In Machiavelli’s The Prince, one line in particular stuck out to me: “One, however, who becomes prince by favour of the populace, must maintain its friendship, which he will find easy, the people ask nothing but not to be oppressed” (113). I found this interesting because it goes directly contrary to how we thought of monarchies before this point. In England, if a person came into power legally (bloodline, designation, conquest), he would be a legal ruler regardless of the people’s preferences. The idea of needing the approval of the people reminds me of American democracy. To rise into the any political office requires the “favour of the populace,” but a person can only stay in that position if they can continue to maintain approval.
Another portion of the reading that caught my attention was on page 123 where Machiavelli talked about appearances versus actuality. He says that princes only need to appear as if they have the true qualities of a prince, and it does not matter whether they actually possess them or not. This reminded me of our discussion on charisma and whether it can be learned behavior versus inherent. Basically, our conclusion was that we ourselves cannot know unless we know the leader personally. Machiavelli says exactly this, that princes need to present himself with mercy, faith, humanity, sincerity, and religion, and only these 5 things, and his own qualities or personality traits do not matter.
Your second point stood out to me because it made me think of how toxic charismatics manipulate their followers. If like Machiavelli says, it is only necessary for a leader to appear to possess the qualities of a prince, then a toxic charismatic could pretend to have them in order to manipulate people and gain power. It also made me think of something that we talked about in my class yesterday, which is that all leaders have to lie to their followers at some point, but if they are successful then the followers will not hold it against them.
I was also reminded of our discussion of charisma and appearances while reading this piece. I think it’s fascinating that someone in the 1500s could make an observation that is still true today – it doesn’t matter who you actually are, how people perceive you is all that matters. People really don’t seemed to have changed in the past 5 centuries in many ways.
The second point you made to me reminded me of something we discussed in class on Tuesday. We talked about how political candidates often claim they are going to do many things and present themselves a certain way during an election, but in reality are much different. It seems as if we are constantly being lied to but can never tell.
Adding to your first point on the quote: “One, however, who becomes prince by favour of the populace, must maintain its friendship, which he will find easy, the people ask nothing but not to be oppressed” (113). I found it a little funny how the author said “easy.” A lot of times in history when more lax rule comes around after upheaval, it’s easy until that leader dies. Then things get difficult and murky all over again. Kinda like post-Cromwell England up until William and Mary. And, as we mentioned in class, the reason for this is that public opinion is fickle. Which Machiavelli is aware of (thus why fear is better than love… to him).