Renaissance Lit Discussion Question #2 – The Prince
March 26, 2009 by mswilson
Should a leader be above the rules or should they be expected to adhere to the same laws their citizens obey? (Again – when answering this question please give me your thoughts and what Machiavelli would say.)
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
In our society that we live in today, all of us (no matter who it is) is definitly expected to follow all the rules and regulations that are followed by the citizens. Although in reality there are many spots that we try and not see, in theory everyone is to follow the rules set. Machiavelli would say that a leader would have exceptions and that he will be able to do what is necessary to keep the powers that he has and prevent others from getting it. Those that are loyal to be awarded and kept close and those that are dangerous should be excutionated. There is no such thing as “bad” when it comes to living (holding power) or death.
I Believe that it would be necessary and morally correct for the leader to follow the same rules as his citizens. If he did not, then he would easily be criticized as a hypocrite and no longer gain the support he once had from his people. It makes me question, weather a prince seeking to gain total political control would want to be seen more superior than his people, by using all his power to contradict his rules for greater success, OR that the leader in which states these laws should be forced to follow them as well, thus lowering his stride of accomplishments in his power. Machiavelli would say that it would be more important for a leader to follow the same laws as his citizens becuase by not doing so, the power would come off as a tyrant- like image, no longer possess the supporters of his followers, and possibly losing the expectations of taking part in political control.
A leader is a person who is chosen to lead by example and to show others that if rules are followed then harmony will follow. A leader is last person who should above the rules of anything, especially those that their citizen are forced to follow. If the Presidant of the United States was commiting insider trading crimes and got away with it there might be a riot. The people who we expect to lead are held to higher standerd because they must have more concern with their duties than their personal gain.
Machiavelli would not so much agree with me, he was much more concerned with the sustaining of power no matter what the cost. He did not have the same sense of dutie a modern leader has, his main concern was his ability to remain in his position of power and if that required breaking the law Im sure that he would not hessitate.
A leader should adhere to the same laws as their citizens. If a leader was to disobey the same laws as the citizens he would be putting himself in a position that would destroy him. No matter how long it has been since the state was obtained, rebellions will always revive the legacy of ancient institutions and concepts of former liberty, even if the state has benefited from the prince’s rule. In order for a Prince to get the people’s consent he will need to get them on his side. Not obeying the laws will have many angry people and nobles going against him. A prince created by the people must retain the people’s friendship. A prince created by the nobles must still try to win over the people’s affection, because they can use as protection from aggressive nobles. Kindness is the best way to maintain the consent of the people. If people expect hostility from a prince but instead receive kindness and favors, they feel a great obligation to their prince. Machiavelli would argue that people in such states are used to obedience and do not know how to live in freedom without having someone to rule over them. Therefore, the new prince can win the province and hold onto it more easily.
I think a leader should follow the laws however, if they have a very i mean a very good reason to go above them then they should. Because each leader will always bring in something in to change the nation/ society. Machiavelli would agree with me i think. Because their is a chapter in the book that he uses two different leaders as an examples. One from the past and one from a recent time (recent time for Machiavelli) and both of those leaders had their own opion about things because of how they grew up, in a different type of society that made them who they were when they were older. So I think each leader should follow the laws but in only certian situations that it is allowed for them to be a bit above.
In my opinion, all rulers and figures of authority should have to adhere to the rules and regulations of the society in question. This way, the people will most likely feel no need to revolt or start a new nation, because even if the laws are unfair, everyone has to deal with them. this creates a sense of comradeship between the subjects of rule and the rulers. In addition to this, if the rulers do not have to answer for their wrongdoings, they will feel as if they can continue on their evil path, and therefore will not stop. As John Dalberg-Acton said “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Therefore it must have checks and balances on it to keep rulers in their place. Machiavelli would probably argue that leaders need to have more power than subjects and that it is okay to impose cruel measures on people to gain and secure power. He would argue that cruel acts are necessary to control the public and keep people in line, therefore arguing that no, rulers do not have to adhere to the same laws as citizens.
My view:
Certainly not. A ruler should NEVER be above the law. There are three times when a ruler is above the law:
1) In an improperly, unethically, and, on occasion, illegally run Republic (*cough*cough* Bush Administration *cough*cough*) where the rulers break established laws (i.e. sanctioning unconstitutional warrant-less wiretapping of civilians, violating established international and national laws by permitting torture of detainees, outing CIA agents, corruptly handing out contracts to favored business in an unnecessary war, et cetera) willy-nilly without any legal consequences.
