' The Prince '
Introduction
Many political thinkers often write about specific historical situations but, never succeed in making recommendations which apply to times other than their own. And, Niccolo Machiavelli must be one among those thinkers. The Prince, first written in 1513 and later published in 1532, marks him as one of the most questionable, enduring, and realistic political theorists of the modern worlds. In this short book Machiavelli undertakes to treat politics scientifically, judging men by an estimate of how in fact they behave as political animals rather than by ideal standards concerned with how they ought to act. In The Prince, Machiavelli presents a manual of advice on the winning and retention of power in a world containing extensive political factionalism, and dominion.In any case, what the prince does must fit the circumstances and the nature of his particular dominion. Not all princes should attempt to use the same methods. However, all princes must act in such a way. For example, according to Machiavelli, they should not postpone any war in order to avoid it. In political conflicts, time is neutral regarding the participants; it produces ‘indifferently either good or evil’.
There will be times when the ruler must govern subjects accustomed to living under laws of their own. Machiavelli suggests three methods of ruling these. First, the ruler can totally despoil them, as the Romans did to certain rebellious cities. Second, the ruler can make his residence among the subjects, hoping to keep down future rebellions. Third is that if the ruler does not chooses either of these alternatives, then, the ruler must permit the subjects to live under laws of their own, in this event he must exact tribute from them. If possible, he should also put control of the laws in the hands of few citizens upon whose loyalty he can trust. Machiavelli shows great interest in how men acquire their rule over possessions. Methods of ruling must be make adaptable to differences in manner of acquisition. For example, a ruler may obtain his power as a result of someone else’s abilities; or he may win power by his won abilities. Machiavelli judges the ‘do it yourself’ method as the surest. There is no substitute for princely merit. Also, the prince should command his own military forces without depending too heavily on aid from allied troops. The wise prince will imitate great personal modles, since life is primarily a matter of imitative behaviour.
The conditional nature of Machiavelli’s recommendations about seizing power becomes evident when he discusses the case of the prince who rises by the consent of his fellow citizens. This makes the most promising situation for a prince. But it does not happens in reality. Thus, this case cannot serve as a model. Chosen in such a manner, a prince need not fear that men will dare to oppose or to disobey him. ‘the worst a prince can fear from the people is that they will desert him’.
On the other hand, if his power stems from the nobility, the prince must fear both their possible desertion and their possible rebellion. In order to prepare for a rebellion, the people obviously require trained leaders. Thus, a prudent ruler supported by the people must attempt to retain their favour. A prince basically supported by the nobles can win over the people by making himself their protector. If he successes, he may end up stronger than the prince originally chosen by the people; for the people will appreciate the benefactor who guards them against internal oppression. Machiavelli is never so cynical as to argue that a wise prince can endlessly ignore the needs of his own people. Yet he justifies a concern for the people solely in terms of its value toward guaranteeing a continuing rule. Realistically, Machiavelli insists that the prince must lead an army. Force or the threat of force serves as the basis of the state. Times of peace should never be permitted to divert the ruler’s mind. In peaceful times the prudent ruler estimates future events. By thought and preparation he gets ready to meet such events.
Conclusion
The Prince stands as a classic example of realistic advice to rulers seeking unity and preservation of states. Its picture of human nature is somewhat cynical, viewing man as vacillation and in need of strong political direction. Yet the work is not modern in one sense; namely, it fails to discuss ideological aspects of large-scale political organisation. Machiavelli’s prince is one who must learn from experience. His wrote, at the end, that ruling is more like an art than like a science. What is somewhat modern is the realistic emphasis on tailoring political advice to the realisation of national ends whose moral value in not judged. Therefore, The Prince is a fascinating if sometimes shocking justification of the view that moral rules are not binding in the activities of political rulers.