Niccolo Machiavelli
CHAPTER XVII
Concerning Cruelty And Clemency, And Whether It Is Better To Be Loved Than Feared
COMING now to the other qualities mentioned above, I say that every prince ought to desire to be considered clement and not cruel. Nevertheless he ought to take care not to misuse this clemency. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding, his cruelty reconciled the
And of all princes, it is impossible for the new prince to avoid the imputation of cruelty, owing to new states being full of dangers. Hence Virgil, through the mouth of Dido, excuses the inhumanity of her reign owing to its being new, saying:
Res dura, et regni novitas me talia cogunt
Moliri, et late fines custode tueri. 1
Nevertheless he ought to be slow to believe and to act, nor should he himself show fear, but proceed in a temperate manner with prudence and humanity, so that too much confidence may not make him incautious and too much distrust render him intolerable.
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. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.
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. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. Besides, pretexts for taking away the property are never wanting; for he who has once begun to live by robbery will always find pretexts for seizing what belongs to others; but reasons for taking life, on the contrary, are more difficult to find and sooner lapse. But when a prince is with his army, and has under control a multitude of soldiers, then it is quite necessary for him to disregard the reputation of cruelty, for without it he would never hold his army united or disposed to its duties.
Among the wonderful deeds of Hannibal this one is enumerated: that having led an enormous army, composed of many various races of men, to fight in foreign lands, no dissensions arose either among them or against the prince, whether in his bad or in his good fortune. This arose from nothing else than his inhuman cruelty, which, with his boundless valour, made him revered and terrible in the sight of his soldiers, but without that cruelty, his other virtues were not sufficient to produce this effect. And shortsighted writers admire his deeds from one point of view and from another condemn the principal cause of them. That it is true his other virtues would not have been sufficient for him may be proved by the case of Scipio, that most excellent man, not of his own times but within the memory of man, against whom, nevertheless, his army rebelled in Spain; this arose from nothing but his too great forbearance, which gave his soldiers more licence than is consistent with military discipline. For this he was upbraided in the Senate by Fabius Maximus, and called the corrupter of the Roman soldiery. The Locrians were laid waste by a legate of Scipio, yet they were not avenged by him, nor was the insolence of the legate punished, owing entirely to his easy nature. Insomuch that someone in the Senate, wishing to excuse him, said there were many men who knew much better how not to err than to correct the errors of others. This disposition, if he had been continued in the command, would have destroyed in time the fame and glory of Scipio; but, he being under the control of the Senate, this injurious characteristic not only concealed itself, but contributed to his glory.
Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted.
Note
1. ...against my will, my fate,
A throne unsettled, and an infant state,
Bid me defend my realms with all my pow'rs,
And guard with these severities my shores.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thinking It Over:
What are the reasons Machiavelli gives for saying that it is preferable to be feared by the population than to be loved?
Taking It Further:
1) Looking at the state of modern liberal Western democracies today, are his views still relevant or are they archaic?
2) Are Machiavelli’s views of politics relevant to the context of
14 comments:
Thinking It Over:
What are the reasons Machiavelli gives for saying that it is preferable to be feared by the population than to be loved?
[to be added soon]
Taking It Further:
1) Looking at the state of modern liberal Western democracies today,
are his views still relevant or are they archaic?
Machiavelli has portrayed The Prince to be the supreme power over the state, and thus is a dictator. This makes his views archaic as people today have a greater expectancy of freedom,
and a right to make their own decisions. Thus in today's modern liberal wester democracies, such a leader would be dubbed a 'tyrant',
and would not be tolerated.
2) Are Machiavelli’s views of politics relevant to the context of Singapore’s political scene?
To a certain extent. Despite Singapore being a democracy in name, the ruling party has managed
to tighten a vice-like grip of the politics of the state, such that it has instilled a measure of 'fear' in Singaporeans (due to harsh penalties facing dissidents), and thus it has managed to maintain its hold
on the nation state for almost half a century.
Furthermore, the government has managed to bring success to the populace (i.e. material wealth and good living conditions), and thus this effectively depoliticizes the nation and further secures the party's grasp on the country.
(Added In)
What are the reasons Machiavelli gives for saying that it is preferable to be feared by the population than to be loved?
1. Men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage;
2. Because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon;
3. It is difficult to unite both love and fear in one person.
4. Men love according to their own will and fear according to that of the prince
5. Scipio’s army rebelled in Spain; this arose from nothing but his too great forbearance, which gave his soldiers more license than is consistent with military discipline.
