What is Machiavellianism? It is defined as any means (however unscrupulous) can be used by a rulers or leaders in order to create and maintain their autocratic way of governing. While bureaucracy is defines as a system of government in which most of the important decisions are made by state officials rather than by elected representatives. Let us briefly cover how bureaucracy and Machiavellianism affect the structure of governing and policymaking. In a sense, many political scholars have highlighted that “policy is the aspect of politics that concerns most people. In crude terms, policy consists of the “outputs” of the political process. It reflects the impact of government on society; that is, its ability to make things better or make things worse. As government has grown and the breadth of its responsibilities has expanded, bureaucracies have come to play an increasingly important role in political life. No longer can civil servants …show more content…
Indeed, for Machiavelli the end of politics is power 's conquest and maintenance, which is a work of art to be performed. On the contrary, according to the nature of things, the end of politics is the common good of a united people; which end is essentially something concretely human, therefore something ethical. However, is this the case of modern Machiavellians and more especially the Moroccan ones? One thing I know for sure is that those Moroccan Machiavellians make sure that they get it and they would not care less what type of damage, whether intentional or collateral, they might leave behind. They make sure that they, and their entourage and sympathizers, thrive and achieve what they have always
Niccolò Machiavelli, better known as the father of modern political theory, wrote the famous socio-political treatise The Prince, during a dark time in his career. In The Prince, there are several policies that can be found in the American government, specifically in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Many of our American leaders have adopted similar policies as Machiavelli's book is recognized as a political manual for many leaders. Obviously, there are many common themes in The Prince and The United States government's policies, such as the idea of arming one's citizens along with how leaders are brought to power; however, there are also many differences, in particular, the distribution of power in government.
He analyses a bottom-up approach to policy making in this book but fails to state if it is adequate. Up until this book was published, the majority of people looked at policy making from a top-down perspective. Since the 1980’s there has been increased debate over which approach is more effective (Gabel, 2012). Top-down implementation occurs when the government set policies and instructions on how to implement these policies. This makes it clear-cut because it is clear and based solely around agency objectives.
A few assets are rare and rivalrous, yet numerous are against rivalrous and bottomless. I believe that the polis demonstrate all the more nearly speaks to the way we make and comprehend public policy. I additionally think that it is essential to remember these two models of society as we proceed with ideas of the author Stone. She utilizes a ton of illustrations from social policy most remarkably, welfare and governmental policy regarding minorities in society in view of her experience and hobbies as a researcher, additionally in light of the fact that we can see the contrasts between these two models obviously in the social policy stadium. That does not imply that we can't matter Stone to other substantive policy territories, and we will do only that as the course advances.
Purpose of politics for Machiavelli in the purest way is preservation. Furthermore, Machiavelli thinks that politics and morality do not go together. You don’t need to be a good person to be a good leader and that being a good person actually increases your chance of failing as a leader. He believes that attempting to become a better person and trying to make the people in the city better can neglect the true reason preservation. Also, believes that morality can distract you and that it doesn’t prepare you for the chaos in nature and
One aspect of Machiavelli’s theory which significantly contributes to his reputation as the “philosopher of evil,” is his advice to the prince on keeping their word to the public. In chapter eighteen, Machiavelli states, “a wise ruler cannot, and should not, keep his word when doing so is to his disadvantage, and when the reasons that led him to promise to do so no longer apply” (pg. 37). To simplify, Machiavelli says princes are obligated to lie in certain circumstances. He also states that while it is unnecessary for the prince to have positive qualities, such as honesty, trustworthiness, sympathy, compassion, or be religious, it is essential for the prince to be viewed so by the public (pg. 37). While many people argue that Machiavelli’s legitimization of lying and deception in politics is immoral, I argue the opposite.
Machiavelli has the most correct ideas on both controlling the people as a ruler and on being remembered as a great one. These two viewpoints had great influence during their time and for centuries to come, both with modern ideas and correct ideas even though they had a lot of contrast. Machiavelli’s The Prince may be thought of the more recognizable of the two in the present, but people in the present day have many of the same ideas that
To Machiavelli, there is no morality in politics, only political virtue (Prudence). Prudence means knowing when to exhibit virtue or vice. As long as the Prince understands the role of Prudence, they will be successful. However, Machiavelli made an oversight.