[Goodness, what a screed]
2) An autocracy, an inherently unethical governmental structure, where the laws of the nation are the RULER’S laws, rather than those of the state. He cannot be held accountable for his actions because they’re HIS laws. The citizenry thereby have no recourse when their natural rights are violated (ex: Hussein’s Iraq, Lukashenko’s Belarus, Kim’s Korea, SPDC Myanmar, Bainimarama’s Fiji, etc)
3) A nation whose leaders have managed to convince/intimidate the citizenry into supporting their descent into lawlessness and immorality (Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s USSR, Robespierre’s France, Mussolini’s Italy, Milosevic’s Yugoslavia, al-Bashir’s Sudan, Khomeini’s Iran, etc). In making the majority of the populace into accomplices, they have protected themselves from being held accountable for their often-horrifying actions.
Leaders who are forced to live by their own laws are able to better sympathize with the citizenry they govern, and are able to be held accountable when the violate the citizenry’s natural rights.
Machiavelli’s View:
As Machiavelli does not seem to be too concerned with ethics, but rather on keeping power as an autocratic “Prince,” he would find it much more convenient for a prince to NOT be exempt to his own laws, as doing so would prevent him from being held accountable and losing power. While unethical, it is certainly easier to stay in power when one is beholden to no one.
Speaking from the point of view of a citizen of a nation, instead of as a leader, I would have to say that allowing rulers to bend their own laws would be extremely foolish. If rulers are above the influence of the law, then they are free to abuse their existing power or even seize more power. As Adrain’s quote states, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Leaders, no matter what their status, must always be held accountable for their actions.
Some may argue that certain situations warrant a bit of rule-breaking. My response to this would be that, for a government to be successful and just, the laws would have to be created to encompass all of these situations. For example, our own government allots the president certain powers during wartime which he would not normally have. The law is formatted so that the leader is allowed the power he needs in order to protect the nation under strenuous circumstances. A nation must have laws which take into account such extenuating circumstances. This ensures that the law will never have to be broken in order to protect the welfare of the nation.
Machiavelli does not speak for the citizens of a nation. His theories never take into account the welfare of the people; “The Prince” was created for the sole purpose of teaching leaders how to gain and maintain as much power as possible. Christian Gauss’s introduction clearly states, “It is only a slight exaggeration to say that the role of the prince is to direct this force [of the state] according to the principles which in essence are very much like those by which the scientist directs the course of a guided missile. There is no inherent purpose in the state. Any direction it may receive must be imposed upon it by its ruler” (16). Machiavelli does not think that a ruler has any moral imperative to abide by his own law. He does not feel a ruler should have to answer to the expectations and principles of his people, since his people are really just an extraneous aspect of his power.
Machiavelli is pretty obsessed with this idea of gaining and retaining power. I think he would say that if it was necessary for a leader to break a rule that his citizens are supposed to follow to maintain power then it would be acceptable. He says that if a ruler has the respect and love of his people he will be more successful that a leader who rules strictly by force. People are more liable to respect a leader who follows the rules that they lay down for their people, so it would be helpful to the ruler if they at least attempted to follow the laws of the land. At the same time, he has no problem with countries taking over weaker ones and halting the increase of power of the stronger ones, so following the laws might be considered a bit of a hinderance. I think he would like his rulers to be as fair as they can to the people, but the stability of the country is most important, and if in order to maintain stability the ruler had to consider himself above the law, then so be it.
In today’s day and age, a leader should be expected to adhere to the same laws as citizens. Despite the power of a leader, under no circumstance should they violate any laws. If a leader has a problem with a law (within reason), then the issue should be discussed and solved, instead of assuming a leader has the power to violate the laws. There is no reason why a leader should be above the law, even in dire circumstances. Today’s laws protect the citizen and if a leader was to violate the law, then they are directly impacting the citizens. Law and morals, at least in my opinion, are two very close matters. The ability to follow laws is very much part of what one considers their morals, and a leader that doesn’t have good morals should not be allowed to lead. If a leader and a citizen break the law, they should be forced to face the consequences, regardless of position and power.