1. Men think less of wronging someone whom they love than someone they fear because the nature of man is to manipulate love for their own gain.
2. Friendships attained through gifts cannot be depended on in time of true need.
3. It is difficult to unite both love and fear in one person.
4. Whether to love is a decision made by the citizens; uncontrollable by the Prince since they both love and withdraw this love by their own will. However, the Prince is able to inspire fear in his subjects if he so desires.
5. For example, Hannibal, who was feared by his army, is remembered on Wikipedia as ‘one of the most talented commanders in history’. However, Scipio who gave his men more free reign and actually defeated Hannibal had his own army revolt against him, causing him to be upbraided in the Senate by Fabius Maximus, and called the ‘corrupter of the Roman soldiery’.
What are the reasons Machiavelli gives for saying that it is preferable to be feared by the population than to be loved?
1. Too much mercy allows disorders to arise, which hurt the people as a whole. While cruelty are targeted at individuals.
2.It is impossible for the new prince to avoid the imputation of cruelty, owing to new states being full of dangers.
3.In general of men, that they are ungrateful, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; but when danger approaches, they turn against you
4. Friendship may be indeed earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon
5. Love is preserved by the link of obligation which is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.
Taking It Further:
1) Looking at the state of modern liberal Western democracies today, are his views still relevant or are they archaic?
Yes and no. They are useful only to a small extent in countries where there are newly established regimes like Iraq or East Timor, or countries where social unrest made people suffer like Somali. In these so called democracies, cruelty from the government is likely to bring the situation under control and prevent future sufferings of its people.Columbia and Sri Lanka's war against rebels has proven this point.
On the other hand, in most modern liberal democracies, who have relatively stable internal political climate, rulers earn their support of citizens by having fair and justice, which is overseen by Law. So in a real democratic country, fair and justice is what really matters.
2) Are Machiavelli’s views of politics relevant to the context of Singapore’s political scene?
Not really. Singapore is a highly democratic country where people exercise their rights under guidance of laws and justice. So the rulers play a small role in affecting their free wills.
What are the reasons Machiavelli gives for saying that it is preferable to be feared by the population than to be loved?
1. Too much mercy allows disorders to arise, which hurt the people as a whole. While cruelty are targeted at individuals.
2.It is impossible for the new prince to avoid the imputation of cruelty, owing to new states being full of dangers.
3.In general of men, that they are ungrateful, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; but when danger approaches, they turn against you
4. Friendship may be indeed earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon
5. Love is preserved by the link of obligation which is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.
Taking It Further:
1) Looking at the state of modern liberal Western democracies today, are his views still relevant or are they archaic?
Yes and no. They are useful only to a small extent in countries where there are newly established regimes like Iraq or East Timor, or countries where social unrest made people suffer like Somali. In these so called democracies, cruelty from the government is likely to bring the situation under control and prevent future sufferings of its people.Columbia and Sri Lanka's war against rebels has proven this point.
On the other hand, in most modern liberal democracies, who have relatively stable internal political climate, rulers earn their support of citizens by having fair and justice, which is overseen by Law. So in a real democratic country, fair and justice is what really matters.
2) Are Machiavelli’s views of politics relevant to the context of Singapore’s political scene?
Not really. Singapore is a highly democratic country where people exercise their rights under guidance of laws and justice. So the rulers play a small role in affecting their free wills.
Liu Ruisi
Brian Sim Wei Yang
Ng Shi Yang
09SO6J
What are the reasons Machiavelli gives for saying that it is preferable to be feared by the population than to be loved?'
- It is difficult for one person to be both loved and feared at the same time.
- As new states are full of danger, it is impossible to not instill fear through the usage of cruelty to establish order.
- Since Machiavelli believes that men are basically untrustworthy, fear is a strong deterrance for betrayal from them.
- It is difficult to control the people’s love as it is their choice, but fear can be inspired as and when it is desired.
- While it is possible to earn the love of the people, they have less scruples offending one who is beloved as compared to one who is feared.
1) Machiavelli’s theory states that the ruler should govern his state through fear. Underlying this statement is the presumption that the ruler has absolute power over the State i.e. the ruler dictates over the law and the life of every single member of the society. The modern liberal Western democracies we have today advocates human rights and freedom. This system is definitely much different from the dictatorial governance of Machiavelli, and thus the concept is archaic.
