NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Political Science (1) Despite the fact that Machiavelli's The Prince and Hobbes Leviathan were written in time when it was being commonly assumed that political power comes out of guns barrel, these works contain proofs of authors understanding that application of naked force alone can hardly be effective, when it comes to manipulation of masses. Both Machiavelli and Hobbes describe an effective political leader as person who understands psychological aspects of winning popularity with the crowd. In order for such leader to exercise an effective control over his subjects, he needs to treat crowd as the irrational being. Thus, we can say that, in many respects, Machiavelli and Hobbes were ahead of their time, because they recognized the existence of ideological power, even though they were not able to come up with a clear definition as to the essence of such power.
In Chapter IX, Machiavelli states: One who becomes a prince through the favor of the people ought to keep them friendly, and this he can easily do seeing they only ask not to be oppressed by him. Because men, when they receive good from him of whom they were expecting evil, are bound more closely to their benefactor; thus the people quickly become more devoted to him (Machiavelli, Chapter IX). In other words, it is very important for the political figure to strive to make masses think that his actions benefit citizens, even though it might not be the case. This can be achieved quite easily, for as long as people are not able to rationalize the behavior of their ruler. The subjects of political power need to be allowed a certain degree of freedom, which in its turn; will prevent them from indulging in subtle sabotage, as it is usually the case with people who feel that they are being politically oppressed.
Machiavelli suggests that, even though such oppression is an integral part of keeping the masses under control, citizens need to be encouraged to think of this as having non-oppressive properties. Thus, we can say that, within the context of exercising the political power by authority figure, Machiavelli was able to anticipate conclusions to which Steven Lukes will only come in 20 th century the effective governing corresponds to authority's ability to influence peoples wishes and thoughts, in order to make them want things opposed to what would benefit them. Machiavelli was able to define the main principle, upon which leaders popularity with people is based. Apparently, it is not very important what authority figure actually does, for as long as his actions are perceived by citizens as having beneficial essence. Perceived value in politics has as much importance as it has in trade. This is the reason why Machiavelli states that: Either a prince spends that which is his own or his subjects or else that of others.
In the first case he ought to be sparing, in the second he ought not to neglect any opportunity for liberality (Machiavelli, Chapter XVI). In other words, it is up to prince to set the boundaries, within which the public discussion of his actions will be allowed to take place. In order for the ruler to be referred to as being generous, he does not have to spend states money, as the way of winning favor with the crowd. All that he needs to do is to insure that people perceive him as being generous, regardless of whether such perceptions correspond to the true state of affairs.
This relates to the very essence of two faces of power theory, which was introduced by Bachrach and Baratz. Apparently, the effective political system relies on its non decision-making power as much as it relies on laws and regulations that have executive power. It is very important for the ruler to know how to prevent people from considering issues of which existence they should not be aware, in the first place. For example, once the political leader is being perceived as generous, the public criticism, directed at him, can only have the extent of such generosity, as its subject. It should never occur to the citizens to even consider the possibility of their leader not being generous at all. In the following chapter of its work, Machiavelli develops his ideas further, by suggesting what sets preconditions for the existence of medieval equivalent of two-faced power.
According to author, in order for the political leader to insure that he always have an upper hand, when it comes to engaging in debates, on his part, the range of discussion topics must be forcibly limited: Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women (Machiavelli, Chapter XVII). This Machiavelli's idea corresponds to the modern practice of having certain issues forbidden from becoming the subject of public debates. For example, many citizens in U. S.
are not happy with the fact that they cannot openly express their disagreement with policies of multiculturalism, affirmative action and enforced tolerance. They are well aware of the fact that, once they express their concerns about metaphysical insanity being used as foundation, upon which socio-political policies in this country are based, they will be facing the prospect of losing their jobs or even worse, because hate speech laws consider freedom of expression as crime. However, these people will never start hating their country, simply because they fear the authorities that represent this country. We can say that Machiavelli was well aware that the policy of stick and bone is the most suitable, when it comes to governing masses. Author understands that application of naked force to make citizens to obey rules and regulations, on the part of political leader, is usually being perceived by the crowd as the proof of leaders weakness.
The authorities must instill people with fear and love, in order not to be concerned about the possibilities of being overthrown. Crowd is like a woman it is subconsciously attracted to strength and power. The role of political authority is to manipulate people psychologically, in order for the society to maintain its inner stability. It is quite ironic that, in their works, Lukes, Bachrach and Baratz come to essentially the same conclusion, even though that Power: a Radical View and Two Faces of Power are now being discussed within a context of coining up democratic methods of governing the masses. (2) In his book Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes strives to rationalize the essence of political process as such that derives naturally out of people being social creatures. He describes state as: Artificial man, though of greater stature and strength than the natural, for whose protection and defense it was intended; and in which the sovereignty is an artificial soul, as giving life and motion to the whole body; the magistrates and other officers of judicature and execution, artificial joints; reward and punishment (Hobbes). Author refers to society as complex socio-biological phenomenon, which can only be part of objective reality, for as long as the existence of its integral components does not contradict the existence of society, as whole.