Machiavelli, however, would most likely disagree with my opinion. He believes that a leader is above the people for a reason, and therefore should be allowed to do whatever they deem necessary. Machiavelli is not concerned with ethics or morals, but instead maintaining a position of power. In his opinion, a leader is above the citizens and therefore laws don’t apply. Power is the main focus of Machiavelli’s concepts, and by breaking laws, a leader is able to exert their extreme power over the people.
Machiavelli believes that a leader should be above the rules and regulations that are in place for his people. He says, “’notes how much more praise those emperors merited who, after Rome became an empire, conformed to the laws like good princes, than those who took the opposite course; and he will see that Titus, Nerca, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius and Marcus Aurelius did not require the Praetorians nor the multitudinous legions to defend them, because they were protected by their own good conduct, the good will of the people and the love of the Senate” (30). This sows that Machiavelli feels that a good leader should follow the rules because he will be granted the most important powers of all: consent of the people and the Senate. So, in this, he says that the leader should follow the laws that are set for the citizens because he will achieve power that way anyway. If he follows the laws he has set for these people, they will be able to appreciate his rule more and then he ultimately gets his power. However, Machiavelli says later that the Prince can be allowed to act in a manner that he normally would not in order to sustain power in, for example, a new territory. He believes that, in order to preserve order in a newly acquired territory, a leader need to smash the opposition in order to hold on to his power. Essentially, the question of whether the Prince is subject to the laws of a citizen comes down to preservation of power and that a leader should choose the way that achieves and retains him the most power. So, the ruler is above the law sometimes, and this is only to get a firmer grasp on his power.
I basically agree with Machiavelli in this because a leader should follow the laws that he hands down for his people, but there are certain situations where this is different. For example, war and national security are times where I believe certain laws can be broken by the leader, in order to keep the people safe. That does not mean that he can run rampant or invade privacy or anything like that. It just means that, at certain times, a leader might need to be allowed to break a few rules. Keep in min d that when we talk about a leader, we are not talking about a citizen so the laws don’t seem to apply as well. Machiavelli was concerned more with the preservation of power, whereas I think that today we would be more concerned with National security or the safety of the people. So the leader should follow the laws that the rest of the citizens must follow, but things concerning safety give that a little bit of flexibility. Some times, in order to do this, the leader must bend laws and maybe break them, but it is all for the good of the people.
When someone becomes a leader, he or she becomes a symbol of the people and to the people, meaning that he or she has taken the responsibility to act as a good and law-abiding individual. While it is true that he or she may be way above everyone else in power, that does not mean that they should be above the law. If a ruler was considered to be above the law, that is simply asking them to break it because they know that there would be no consequences. Like Morgan said before, it is an invitation for abusing their power. In a just nation, if a leader does something wrong, he or she must be punished according to the laws that he or she has set down. In an unjust nation, a leader would be able to do anything he or she wanted without having to answer to anyone or anything; there would be nothing there to tell them what was right or wrong. A leader should never be above the laws that he or she sets for their people, he or she should be a perfect example of abiding by those laws.
Machiavelli would say that a leader needs to abide by the rules that he or she sets down in order to maintain their power and the respect of their people. “Note how much more praise those Emperors merited who, after Rome became an empire, conformed to the laws like good princes (Machiavelli, 30).” This goes back to the question between ethics and stability from last week. It would be ethical for a prince to act by the laws he has put forth; if he does so, his nation remains stable. However, if a prince chooses to act outside of the law because he believes he is above it, people will no longer respect him as a ruler; when people no longer respect their ruler, we have anarchy. All-out rebellion will follow when a ruler does not abide by his country’s laws. Machiavelli is saying that as long as a ruler is smart, “he knows that his social nature and need involves a code of conduct which is, of course, a moral code (Machiavelli, 29).” He is stating the honest fact that a leader, just as in maintaining stability, needs to act in accordance with a shining moral code meaning he must obey any and all laws that he sets down or that have been set down before him.
A leader should absolutely be required to abide by the same rules of the rest of society. In order to lead a group of any size, whether it be a small group of individuals or an entire empire, it is necessary to set a good example. When leaders go behind the people’s backs for their own personal gain or to support their own personal opinions (as opposed to doing what is best for the nation) they more-likely-than-not will inevitably (for lack of a better work) screw themselves over royally.