He believes anyone can rule a polis if they have virtu. Once a ruler, a simple rule to follow to maintain power and not to be hated by the people, is to “not take away a man’s possession or woman”, Machiavelli believes the people will not feel threaten by following this rule, thus maintaining a stable polis. He expresses how “human nature never changes”, and that people are self-interested and they can turn against you once you are not profiting them. A good ruler must have the strength to do whatever it takes to obtain and maintain power, which essentially means that even if they have to hurt some of the people for the benefit of the popular mass, then they shall do so for the greater cause. Both Plato and Machiavelli believe that there must be a government in order for human kind to survive.
The famous manual “The Prince” by Machiavelli is still to this day the main resource that explains and gives advice on how to be a good politician. In 26 chapters it holds powerful rules that Machiavelli believed were key points that one must follow to become a successful politician. Machiavelli was a politician, historian, philosopher, humanist, and writer and lived in Florence during the Renaissance and changed the world with his political philosophies. Like Machiavelli, Adolf Hitler was also a powerful politician and the chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945. He was also the dictator of Nazi Germany from 1939 to 1945.
Probably one of the most infamous and controversial ideologies of the 16th century, the prince by Machiavelli has been a reference for many great leaders and academicians since it was published. The book provides historically tested and proven principles of leadership. The prince has been described as a manual for those who want to win and retain power. While some may argue that leadership is an inherent trait in human, leaders are made, not born. Making a great leader out of a person is not just a matter of identifying the leadership traits, skill and talents of the individual, but harnessing the traits, develop them and eventually mastering how to be leader.
Being a prince is not as easy as it may seem. There are good and bad decisions a prince can make. Machiavelli has his own standards on how a prince should behave. According to Machiavelli, a prince could be considered a lion, a fox, or a wolf. The lion is fierce but doesn’t have the smarts, while a fox has the smarts but isn 't fierce.
Sociologist Max Weber’s statement that bureaucracy is the distinctive mark of the modern era clearly describes a bureaucratic type of structure now intrinsic in public sector organizations. This type of structure which has been termed by theorist J. Donald Kingsley (1949) as a "Representative Bureaucracy", basically speaks of public workforces that are representative of the people in terms of race, ethnicity, and gender. In other words, a Representative Bureaucracy, is more or less "an assessment and reconstruction of public sector organizations for the sole purpose of ensuring that all groups in society are equally represented" (Duada, 1990). Thus, in relation to this definition and many other similar constructs, one can clearly see why that
2) Charismatic authority; where acceptance comes from faithfulness to and beliefs, personal qualities of the rulers. 3) Rational-legal authority; where acceptance came from the office, or position, persons authorized as limited by the rules and procedures of the organization. According to Weber, bureaucracy is a goal-oriented organization that operates efficiently to achieve their goals according to rational principles. And also, according to Weber, bureaucratic organizations operate “sine ira ac studio, meaning without a sense of bias of favor, relying solely on a professional decision-maker” (Rheinstein, 1954, 190-2). Hierarchical bureaucracy is one of the key features and essential in an organization.
Undoubtedly politics is “the study of influence and the influential”, there is most certainly truth in Harold D.Lasswell’s definition of politics. Throughout the course of this essay the study of politics will be examined in relation to Laswell’s definition. Furthermore the concept of government and how people influence government action will be looked at. In Lasswell’s book “Politics, Who Gets What, When and How” he clearly outlines the “influential are those who get the most of what there is to get”, in his opinion politics was primarily to do with power and influence. Lasswell’s definition of politics has been in the past supported by prominent political scientists such as Abraham Kaplan and Robert A. Dahl, both men believe the study of politics is largely to do with the use of influence by those who find themselves in influential positions.
In his novel, the prince, nicolo machiavelli guides us to be a fruitful ruler. He clarifies the best routes for any ruler or sovereign to govern a region, bring prosper to the society, and keep up their position. This book can be read by anyone to get a few pointers on political issues. Most of the thoughts held by machivelli were linked to mercilessness and evil, hence they raised a considerable number of eyebrows. He maintains that the ruler 's primary goal should be conquering, staying in control of the general public and to always have the idea of war in mind.