2) One distinctive Machiavellian characteristic that our government portrays would be the extensive use of the fining system. It is basically the usages of monetary threat to deter acts which are potentially detrimental to our society, for example littering. Our fine system has seemingly produced good results. Before the implementation of the fine system on littering in 1998, the number of litterbugs caught was at 8652; after implementation this figure was halved to 4069.
Thinking It Over:
What are the reasons Machiavelli gives for saying that it is preferable to be feared by the population than to be loved?
One of his reasons is that if a ruler gives too much freedom and is too humane when it comes to taking control, disorders would arise. he also argues that man in general are ungrateful and unloyal, supporting you when you are successful and turning against you when you meet with failure. hence, rulers should govern by fear. all men dreads punishment, and this will deter man from commiting an unlawful act.
Taking It Further:
1) Looking at the state of modern liberal Western democracies today, are his views still relevant or are they archaic?
His views are not entirely archaic as the concept is still relevant to today's society. The concept of being feared rather than being loved still applies as the ruler should always be aware of his people and not be too easy on them or too trusting. A sense of fear should always be instilled but as Machiavelli says, the ruler should avoid hatred as it would create opposite effects.
On the other hand, today's liberal society emphasises at human rights and personal freedom thus a ruler cannot be dictative but learn to respect and listen.
2) Are Machiavelli’s views of politics relevant to the context of Singapore’s political scene?
Yes. In Singapore, deterrence is often used to prevent people from comitting crimes. Thus, the sense of fear is used to promote peace and harmony. Deterrence is effective in preventing crimes such as the death penatly for drug traficking which serves as a very strong deterrent.
Goh Shi Hua, Goh Ying Ying, Kwan Yuwen
09S07A
What are the reasons Machiavelli gives for saying that it is preferable to be feared by the population than to be loved?
he argues that men are naturally untrustworthy and fearful.they would align with those in position of power and would betray in times of need. Thus a loving population might some day end up betraying,as that is man's basic instinct. On the other hand, a cruel prince would intill fear in the population and at least this would deter the population from doing anything against the law.
Looking at the state of modern liberal Western democracies today, are his views still relevant or are they archaic?
His views have limited significance in modern Western democracies. the stability of the government is often directly related to its popularity amongst its people. in most cases, the desire to get relected guides the government to work to keep the general population 'satisfied'.
Are Machiavelli’s views of politics relevant to the context of Singapore’s political scene?
yes, his view that fear can act as a deterance is quite evident in Singaporean society.there are numerous examples, like the death penalty for drug-trafficking. it has also worked as the singapore government has been in successful in checking the number of people addicted to drugs.
What are the reasons Machiavelli gives for saying that it is preferable to be feared by the population than to be loved?
Machiavelli gives the example of Cesare Borgia, whose cruelty was feared by the Romagna. He states that this fear reconciled Cesare Borgia's people, unified them, and restored the Romagna to peace and loyalty.
Machiavelli also believes that as long as a ruler keeps his people united and loyal, being cruel is permitted. This is because he believes that too much mercy by rulers would cause disorders to arise in their country, as proven by several historical examples. (Eg. Florentine people)
Thirdly, Machiavelli feels that if given a choice to choose between being loved and being feared, the latter would be a much safer choice. This is because he generalises men as being ungrateful, fickle, fake, timid and greedy, and will follow whomever is successful. He also states that men would be completely loyal to these successful rulers and offer them their all, but will turn back on their word when the need arises, due to the inclination of men to be less willing to offend those who are cruel than those who are loving. These loving rulers who foolishly believe in their men would thus neglect the necessary precautions whilst following their empty promises. Why so? This is because when the ruler is loved, his people feel obligated to follow him loyally. However, this obligation is tangible and easily broken once man feels he himself is at a disadvantage. Fear, on the other hand, compels men to obey with the threat of punishment.
As such, Machiavelli feels that it is preferable to be feared by the population than to be loved by them.
Looking at the state of modern liberal Western democracies today, are his views still relevant or are they archaic?
Machiavelli's views are still slightly relevant in today's society, though mostly considered "old-fashioned" and impractical in the modern world of politics and governing.
His advocated approach of rulers using cruelty and instilling fear in their people is rarely practiced in this modern society. This is because most governments today are democratic, and are voted in and trusted by their people because they are entrusted the role of taking a paternalistic and "loving" approach in setting laws and policies such that they are able to maximise their people's welfare. Using cruelty as an approach à la Adolf Hitler during World War I is no longer a desired form of government (as proven by the lack of them in today's modern world), because such behaviour in rulers would only cause more harm to its people.
