Analysis Of An Ideal Governmen Essay, Research Paper
Analysis of an ideal government
Niccolo Machiavelli, the author of a well known political essay, The Prince, was a
republican in Italy when his country was divided into city-states. He wrote this essay in prison,
and tried to inspire the ruler to defend his country and maintain his power. Confucius, one of the
greatest Chinese philosophers, wrote The Sacred Books of Confucius. In his essay, he taught his
students how to be a virtuous ruler and how to set up a good example to govern his people. They
both had some different opinions about human itself , the character of a ruler, and the issue of the
punishment of the disobedient. While Confucius believed a virtuous ruler should make a good
example for his innocent people, and reform or educate them to be the greatest follower and to be
loyal to himself, Machiavelli thought that since all humans are evil, Confucius s idea of setting up
a good example for the people would not changed the basic character of human being instead an
experienced ruler should be feared from everyone when he appeared to be faithful for them.
In Confucius essay, he showed his love for all humans kind. He believed human nature
can be good, that human beings are born with no given, definable nature at all and are therefore
infinitely malleable. He stated that . the virtue of the prince is the wind, and that of the common
people the grass. The grass bends in the direction of the wind .(197). He compared human beings
to the grass, who always follow their example or leader and go the same direction as he is. He
viewed a human being as a natural creature whose nature could be explained causally in terms of
impressions coming from the environment. By the meaning of the following, Confucius believed
human nature also can be taught. It can be changed from evil to good, from dishonest to upright.
When his student asked him .what more shall be done for the people? x He replied .enrich them! x
His student asked again .and when they are enriched, what more shall be done? x .educate them! x
he replied without hesitation(198). He truly believed people can be rectified by their ruler. They
would have the same character or behavior as their ruler, their leader.
In contrast, Machiavelli believed human nature cannot be changed. It is selfish and
aggressive by nature. By stating .man in general that they are ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers,
anxious to avoid danger, and covetous of gain; as long as you benefit them, they are entirely
yours;…but when it[danger] approaches, they revolt x(184), he viewed ordinary people as
inherently and thoroughly self-centered, seeking their own pleasure either through sensuality or
personal glory if not simply to have a good opinion of themselves. For him, to be human is to be
cruel, cheap, mean, jealous, possessive, lazy, exploitative. Love and seeming sacrifice for others
are really forms of pretense, and are .held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is
broken whenever it serves their purpose x(184). Therefore, he concluded that people cannot be
trusted. A ruler .who has relied solely on their words, without making other preparation, is
ruined x (184). During the time of peace, they will be loyal to you and obey your order. But when
the dangers come by or their profits are being threatened, they would betray you and put you in
the worst situation before they would get into it. A prince should be feared by the people as
Machiavelli said, .it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to be
wanting x(184). The way to govern the people s evil nature, Machiavelli believed, is not to change
it but to control it through strict political , moral, or spiritual discipline. He believed that each
individual required the organization of a society of law and order and unquestioning obedience to
a strong ruler.
A true ruler, as Confucius believed, should love his people, keep faith with them, have
good behavior and virtue. For him ordinary people are ultimately more important than either
power or territory. The most learned and the most virtuous can aspire to positions of status, trust,
and responsibility. For a ruler, he said . approach the people with dignity…and they will be
respectful. Show filial piety and kindness, and they will be loyal x(196). He believe a ruler should
provide education for the people as well, and .promote those who are worthy, and train those
who are incompetent; and they will be encouraged to cultivate virtues x(196). He stated that
political power is charged with the responsibility to give ethical direction to members of society in
the name of peace, security, protection, and human well-being. While a prince needed to educated
his people, he needed to set up a good example for them as well. He wrote .If a prince has
rendered himself upright, he will have no difficulty in governing the people. But if he cannot
rectify himself, how can he hope to rectify the people x(198)? He believed that people are good
followers, if the prince is good, they will be good; if the prince is bad, they will bad. He built the
ideals of harmony, virtue, and filial piety to provide a stable foundation for the continuous
ordering of social life through the generations.