Take for example a leader of our country just over 50 years ago, Richard M. Nixon. Despite the good he did for this nation, for instance his success in U.S. foreign policy, his accomplishments have become widely overshadowed in many Americans’ minds due to his disgraceful conduct concerning the infamous Watergate Scandal. This is a perfect example of a leader abusing his powers. In a famous interview with David Frost, Nixon boldly stated that when the President of the United States commits a crime, it is not illegal. This kind of attitude not only enrages the people and reduces their faith in their government when it becomes public, but sets a bad precedent which makes successors even more likely to press their luck and abuse their power.
I think Tom managed to cite quite a few examples from all over the world and from all different time periods which just goes to show that people never learn from the mistakes of others. Machiavelli however, when writing The Prince, was attempting to do just that, highlight the mistakes of others so that the prince of his dedication (Lorenzo di Medici) would be more aware to not make the mistakes of others before him. Do I believe that Machiavelli felt the same as I do, that leaders should not be above the law? I believe so. However, personally I feel as though Machiavelli was a good observer and understood that princes and other leaders of his time had more than enough power to silence any views opposing their own. Even if his leader was clearly ignoring his own laws, I doubt Machiavelli would outright condemn this behavior. This also factors in with our previous question between corruption and stability. I stand by my earlier opinion that stability can only come from a sound government and feel as though Machiavelli would support my claim. In order to have the more successful government, a leader should have to act just as ethically as everyone else is expected to.
A leader is supposed to follow the rules of the land. If he/she does not, then the people of the country will not have an example, or see any reason to follow these rules. This breaks down the system of ethics and morality which can then destabilize a country. If rulers do not follow the law this could make a big rift between the people and government. This is not the way to rule. Most great rulers appear to be just like average people, but they are gifted leaders and communicators. The way to stay in power is to connect with your constituents, and the most basic way of doing that is obeying the law.
*correction* in the third-to-last line of my post, replace the words “exempt from” with “subject to.”
I believe that a leader should be expected to adhere to the same laws that their citizens obey. A leader is strongest when they lead by example. Citizens are motivated by their leader’s actions. If citizens see that their leader doesn’t act in a certian way, why should they? A leader’s behavior towards the laws helps to motivate others to follow. A leader should be held to the highest standard of following the laws, because they are somewhat the face and the symbol of the people. A leader should be the one who follows the laws the closest to help motivate others to do so. For example, it would be unfair if the President of the United States did not have to follow the same laws that American citizens have to. The President would therefore be above the law. It is like in Kris’s example about Nixon. Nixon felt that because he was President, when comminting a crime, it was not illegal. This statement and what Nixon did to abuse his powers, changed how society viewed him, he was also going to be impeached but stepped down insteand and lost his power due to his actions.
Machiavelli would strongly disagree with my opinion because he feels that a leader is actually above the people he rules over. Machiavelli only cares about the necessary actions that must take place in order to sustain power. Machiavelli only cares about how to get power and how to keep it, he does not feel that a ruler is equal to the people what so ever. He makes it clear that a ruler is truly above the people and that laws do not apply to a ruler. “…the prince possesses more authority, because there is no one in the state regarded as a superior other than himself…” (43).
I believe that a leader must follow all the rules that they have set forward in order to keep peace and harmony in the nation. If they do not follow their own rules then they are not leading by example and the people will cease to respect his reign. If the leader wants to remain in power then he should most likely consider abiding to the laws that have been put forth. I feel that if my own President were to commit crimes while in office, I would no longer respect them and certainly not support anything they wanted to accomplish. By breaking the laws, a leader can easily shatter the admiration of their followers.
Machiavelli on the other hand would not care if a leader broke the rules, his viewpoint would be the leader could do as he pleases as long as he can remain in power. In Chapter 8, Machiavelli pretty much summed up his position on the matter, “Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory.” Committing crimes may gain a man some power but it will not make him famous for his reign. For this reason, Machiavelli would say that a leader can do as he pleases and break whatever laws he wants to but it will give him a bad reputation and possibly the loss of their empire.
A ruler is definitely supposed to adhere to the same rules that the citizens must follow. If A leader did not have to follow the same rules then that ruler would be able to do whatever he or she wanted to. I think for that ruler to gain the respect of his nation than he must show that he respects the rules that he expects every one else to follow as apposed to gaining their respect through force. When a ruler shows that the rules don’t apply to them than the citizens of that nation realize how unfair their situation is and eventually revolt. All in all i feel that gaining the respect from the people of your nation is very important.