However, it is still advisable for rulers in the modern society today to not be too trusting and "loving", as Machiavelli implies. This is because love and trust are preserved by men's feelings and obligation towards the ruler, and these are tangible aspects that can be easily turned back on and broken. Rulers should not take a completely "friendly" approach without instilling a little, if not more fear in their people, to enable them to still remain faithful and loyal to their country with the threat of facing punishment. As Machiavelli assumes men to be selfish and self-centered, always looking out for their own welfare first, this approach is highly effective and workable.
Are Machiavelli’s views of politics relevant to the context of Singapore’s political scene?
As answered in the above question, Machiavelli's views of politics are only relevant to a small extent in the context of the modern society today, which includes that of Singapore. He advocates the approach of rulers using cruelty in order to instill fear in their people, so that they will not want to go against the authorities with the threat of punishment. This view is consistent to a certain extent with the Singapore government, as they also use the approach of severe punishment and the promise of heavy consequences upon offenders and law-breakers to instill in its citizens a sense of "fear" and unwillingness to offend the law. This has done Singapore well, as her strict laws and policies have enabled her to remain one of the most crime-free and safest countries in the world.
However, contrary to Machiavelli's beliefs, Singapore's government cannot take a fully "cruel" and threatening approach without paternalism, as this, owing to the fact that we are a democratic society, would not enable that government to be re-elected by us Singaporean citizens in the next term of office.
Done by: Lionel Lim Xiang
Ng Yong Sheng
Ng Chen Xuan
Goh Wenqi Chelsia
09S06J :D
Thinking it over:
Machiavelli feels that it is much safer to be feared than love as love is very subjective. In his opinion, generally men are ungrateful, flicked, false and cowardly. They will only remain loyal or “love” you when it is beneficial for them however when the time comes that you are no longer “useful”, they tend to abandon you. Fear however, is more effective as it deals with something more substantial than love. Men have a tendency to hesitate when offending one who is feared because the fear of punishment is sufficient to deter him from the act of offense. On the other hand, love which offers the bond of obligation can be broken without much serious consequences.
Taking it further:
1. We feel that his views are no longer relevant in western liberal democracies. This is due to the fact that in western liberal democracies, they tend to place more emphasis on liberty and not fear inducing acts and punishments. This can be seen from the fact that most western democracies do not practice capital punishments such as hanging nor do they overly suppress oppositions. They also tend to priorities issues such as human rights and equality of men, thereby giving everyone a chance in ruling the country and have a say. This could be due to the fact that people now are more educated and they know how to fight for their own rights and no longer will they succumb to the decisions of the government because of fear.
2. Machiavelli’s views can be said to be relevant because Singapore believes in inducing fear in citizens too. However, it is for motives like deterring people from committing crimes and not for the same reasons as mentioned, i.e. cause fear in people so that they will be subordinate to the government. Looking from another perspective, the government does not only attempt to use force but also try to inculcate a sense of love for the country and respect for the government. They implement a series of civics and moral education to inculcate in our citizens a sense of belonging to the country. By using education as a means to instill love for the country, the Singapore government differs from Machiavelli’s views in this aspect.
Done by:
Christian, Rui Ting and Sabrina
(09S07A)
What are the reasons Machiavelli gives for saying that it is preferable to be feared by the population than to be loved?
1. It is difficult, if not impossible, for one person to embrace both love and fear when ruling over his people.
2. Love and friendship may be earned, but cannot be sustained or relied on especially in times of need.
3. In order to ensure stability, fear is preferred as the possibility of punishment acts as an effective deterrent as compared to love which is merely preserved by the link of obligation.
4. Men are untrustworthy by nature, but fear would be effective in curbing the possibility of betrayal.
1) Looking at the state of modern liberal Western democracies today, are his views still relevant or are they archaic?
Machiavelli’s views are only of limited relevance to modern liberal Western democracies today, governments only remain in power through election and voting from its people, therefore governments strive to best serve their people and ensure quality standard of living such as to maintain their position of power they enjoy. However, fear is sometimes needed in the imposition of laws and unfavourable policies which may be unpopular but meant for the good of society.
2) Are Machiavelli’s views of politics relevant to the context of Singapore’s political scene?
Machiavelli’s views are of significant relevance to Singapore’s political context, which enforces strict laws to act as a deterrent for offences detrimental to the general societal welfare, ideally resulting in a high level of security in Singapore.
