Niccolo Machiavelli, in “The Prince,” declares his belief that a successful ruler must control his subjects through fear rather than earning their love. He explains that the love of man is dependent on their current state of happiness, and that they will turn against you if they are not benefiting from the arrangement. On the other hand, when a ruler has instilled fear amongst his subjects, they will live in predictable servitude because they are concerned for their own wellbeing and are afraid of punishment. Machiavelli starts off by providing two oppositional leadership styles. He then goes on to articulate the weaknesses of earning loyalty as a result of love and supports the value of his favored technique, fear. He convinces the listener by stressing the fact that fear controls man’s actions because the thought of punishment stays with them, whereas feelings of love last only as long as they are happy, which is a fleeting emotion. Machiavelli’s conclusion is erroneous. Although he is correct on some levels, in the end, a population of people who share good morale, work better together to accomplish common goals. Though a ruler may be successful for a time, if people fear opposing him or they see some level of success …show more content…
If people were fearful of their leaders and controlled by them, then they would be far to anxious to leave or fight back. He knew that love was that of internal feelings and that fear was external, so by using fear as a method of leadership he was not depending on others emotions. Using this method may give immediate results, but it is ineffective in the long run. True loyalty is a result of care and concern for the people who serve. Though at times fickle, love is the best form of leadership. When people feel oppressed, they eventually rebel. When humans have a choice to honor their leader, they do so with a merry heart. As a result everyone is better