Machiavelli does agree with my opinion above, but some of his views on whether or not a ruler needs to follow the same rules that the citizens follows are different. He feels that it is important to follow the same rules, but solely for the purpose of commanding respect from the citizens. If at any point the ruler needs to break a law in order to keep that nation strong than Machiavelli feels it is necessary to do so.
It is ideal that a leader adhere to the laws of the country in which they govern, but this is not always reality. Furthermore, this is not always a good idea; while it may seem like the most politically correct thing to do, as I asserted in the last discussion, ethics are not always a recipe to success. I believe that any leader should be morally obliged to respect the laws that constitute their specific nation, but that they should not necessarily be bound to such laws. I have noticed that many people say it is foolish for a leader to be impervious to the law, but there are many dictators-some of which are still alive-that maintain ruthless control of their people by actually disavowing laws entirely. Therefore, I do not think it is fair to say that a leader will only gain respect if he is benevolent and complies to all laws as if he were any regular citizen; he is not, and should have a certain amount of power that distinguishes him from the rest of the country. This discussion relates integrally to last week’s in that one may gain more through fear than conducting themselves ethically.
It is easy to be idealistic and say that many leaders do comply with their respective country’s laws. This was once a very far-fetched dream that has only come to prominence since, really, the dawn of the twentieth-century. One who chooses to forget the very common reality-and still widely prevalent occurrence-of a dictatorship is in their own right foolish. Dictatorships may be oppressive and unpopular but they still get the job done as well as, or more effectively, than any egalitarian government.
I share Machiavelli’s views on government it seems. He is a realist and, like any realist, sees the infallibility and unreliability in ethics. A leader who becomes too homogenized into society will ultimately be just another face in the crowd; there must be a certain amount of flexibility. I am not really certain how much flexibility would result in a shoddy job-is there, really, a perfect nation anyway?-but that elasticity should exist. I presume Machiavelli would not be ignorant enough to come to the conclusion that one must not push the boundaries too much. A dictator that is too ruthless will cause an uprising and a Prime Minister that is too compromising will be seen as weak and unable to execute important actions. Machiavelli was extremely intelligent; he would have been able to realize this.
I believe that if a leader is allowed to excuse the law that even they themselves might have written up, then there is no stopping them from obtaining ultimate power and the ability to do what ever they want with the country, like drive it into the ground. It is very important then that nobody has the opportunity to obtain such power. Therefore a leader should follow the same laws that are for everyone else in the country. The reason that our country has the checks and balances system of government is so one person or branch of government can not have more power than the other, and be able to skip over the laws that have been previously put in place already. Even though this has not stopped some in the past, it does help.
Machiavelli believes that a leader should be living with the same laws as his people. Although, Machiavelli is much more obsessed with power than he is with doing what looks good to the people. If the leader were to have the option to obtain more power, then as far as Machiavelli is concerned; he would have no problem in that leader twisting the rules to fit him better. On the other side of things, if a leader saw that his power was dwindling and there was a force that he needed to defeat, Machiavelli would feel that it would be in the leader’s best interest to scratch being ethical, and defend his power in any form that he can. Although it is good for a leader to live under the same laws of his people, Machiavelli believes that it is remaining in power that is most important.
Despite the fact that many people consider their leader to be an almost larger than life figure, but the fact is, is that the leader is no better than the average citizen. People forget that the leader is just a normal human being, and not someone that should be put on a pedestal. The only thing that separates a leader from his people is his position. I do not think that any leader should be above the laws, because not only does it guarantee problems for the citizens, but it can also cause the country to morph from some form of democracy or republic, to a more totalitarian form of government. If a leader does not follow the laws that he helps to make then he is nothing more than a hypocrite, that does not deserve to be respected, or followed by his people. A perfect example of this is Nixon, who thought he was above the law, and as a result was impeached for it. A leader should never be allowed to not follow the rules because if the leader does not follow the rules then in theory there is no limit on what that leader can do.
It is important for a leader to adhere to the same laws that the citizens are obeying. Every nation has laws because people live with it as the basis for the land. Laws also makes people live peacefully and equally and tries to keep everyone live without conflicts. Without laws, people will start doing whatever they want which will create more disaster in the community. Therefore, if a leader was above the laws or the rules, he would only increase the conflicts in the nation and would also destroy himself since no one will support him and view him as their leader. Even though he may be the one that is ruling the people, he would not have the power to be above the law. I believe with Sarah about the fact that if a leader would like to change the law, he should first discuss the issues with other people and come up with a reasonable decision. However, Machiavelli would disagree with my thoughts because he believes that a leader has the power to do anything he wants. His main focus is on how the leader should be keeping the position. Machiavelli thinks that it is important for a ruler to ignore his oppositions and change the laws so he can maintain the position as the leader.