Done by:
Chin Yik Sin, Toh Xue Qian
09S07A
Thinking It Over:
What are the reasons Machiavelli gives for saying that it is preferable to be feared by the population than to be loved?
Being feared by the population would ensure total obedience to a ruler's commands as fear usually is inculcated due to a very strong deterrence like capital punishment or Nazi concentration camps or something. Just being loved may get people to follow you for a little while, but once the going gets tough, Machiavelli believes that every man would abandon everything and save his own skin first, i.e. the priority is oneself.
Taking It Further:
1) Looking at the state of modern liberal Western democracies today, are his views still relevant or are they archaic?
In the modern Western democracies, rulers cannot afford to rule based on fear. In America for e.g., the power from ruling does not only fall on one person alone, but to a Parliament which helps to make laws. This election for which people to hold the authority ensures that the people running for a position has to be well liked to be voted in. Furthermore if they want to keep their term in office, they would have to continue gaining favour of the people for them to be voted in for the next term.
2) Are Machiavelli’s views of politics relevant to the context of Singapore’s political scene?
A little. The Singapore government doesn't use fear to control the country, but uses monetary threats to curb 'bad habits' like spitting, speeding, etc. It's not so much of a fear for what the government would do to your family, but more of a disadvantage you would be at if you had to pay a fine for some small 'trivial' thing.
Thinking It Over:
What are the reasons Machiavelli gives for saying that it is preferable to be feared by the population than to be loved?
Firstly, Machiavelli believes that it is preferable to be feared by the population because alliances between the people and the government may be superficial and are thus never always secure. Since they are fragile, and in times of need cannot be relied upon, instigating fear in a population comes across an admonishment that will never fail to compel one to obey the rules.
Moreover, he also mentions that too much mercy provided by the government may lead to crimes which are harmful to the society, and not merely the individual. Seeing that the community at large is affected, Machiavelli believes that a healthy amount of fear (yet avoiding hatred by the people) needs to be inspired to control the more unruly and selfish people. He feels that without instigating enough fear into people, the presence of other virtues would still be insufficient to earn the respect from the people and make them follow his orders.
Taking It Further:
Looking at the state of modern liberal Western democracies today, are his views still relevant or are they archaic?
We believe that Machiavelli’s views are still relevant in modern liberal Western democracies today. The power wielded by the government can come in many forms; we would touch on three main aspects – political, economic, and military power.
Machiavelli states that it is preferable for the government to be feared by the people as excessively merciful behaviour may not command the respect necessary for the leaders in power. By fear, we do not mean terrorising the people, rather, we mean the people to have an apprehension of doing something wrong because of the severe consequences faced, so that their actions will be kept in check.
In terms of military might, his views are largely relevant because large amounts of power (including the development of nuclear weapons) must be amassed together with the people so that the country will be able to put up a strong deterrence against possible rivals. Only when leaders are able to give their fellow soldiers the fear that is consistent with military discipline will the army be able to fight well in foreign territories, minimise conflicts amongst themselves, subsequently leading to a stable and sound society when the army works as one large force.
In terms of economic power, it is also prudent to amass wealth in terms of sovereign funds as to ensure that our country can weather the financial storms. This will also ensure that our economy will be better equipped to handle external competition from trade competitors. As such, his view that the government should be better feared than loved applies because citizens need to work together towards a common goal so as to tide through the tough times, and the government cannot afford anyone losing out in this rat race, thus the need to instill some fear to warn everyone of the need to play their part in tackling the crisis.
As for the political aspect, even though democracies govern the country differently from that stated in the excerpt, the government still needs to be ‘feared’ by the population to a certain extent too so that people will maintain the integrity of the law and not break these rules at their own free will. Should governments adopt an easy nature, they might not earn the cooperation necessary to help the country progress in a politically sound manner and might instead lead to unruly behaviour. Moreover, democracies mean that the power is held in the hands of many people, so the government needs to win the respect of all its citizens by instigating some element of ‘fear’ into the population.
Therefore, in all 3 areas, Machiavelli’s views have proven to be still relevant in the modern Western liberal democracies.
Are Machiavelli’s views of politics relevant to the context of Singapore’s political scene?