Therefore, we can say that in his work, Hobbes laid metaphysical ground for the emergence of p oligarchy, as socio-political system, which correspond to objective reality. Hobbes understood that the continuous existence of ideal democracy, as the form of government, is impossible in principle, especially given the fact that societies become more complex, as time goes by. The ideal democracy only existed in ancient Athens for no longer than hundred years and such form of government was only made possible by the city-state status of Athens. As society grows in size, it strives to find more effective ways of self-management, because relying on the will of majority, as method of governing, cannot be truly effective. Hobbes provides us with the insight on the essence of political instability: From this equality of ability arise equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavor to destroy or subdue one another (Hobbes, Chapter XIII).
Therefore, only very naive citizens can believe that people are capable of governing themselves, without resorting to the help of higher authority. In its turn, such authority's most important task is elimination of social entropy. Hobbes views society as open thermo-dynamical system, which can be characterized by the number of components, within its body, and by the quality of the links between these components, which bind system together. Just as any thermo-dynamic system, society is subjected to entropy, which undermines society's integrity. In order for the law and order to be maintained, within a society, the social entropy needs to be continuously disposed of. This can only be done if society is also subjected to an outside source of power, which counteracts entropy.
Hobbes views government as the source of such power. However, given the fact that government has arbitrary powers, we cannot refer to it as being the essential part of society. This gives Hobbes the reason to conclude that democracy, in its classical form, can only exist in the minds of political idealists. In its turn, this conclusion correlates with the ideas of Robert Dahl, expressed in his book Modern Political Analysis. Dahl suggests that p oligarchy, as the form of government, suits the best for societies that grow more complex on continuous basis: P oligarchy is the form of government, specifically designed to correspond to the realities of industrial era, when dynamics in every particular society are being defined by the variety of social, demographic, economic and geopolitical factors that did not exist prior to 18 th century (Dahl, p. 20). In his book, Dahl insists that it is peoples ability to make rational decisions that should serve as cornerstone of social contract.
Hobbes comes up with the same idea, while suggesting that the notion of common good should be thought of as priority, when it comes to managing social dynamics: The passions that incline men to peace are: fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them. And reason suggested convenient articles of peace upon which men may be drawn to agreement (Hobbes, Chapter XIII). Hobbes suggests that possession of too many social freedoms, on the part of citizens, undermines society's integrity, because it prompts people to think of pursuing their personal agenda as such that have foremost priority. Thus, even though Hobbes does not say it explicitly, it becomes clear from the context of his book that he envisioned the perfect form of government as neither democracy not autocracy. In its turn, this corresponds to conclusions contained in Dahls book and allows us to suggest that Western politological thought is affected by historical tradition to far greater extent that it was assumed before.
In fact, it appears that there is a clear link between the argumentation lines of Machiavelli, Hobbes and those of representatives of modern polit ology. This allows us to conclude that it is inappropriate to refer to progress of political science as such that was only made possible by politically correct indoctrination, as it is often being suggested nowadays. (3) The conclusions, to which Machiavelli and Hobbes came, during the course of their studies on the true nature of political process, remain valid in our days. These authors were able to express their opinions in clear and coherent manner something that Dahl, Lukes, Bachrach and Baratz proved themselves to be incapable of. If these political scientists were to rid their argumentation of unnecessary philosophizing, which is meant to add sophistication to conclusions, they come to in their books, it would appear that the essential idea of their books is the same the existence of pure democracy is impossible in principle, especially when citizens in Western countries are being enforced to accept multiculturalism as metaphysical foundation for the formation of socio-political policies. Bibliography: Bachrach, Peter and Baratz, Morton Two Faces of Power. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 56, No. 4. (Dec. , 1962), pp. 947 - 952.
Dahl, Robert and Stinebrickner, Bruce Modern Political Analysis. Sixth Edition. New York: Prentice Hall, 2002. Hobbes, Thomas The Leviathan. 1660. 2000. Oregon State University. 5 Mar. 2008. web Lukes, Steven Power: A Radical View.
Second Edition. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Machiavelli, Nicolo The Prince. 1515. 1997. Constitution Society. 5 Mar. 2008.
web Abstract: This paper analyses the works of Nicolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes from the point view of contemporary polit ology. Outline: Part one Part two Conclusion
Free research essays on topics related to: form of government, thomas hobbes, objective reality, political leader, socio political
Research essay sample on Form Of Government Socio Political