Personally, I think that a leader should adhere to the rules and laws of the land. It makes a leader respected and loved, and that is what determines a successful leader. Also, by showing the right example the leader shows his people how to act and he will have less trouble with governing them. He will be more successful and praised as a good and triumphant leader. I also think that Machiavelli would agree with me. Machiavelli is all for having a stable government, and the only way to achieve that is to have the leader follow his own laws. Machiavelli is very observant and smart, and I am sure he noticed that certain rulers who followed their own laws inspired respect and discipline in their subjects, which ends up as being a successful and stable rule. In conclusion, a leader should follow his own laws and I believe Machiavelli would agree that it is the best way to have a successful leadership.
A Leader is by nature the representation and the symbol of the society that the citizens make up. The citizens believe in the power of the leader and follow the commands. The justification of the leader’s power is based on these beliefs of the power and their trust in his decisions. By the standard of political science a government must have political legitimacy. This legitimacy is that large portions of the civilian population respect the powers of the government and believe that the citizens must obey the ruler’s commands. In the absence of political legitimacy, a country is weak and without a governing power. The leader cannot rule without the faith of the people and if they do they will not be in power for very long. Political legitimacy plays into whether a leader should or should not obey the rules that their citizens obey. In order to maintain the status of a legitimate political authority, a leader must at least appear to adhere to the rules that their citizens follow. If they appear to be breaking the laws the citizens will then lose faith in the rules themselves and in turn the governing body as a whole. The very idea that the ruler is the symbol of the country coincides with the fact that the governing body is the law and not somehow above it. It is a fine line to appear faithful to the law, but in summary the leaders of a nation must follow the old saying of “lead by example”, to the best of their abilities in order to ensure the stability of their country and the legitimacy of their political reign.
Machiavelli’s opinion on this matter is quite similar as are his justifications. Machiavelli continuously stresses the idea of doing whatever is best for the people. It is to follow the masses and do what they want in order to stay in control and retain a governing position. This idea of tending to the masses is paramount to maintaining power over the masses and is a major theme in Machiavelli’s Prince. The people are the basis of the ruler’s power and the ruler in turn must act in whatever way that appeases them. As the ruler finds his political strength in the people, he can use this strength to wield dominance over them. It is very manipulative but it allows the ruling body to retain the legitimate power in a nation. In special cases the leader may even have to break a law, if it appeases the people. This kind of case adheres not to the laws but to the rule Machiavelli lays out, that the ruler must always unconditionally appease the people in order to gain their favor and stay in power.
Political legitimacy and the appeasement of the people are extremely similar in their natures. Both of them deal with the concept that the people’s faith decides the extent of a governing body’s power and without their belief the government will fall into extinction. The very ideas that these two theories present are of natural laws. Naturally people will follow and obey those that do the same. They will not follow a hypocrite blindly into destruction but will rather move away from this powerless leader and find one that appears to be the most virtuous. The appearance itself inspires the faith of the people and upholds the systems of government that have continued to rule people.
… I think that Machiavelli would say that it is very important for a leader to follow the rules and for that leader to not be above the law because without the leader following the rules, then the government would become unstable and stability is the most important thing to a government according to Machiavelli. For example at the end of the introduction, and later on in the book Machiavelli talks about how when a leader is respected, that the government is stable. He also says that a leader is respected when that leader is ethical, and for a leader to be ethical, he needs to follow the rules, and not be above the law. Thus in Machiavelli’s opinion a leader must obey the law and not be above the rules, for the stability of the country.
Machiavelli would definitely say that a ruler is above the law. I said in my response to the last question (and as many/most people said) order is more important than ethics. In on sense the ruler is a citizen and should not be above the law, this is the ethical approach. In another sense, to maintain order the ruler has to be able to take control of the situation and sometimes that means being above the law. Of coerce I feel that it is possible to be in control of a nation (especially in a democratic setting) and not be above the law. I am a citizen, however, not a ruler. Morgan mentioned how power corrupts people and I agree with that. But the citizens often depend on the ruler, and it is a very different situation. When one questions the greater good (ethics or order) sometimes order will win and then the ruler might have to become unethical or step above the law.
