Machiavelli Different Positions on Government

Throughout modern history societies have debated as to which is the ideal form of government rule. All the major philosophers have put forth their thoughts and ideas on politics as described in their published works, yet these philosophers could not agree on the single ideal form of government. In some instances philosophers even disagreed with themselves as described in the different texts that they wrote. For example, the political thinker/philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli, described two radically different views of government in his two works Prince and Discourses. In the Prince he argues that a monarchy is the ideal rule where as in Discourses he believes that a republic is the most appropriate form. They differ in argument based on how they analyze the ideal state, either through its ruler as the head of its people or through a realistic overall view of government, religion, the influence from the world and the fundamental ideas of each text.

The Prince argues for a monarchy through his support of a strong leader. A strong leader to Machiavelli is a person who has virtue and luck. Machiavelli provides a framework for a ruler to keep order and security for a better society. Machiavelli is known for such statements as it is better to be feared than loved and that the ends justify the means. He believed that kingdoms should have definite allies and enemies and that leaders should learn the art of war. In fact, one of his works was entitled The Art of War. Whatever means necessary to preserve the state and provide balance and security. There are really only two types of government that would fit his framework of government, a monarchy and a tyranny. Machiavelli makes the point to say that a tyranny is bad and when he talks about Agathocles and how he is an example of a bad ruler because he was a tyrant, and this is why he supports a monarchy. Agathocles can be viewed as one of the finest generals but Machiavelli makes a point to say that “one ought not, of course, to call it virtue to massacre one’s fellow citizens, to betray one’s friends, to break one’s word, to be without mercy and without religion” (The Prince, 28). Analyzing his described tactics he is most clearly shown to be a tyrant, which is what made him a bad ruler. Machiavelli makes the point to show that as a difference between a tyranny and a monarchy because each form of government has a good type and a bad type. And of the three good types of government Machiavelli still believes that a monarchy is the best. Yet I must point out here that in the Prince he focuses on the ruler not the government, which is important because this differs from Discourses.

The Discourses focuses on the overall government and this is a big reason for the different positions in his ideal government. Machiavelli doesn’t need to talk about the ruler in this book because law and virtue are interconnected. In this work, Machiavelli chooses a republic as the ideal government because it is a combination of the 3 types of good government he talks about in the Prince; Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy. By combining these three types of government he gets the best of each and this makes a government better than the rest called a Republic. He proves that the republic is superior when he compares a republic to a monarchy, as well as compared to the better of the other two. The result is that a Republic is better because it is more flexible to change between society and its citizens. Again in this book he focuses on the government not on the ruler.

A second reason that Machiavelli has two radically different decisions is because of the history behind how the Prince was written. The Prince was written as a response to Medici’s rule in Italy; Medici took power of the Italian government in Florence around the time of 1512. Medici betrayed Florentine liberty and tried to impose a tyrannical regime during the time of his rule. This was a major reason that Machiavelli liked a monarchy over a tyranny in the Prince. Machiavelli was influenced by a ruler that he like and this helped influence his thoughts as to which form of government was best. When Machiavelli wrote Discourses he did not specifically focused on the rulers or heads of state, he focused on the overall government thereby offering differing opinions on the ideal state. The Discourses was influenced by the history of the great roman republic. The successful roman republic gave Machiavelli a lot of the concepts for the book and may have been the primary influencing factor for his ideal government. So this book had influences from a good and prosperous form of government compared to the Prince which had influences from a bad and tyrannical ruler.

The fundamental ideas for Machiavelli are very different between the two books. The central value of Machiavelli in the Discourses is liberty where as in the Prince it is security and order. Liberty is clearly shown to be a central value in the Discourses when Machiavelli describes what a republic is. He talks about how a republic has all the fair and important parts of the three good types of government. When talking about the roman republic he points out how the growth of freedom helped produce prosperity and growth for all of Rome. And since the Discourses was very much influenced by the roman republic, it has the central value of liberty. Liberty is so important to Machiavelli in this book that he writes a whole section with the title, “Whether the safeguarding of liberty can be more safely entrusted to the populace or the upper class.” The Prince shows that it has a central value of security and order when he describes the ideal character for a leader. The main characteristic of the ideal ruler is to have virtue, to have strength, skill and courage, and with this virtue know the art of war. It is so important that Machiavelli says that a ruler can even resort to cruelty and force to maintain order, i.e. the