Machiavelli’s point about the oppressor versus being oppressed is one that I have found to be brought up a lot in class discussions. I remember talking about how in order to be relieved from oppression, sometimes you must become the oppressor and I think that can tie into this topic because the article mentioned how if the prince seems to be too wish-y washy or even if they gain their prince-ship from family, they can be easily overturned and removed from power (I am absolutely not saying that oppression or anything is good lol just making that clear). Relating that more to leadership and being a good prince and the whole “being feared” idea, I think that in a way, it makes sense because for them to maintain power and control of the people, they can’t seem to be too persuasive and unsure of what they are doing. Basically, I agree that for a prince to be really effective, they do need to have a fear factor about them so that it keeps people in check and the people don’t want to go against him as long as he really is providing for them and they feel like they are being taken care of. I remember having teachers that I was so scared to talk to or make a mistake in front of just because the vibe of the classroom was so serious and down to business but I also remember that the teacher was one of the best I had had in the way that they taught and that is the point of going to school. We are there (or here) to learn and the retaining of the information is more important than if I was the teacher’s favorite or if they were fun.
I also thought the idea about causing chaos in order to gain control, or to at least seem like you are fixing the problem even though you really were the reason it all started. While this is definitely manipulation on the prince’s part in order to seem more put together, it clearly works because people use it now but usually in less serious matters. Even as demonstrations, someone may get people fired up about something and then make a statement that puts things into perspective which might not have been appreciated if the first person had not been as mad or angry.
In addition to being feared, I thought it was interesting that Machiavelli mentioned that a leader must “be able to maintain himself without depending on the fortunes or strength of others, but solely by his own power and ability” (110). This is a really important argument because if Princes depend on the liking of their followers and don’t show any sense of confidence or power, they will very likely not succeed.
Going off Luiza, another really important aspect of success is the prince’s ability to be considered merciful, not cruel, and I believe this only comes about when followers like and admire their leader for their ability to rule effectively, fairly, and using their own ideas/independently.
I think the point about manipulation is interesting consider even when most of Machiavelli’s points have become super outdated; leaders still oftentimes manipulate their followers whether it is for the common good or for personal gain. Manipulation is inevitable in a leader/follower relationship and is not inherently good or bad; the positive or negative connotation is a result of the leader’s intentions.