On the other hand, Machiavelli believed a prince should be feared by all the human beings
other than loved by them and doing whatever he could to keep his power. He needed to do
anything, he must to avoid being weak and destroyed by the others. Since he regarded human
nature as evil and selfish, he believed .it is much safer to be feared than loved x(184). Fear is to
obtain your own power, but love is to rely on the power of the others. Don t let love, egotism and
self-esteem threaten your power. In doing things, one must think about consequences first, do
something only if it can help you maintain your power and put you on the top. From his opinion,
an honest prince will not last, for .he must have a mind disposed to adapt itself according to the
wind[situation], and as the variations of fortune dictate,… not deviate from what is good, but be
able to do evil if constrained x(186). Those princes who pretend himself to appear to be good,
faithful to his people and love his people, will gain the loyalty and obedience from his people. To
be a prince is to be cruel, for .it is impossible for a new prince to escape the reputation of
cruelty…it is extremely necessary that he should not mind being thought cruel x(184). To maintain
his power and to be the strongest, it is necessary to have all those evil characters to be aware of
the others, to control them, or to destroy them without risking your own power. But hide those
qualities in your mind, what you appear to be is to have .all mercy, faith, integrity, humanity, and
religion. x Because .everybody sees what you appear to be, few feel what you are, and those few
will not dare to oppose themselves to the many…the end justifies the means x(186). The prince
who would last, maintain his power and conquer the others, would be .judged honorable and
praised by every one, x regardless of what he had done before. He would be considered as a
winner, a true ruler.
Confucius believed killing and execution won t help the ruler to govern the country
better. He stated . only if good men were to govern a country for one hundred years, would it be
really possible to transform the evil and do away with killings. How true is the saying x(198)!
Killing would not be the way to overwhelm the others. It s not the way to maintain power and to
make the others obey your orders. It would not rectify the people from evil to upright and be
faithful to you. It only made the people see the prince had the character of cruelty, tyranny and
oppression. He believed . the people may be made to follow but not to understand x(197). They
might follow your order by afraid of the penalty and try to do no wrong. But they won t submit
willing to your order and trust you. By the time danger comes or your power being threaten, they
will revolt against your penalty and your cruelty.
But Machiavelli believed execution is necessary to carry out through the people, to gain
the power and loyalty. A prince .must not mind incurring the charge of cruelty for the purpose of
keeping his subjects united and faithful x. If killing can help him to rule his people and secure his
power, he might just do it regardless what the others think or hurt his reputation. .He will be
more merciful than those who, from excess of tenderness, allow disorders to arise, from whence
spring bloodshed and rapine x(183). This kind of prince, for Machiavelli, is much smarter than
those who tolerate the crimes and disloyalty carried on by some individual, to give them a chance
to threaten his own power and to make the disorder of the community. If the prince tries to show
his mercy and love for those people, he will .injure the whole community, while the executions
carried out by the prince injure only individuals. x By killing one person to warn the others not to
follow his actions and to make an example of the betrayer, makes the rest of people afraid of the
penalty. They will try their best to serve their duty, in order to avoid having this happen to them.
Machiavelli believed it s worth to kill him.
In my opinion, I think Machiavelli and Confucius are either too extreme or too tender. For
Machavelli s practice of government, the country might be well governed, the power might be
maintained and it would be the strongest country. But the people would live in a difficult life, they
will lose their friends, their family, their happiness, their trust for their ruler and always fear from
the others. For Confucius ideal of government, the people might live in a happy life. They will
love each other, have virtue and be educated. But their country and ruler might be weak, unstable,
and eventually it might be overthrown or destroyed by the others. If their theories were combined
together, I believed it will make a perfect society, a perfect ideal government. For example, in
ancient China, during the years of 190 AD, China was in chaos. The country was divided into
city-states. There was a ruler named Cao Cao who had the same character as Machiavelli
described, who was cruel and feared while he appeared to be loved and faithful to his people. He
managed to defeat the others and conquer the north side of China. There was another ruler named
Liu Bei who was like Confucius s ideal ruler who loved his people and virtuous. He, too,
managed to conquer the west side of China. With another smart enough ruler, they divided China
into three kingdoms. But nobody managed to defeated each other to conquer the entire country.
Finally, there was minister became a true ruler with the character of Cao Cao and Liu Bei, who
managed to defeat them and unite China. From this historical evidence, I believe a ruler with the
qualities as Machiavelli and Confucius described will be a successful ruler.
Now, let s pretend if either Machiavelli s pragmatic ruler who is cruel and feared by the
people or Confucius s idealistic ruler who is faithful and loved by his people, managed to conquer
the world and run the government as they described. What kind of society we would have today?
Would it be as good as right now or even better? I believe, the minister as I described above have
both characters to run the government. We would have the perfect society.