Osborne 1 Vincent Osborne Professor Gabriela Baika HUM2052 - Civilization 2: Renaissance to Modern July 8, 201222 Machiavellis The Prince

(A Manuscript for Practical Governance) Reading The Prince by Machiavelli, it is easy to see how many of his advice and theories could be applicable for good governance during the 16th Century period and even in todays modern era. During the 16th Century, a period that saw many nations stricken with leaders hungry for power and often lacked the forethought of solid advice for good governance there were no compilation or widely accessible texts to research instructions on ruling during that time. Thus, the impetus for Niccolo Machiavelli tremendous body of work in the form of The Prince -- a seminal job description for lack of a better term, for good governance by a prince (or a ruler) encompassing guidance for liberation from another rulers army and or how to manage fortune bestowed upon one or strategically acquired through force. However, I do not believe all of Machiavelli advice or theories would be applicable for a rule in todays modern political world. One such would be the idea that the prince should take after the lion and the fox. Another of Machiavellis advice would fall short in a modern day scenario would be his wirings on the liberality of a ruler. While his advice and writings are well balanced within the context of 16th Century governance, the notion of keeping your subjects happy by being parsimony would be every difficult to practice in practical terms. As a modern day ruler, one would not have the liberty to go forth and plunder the fortunes of his conquest, as was common and practical in that time period. In todays modern political system, a ruler would

Osborne 2 have to find new, inventive ways of being perceived as both liberal and parsimony at the same time and I think this is possible, but its success is based the execution. One of Machiavellis advices that I think is still very applicable in todays modern political climate is his writings on how one gains influence and respect. For instance, by winning over your opponents allies, through various forms of activities, such as gifts and indulgences that they like to partake (such as if the people you wish to influence loves a particular type of sportone can arrange special games with their favorite teams), and other forms of bribery. As Machiavelli wrote to this advice The Dukes first act to that end was to weaken the Orsini and Colonnesi parties in Rome by winning over to himself all their adherents who were men of rank, making them his own men of rank and giving them large subsides; and he honored them, according to their stations, with military and civil offices, so that within a few months their hearts were emptied of all affections for the Roman parties, and it was wholly transferred to the Duke (Lawall 1950). While this methodology of winning loyalty of anothers adherents have worked very well during this time period, its implementation in todays times would require some subtle modifications, but could still be just as practical. Although, a ruler who gains his opponents influence in this way certainly has to look at his newly acquired adherents with more than one pair of eyes. If loyalty is truly gained in this way, what is to prohibit another leader from utilizing the very same techniques to steal or win back the same adherents that were gain in this way? It seem, as a matter of practical perspective, a rulers interests would be best served if such techniques is deployed to again adherents for a specific purpose and not for long-term alliances.

Osborne 3 In regards to the use of a supervisor for lack of a better word, such as in the case Messer Remirro de Orco, to oversee and execute ones dirty work, is from a practical point of view, both brilliant and timeless advice in its implications. Doing this creates a buffer of sorts between you, the ruler, and your subjects when thing go badly and you do not want to be perceived as being the responsible party; in essence, creating a perfect, escape goat for lack of a better term. In addition, this type of policy is a very practical policy regardless of the time period, because it has been proven that peoples basic behavior and attitude towards being governed upon do not change. It is often for many reasons, but primarily, a leader should always either be perceived, or have in practical terms, an administrative layer between himself and his subjects. As Machiavelli wrote: And because he know that past severities had made some men hate himby showing that any cruelty which had gone on did not originate with himself but with the harsh nature of his agent (Lawall 1951). As mentioned above, this serves as a buffer when, for whatever reasons, the ruler does not want his subjects to perceive him as cruel, unjust or anything that would garner hatred or loathsomeness in their eyes of their ruler. These emotions are fraught with pitfall, some of which, but not the least, are rebellions, disunion, generally making it more difficult for a ruler to govern his subjects.

Osborne 4 Works Cited Lawall, Sarah, et al. The Norton Anthology of Western Literature, Vol. 1 (8th Ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006. Print.