Political leadership has been a topic of debate among many authors throughout history. There have been several ideas that have been highlighted regarding the nature of political leaders and their style of ruling. Plato and Machiavelli hold such views where they observe some of the characteristics that result in a good political leadership. The ideals presented by the two have similarities regarding the need of good leadership and knowledge in leadership. They are different in observing the characteristics required of a good leader and their approach to justice. This paper analyzes the similarities and differences between Plato and Machiavelli and shows why Plato’s views leads to a just society.
Similarities
One of the similarities between Plato and Machiavelli is that they are both concerned with good leadership that leads to the success of the state and a greater good. The observation of Machiavelli is that a greater good would occur when the state prospers. The leader should thus undertake several schemes even though they may seem immoral to create a greater good for the society. A just leader that chooses the correct steps would do a greater good for the state and society. Plato’s observation in the Republic also follows that leadership should create a greater good by promoting justice within the state. An ethical approach should be followed by the leader and this should result in proper functioning of the state and adequate leadership.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The two are also similar in the fact that they observe the importance of knowledge in leadership. In Plato’s Republic, it is argued that political power must be in the hand of philosophers so as to rule an ideal city. A philosopher is an individual that has adequate knowledge regarding what is good for human societies (Toumey, 2016). A philosopher with an exceptional degree of knowledge and virtue will be able to rule correctly. Machiavelli also observes the need for knowledge among leaders. He observes that leaders should have intellectual training and the Prince should read history and study the actions of men to see how they conducted themselves during the war and identify the reasons for their victories and defeats.
Differences
Plato’s Republic and Machiavelli’s The Prince portray leaders that are completely opposite in their actions. One of the first differences is the character traits that they expect for political leaders. Machiavelli observed that politics involves leaders that have a morality of their own. They should show no regard for justness or unjustness, cruelty or mercy, and humiliation or the need for approval as this can interfere with their decisions of defending the state (Furtner, Maran, & Rauthmann, 2017). Plato’s idea of a ruler is the exactly the opposite. The character traits of the ruler are that they must be of good mind, be truthful, show discipline, and not be afraid of death. Some of the four virtues identified include wisdom, courage, self-control or moderation, and justice.
Plato and Machiavelli are different in their approach of how to govern a state. Machiavelli notes that sometimes cruelty should be used and indicates that sometimes cruelty can be the only way to achieve the stability and the security of a state. The cruel actions that are done by the prince can be done once and quickly and then reward his people so that the cruel actions can be quickly forgotten (Cosans & Reina, 2018). The observations by Plato is that the leader should be just in order to realize the meaning of the state. Justice should be used to realize an ideal city.
Plato and Machiavelli hold several differences in their view of justice. Machiavelli did not believe that justice is absolute but relative and that the prince should not necessarily be a virtuous individual. He observed that moral and ethical values which are used to promote justice should be used as an instrument for a political purpose. He commanded that the prince should sometimes use his evil in order to protect his possessions. The observation of Plato about justice is quite the opposite because he views justice as absolute and indispensable for the realization of an ideal city. He further observes that justice is not from this world but is spiritually inborn and should be applied to almost anything and especially by individuals in the city. A further observation is that the king should always act via justice and should not disobey the law (Santas, 2018). According to Plato, justice is the ultimate essence of life and everyone should surrender to it.
What Leads to a “Just” Society?
The analysis of the two ideological perspectives shows that Plato’s view ultimately results in a “just” society. A “just” society in this case would mean fairness and beneficial for everyone with everyone knowing their place, working for the good of the society, and towards a common goal for the betterment of the state (Narkhov, 2017). Plato theorizes a republic that has been divided into classes of philosopher-kings or rulers, soldiers, and normal trades people. Everyone has a place in the society and all work towards the greater good for the state. Rulers would not take part in activities like growing food or building houses but would be occupied with rigorous training regarding how to govern the state effectively (DeLue & Dale, 2016).
Plato’s concept of justice can also be seen to result in a greater good. His main concern is that harmony and justice should be achieved within the state and that everyone should work towards a greater good. Political leaders should follow a hierarchy where only the educated would be fit for rule. With everyone knowing and understanding their place, this can promote peace and justice since everyone knows their place and thus cooperates by undertaking different functions required in that society.
Machiavelli’s observation may not create a “just” society because the view is that the state is greater and whatever is best for the state is for the greater good of everyone. The ruler would be justified to do whatever it is necessary in order maintain the best interests for the state even when it is unjust. This may not create a truly “just” society as some individuals may feel oppressed when the leader is acting in ways that could be considered unjust.
The society created by Machiavelli also observes that the leader of the country is the one that determines an act for the greater and common good. Leaders can use this to their advantage by engaging in bad conduct and later stating that they are acting on behalf of the greater good. This creates a big room for injustice and tyranny in leadership. A tyrant can be cruel to the people by first stating that they know how best to proceed and later being betraying other people.
Conclusion
Plato and Machiavelli show similarities in the need for knowledge and good leadership but are different in the way they approach justice in leadership. While Machiavelli observes that the leader can be cruel and should not necessarily act justly in order to benefit the state, Plato observes that leaders should always act justly. Plato’s ideas seem to lead to a truly just society because it can be used to create harmony, coherence, and peace with everyone working for the better of the state. Machiavelli places a huge amount of power on the leader by observing that the leader could act in any way that pleases them and this can be used to perpetrate injustice and tyranny.
References
Cosans, C. E., & Reina, C. S. (2018). The Leadership Ethics of Machiavelli’s Prince. Business Ethics Quarterly , 28 (3), 275-300.
Furtner, M. R., Maran, T., & Rauthmann, J. F. (2017). Dark leadership: The role of leaders’ dark triad personality traits. In Leader development deconstructed (pp. 75-99). Springer, Cham.
DeLue, S. M., & Dale, T. M. (2016). Plato: Civic Virtue and the Just Society. In Political Thinking, Political Theory, and Civil Society (pp. 49-71). Routledge.
Narkhov, D. Y. (2017). What society is just: views of Sverdlovsk region students. Sociological Studies , 5 (5), 35-46.
Santas, G. (2018). Plato on Inequalities, Justice, and Democracy. In Democracy, Justice, and Equality in Ancient Greece (pp. 161-177). Springer, Cham.
Toumey, C. (2016). The philosopher and the engineer. Nature nanotechnology , 11 (4), 306.