Machiavelli thought that it was necessary to have complete dominance as a ruler. He felt that “whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it can expect to be destroyed by it.” (46) The ruler must dominate the area he controls, or he will lose control of it. This domination means being above the law and above the citizens. In one instance he talks about a duke (Borgia) who was ruler of a land where minister disagreed with him. He simply solved this problem cutting the Minster in half, and placing him (or the pieces of him) in the middle of the square. While this was not “lawful” it was something the people never forgot. I personally do not believe this is the way to maintain control over the people, but it was what Machiavelli thought was the right thing to do, and apparently worked for Borgia.
It is far better for the people if their ruler is subject to the laws that he makes, however much he may groan about it. After government is established, law is what keeps people from going out of control and doing nasty things. If the ruler is uncontrolled, he can just do whatever he wants, regardless of what it does to his people. It’s an unethical way to have a country work, a big reason being that he can just treat it as a tool he can use to just makes himself rich. It just makes everyone angry, which is why the king of England was forced to sign the Magna Carta way back when. A ruler who cannot be controlled is dangerous and harmful to everyone else. If everything is subject to one person and then they don’t even have to pay attention to what they’ve done before, then it’s a faulty system and it’s going to end very badly for whoever the leader doesn’t like.
A sturdy government is one that the people have faith in. Without some form of trust in the government, the people just aren’t going to go for it. When the leader acts like he’s exempt from the laws that he subjects everyone else to, it promotes instability through jealousy and just an idea that some people are above laws. It would give other people the thought that they are above the law as well.
Machiavelli’s aim in “The Prince” is to advise a ruler on how to gain power and hold onto it. Being above the law makes it so that you can do whatever you want to. As such, you can manipulate whatever you need to in order to hold onto your power. When you’re subject to laws, there are conditions for your power. Machiavelli would focus on trying to stay above the law. So long as you manage to stay above the law without angering anyone, you’ll hold onto power longer.
In my opinion, a leader should always follow the same rules and laws as his or her citizens. The leader should never be above the law. He or she needs to be setting an example for his citizens. If they send out the wrong message, their citizens will slowly start thinking it is ok to break the rules or laws. Then the country, town, or city will fall into turmoil. It is not right, it is not fair, and it is very foolish.
Machiavelli would have disagreed with what I just said. He believed that a prince she be above the law and be able to break them. He believed that a prince may have to break a law or two in order to keep order in his country. For example, for a citizen, murder would be completely illegal. However, if a Prince needed to have some secretly killed because they were causing bad things to happen or were trying to convince other citizens of something untrue to hurt the prince, he could do so.
I personally believe that no leader should be above the rules set in place by society. From what I have seen and know myself, the idea of being free of the restraints of reprecussions creates a feeling of invinciblity in individuals, and if you feel that you are invincible, you are more than likely to look down upon those around you. If a prince were to look down upon his subjects, he would not treat them well, since he sees them as lesser beings than himself, resulting in a less powerful and ultimately, profitable naiton. I believe that in his own opinion, Machiavelli would state that a ruler should not be above the rules, but should not have unlimited power, because that leads to the abuse of his subjects. He would state that a ruler should have enough power that he is feared and respected by his subjects, but not so much that he is never repremanded for his actions, or he will lose the respect of his subjects and in the end, he will only be hurting himself, besides those around him.
In a Modern state, a leader (in theory) should abide by the same rules of every citizen of that nation. If they are leading a nation they should lead by example and not feel as though they are above the law. In a large nation rules are no doubt bent for leaders. They are granted a tremendous amount of power when they enroll as leader. In our government today, the President of the United States is granted several informal powers that can be used at their discretion Take President Nixon who after everything was said and done had no consequences for his actions. For the most part when Leaders step out of line they will get away with it or get a slap on the wrist if and when it comes into public view. Machiavelli’s “ whatever it takes to maintain order” view would not sit well with modern day citizens. His stance was to make sure order and stability was there regardless of his actions, because in his mind he was above the law. As I stated in my last post, I think the people of modern nations are become less scared of their government and are more likely to express their reaction and criticize their government for unlawful actions, compared to the time of Machiavelli where the people were scared of the government.