) Machiavelli and His (Comparative) Evaluation of Republics and Dictatorships

• In Event: Poster Session: Foundations of Political Theory 2 (Historical) & Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations
  In Poster Session: Poster Session: Foundations of Political Theory 2 (Historical)

Abstract

Machiavelli and the dark prince. ‘His’ is seemingly the voice from the shadows tempting those with insatiable political ambition to give into their desires with abandon. This idea is, however, challenged by the fact that even the oft repeated Machiavellian maxim – ‘it is better to be feared than loved’ – is a question of which is better. Indeed, his conclusion is that a leader should be both. If they are unable, being feared is safer. While deeming non-democracies as more reliably maintained, Machiavelli’s wider text is moreover unrelenting in its insistence that a relationship must exist between the government and the people, whatever the political form. Machiavelli’s conception of good leadership is thus more nuanced than is often understood and/or credited to him. Exploring this premise, this paper explores Machiavelli’s work contextually and highlights that his advice was meant for leaders in the pre-modern world, where legitimacy was applied to the sovereign and assessed according to each leader’s virtues / vices. The intention is to show that Machiavelli’s criticism engages specific aspects of the governmental exercise(s) of authority/power, not a specific type of government. Employing aspects of New Criticism, this paper employs a comparative content analysis of Machiavelli’s The Prince and Discourses to see how (and why) Machiavelli’s discussion of political terms and concepts – leadership, power / authority, liberty, and corruption – is still relevant in modern politics. The conclusion: Machiavelli’s side-by-side concepts and analysis of republics and dictatorships are not mutually exclusive, rather they are two sides to the same coin. By comparing Machiavelli’s competing arguments on the subject, this paper explores the strengths (and weaknesses) of both forms of government in the pursuit of a deeper insight into leadership in all forms of government. It accordingly argues that many passages from the Discourses – and even The Prince – can be associated with ‘social contract theory,’ or at least the presentiment thereof. It further emphasizes Machiavelli’s clear warning that political corruption is a threat to the longevity of any form of political leadership, thus reminding modern readers that political systems are fluid, not static, and that everyone within society must accept certain responsibilities to ensure that their system remains legitimate, stable and prosperous.

Author

• Carol R. Strong, University of Arkansas, Monticello