Yes, Machiavelli’s political views are relevant to Singapore’s political scene. Firstly, although Singapore is generally a safe country, we are still not spared from the threats of terrorist attacks, as can be seen from the various plans to bomb MRT stations that have been foiled by the government. As such, his views are relevant because it is necessary for the government to inject some fear into the people so that it would be ingrained in our minds that we must always be prepared to defend our country when needed.
Secondly, the fear of political law prevents us from doing unruly things such as getting involved into racial riots, which is particularly pertinent to Singapore since she is a multiracial and multi-religious country and communal tensions do still occur. Too much mercy may mean a lax government system, leading to a rise in disorders and crime rates which are detrimental to society.
Thirdly, Singapore is a small economy which is heavily dependent on overseas exports. As a result, financial crises that happen to our major trading partners such as USA will inevitably affect the economic growth of Singapore. Because of this, it is necessary for Singaporeans to work hand-in-hand with the government to support policies that help fight the economic crises. Thus, as can be seen, even though Singapore is known to be a politically and economically sound society, Machiavelli’s views of politics are still necessary in combating crises that come our way.
Done by:
Abigail Kang
Vionna Luah
09S07A (:
Thinking it over:
Mac feels that it is better to be feared because men in general, are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly and covetous. They will only love you if it is in their best interests and will not hesitate to harm you if it is to their benefit. The use of fear will not only keep the subjects in check, but also create a peaceful and obedient society. Therefore, fear is a better option than love.
Taking it further:
1) In modern democracies, Mac's views of instilling fear into the people is not relevant because democracies are elected into the government by votes. Political parties run election campaigns to try to gain the love of the people, raise its popularity and hence get more votes. A political party using fear as method to gain votes is unthinkable in today's modern societies.
If a current government is using fear as a primary method, it would simply be voted out of power during the next election, or the people may revolt and overthrow the government using force, with the possible aid of foreign countries or support, such as the UN.
2) Mac's political views are relevant in the context of Singapore, in that, it can be seen to be carried out to a small extent. Instead of instilling fear into the people, the government uses fines as deterrents to even the smallest offenses, which leads to Singapore having the reputation of a "fine" city. This is the component of fear Mac mentioned.
However, fear is not the primary method of operation of the PAP. In fact, it uses the love component to a greater extent. Through many political campaigns, the liberty given to Singaporeans, the relative economic and social stability of the country, Singaporeans have grown to love the government, despite the stricter than normal rules and regulations than other countries. Therefore, Mac's views of creating an ideal balance between fear and love is seen to have been made material in Singapore.
Done by:
Wenty
Yi Xin
Nic Lo
Thinking It Over:
What are the reasons Machiavelli gives for saying that it is preferable to be feared by the population than to be loved?
It is difficult to show your love and concern for a large group of people in a country but easy to instill fear in the whole population, thus fear is a more effective means of ensuring order.
In order to maintain strict discipline within a group of people, especially an army, power of love is incomparable to that of fear since the betraying of love does not bring about serious consequences as compared to the latter.
A feared population is more reliable to control or acquire help when the needs arise as he believes that people naturally are greedy and only fear but not love could deter them from acting for their own interest.
However, the fear should not be developed into hatred by the people or the ruler(s) would face rebellion or civil unrest.
Taking It Further:
1) Looking at the state of modern liberal Western democracies today, are his views still relevant or are they archaic?
His views are only relevant to a small extent. As modern liberal Western democracies today gives the people the right to choose their own leaders, ruling by fear would not be effective at all as the country can simply change leaders during the next election. Rulers of countries nowadays have to earn the support of their people through giving them equality and justice, not by ruling with an ‘iron hand’.
2) Are Machiavelli’s views of politics relevant to the context of Singapore’s political scene?
His views are relevant to the context of Singapore’s political scene to a small extent. Since Singapore’s independence, Lee Kuan Yew, then prime minister, ruled with an iron hand. Strict laws were enforced but the people understood that in a time of political turmoil and social unrest, maintaining law and order is for the good of Singapore. Everyone feared him yet revered him. This is one example where love and fear could co-exist for an efficient but caring or benevolent government.
However, in the modern day world, as a democratic state, it is unpractical for the Singapore government to function on the fear of people. If the people fear the government, a wall is built between two bodies of society and neither can trust the other. This contradicts the notion of democracy since both the government and the governed should maintain a dependent relationship that is founded on mutual trust and respect.
Also, measures that involve cruelty are intolerable and diminish the image of the government in the people’s eyes. If inhumane methods are employed by the government, the people will only view them as barbaric.
Joel, elaine, shiyuan
Post a Comment