Machiavelli's The Prince is an ambitious attempt to outline the steps necessary to ensure success in leadership. The work analyzes the elements of power; identifies the sources from which it arises and the tactics necessary for its maintenance. His position is based on the statement that power "is acquired with the weapons of others or with one's own, or with luck or with virtue" (chap. 1, page 6), and states that success in politics it cannot exist outside of this. basic framework. Centuries later, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. would emerge from the masses as a leader, armed only with the candor of his goals and means. King is generally accepted by those familiar with his political career as a successful leader, one whose goals were consistently achieved through the perseverance of his spirit and the support of his people. Yet Machiavelli clearly states that "all the armed prophets conquered, and the unarmed ones were ruined" (ch. 6, p. 24). Machiavelli's inability to explain the success of a leader so antithetical to his beliefs as King betrays a fundamental flaw in the former's reasoning. Machiavelli's understanding of true leadership and success is limited; it is short-sighted in believing that all power must be absolute power, and fails to recognize that the oppressed and the great can often converge to strive towards a greater goal than mere material acquisition. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay King manifests none of the qualities that Machiavelli identifies as virtuous. Rather than relying on cunning and ingenuity to manipulate or eliminate his opponents and voters, King achieves his goals “openly, lovingly…with a willingness to accept punishment” (p. 294). Machiavelli would then state that his rise must necessarily be accelerated by luck. As he states, "the result of becoming a prince as a private individual presupposes either virtue or luck" (ch. 6, p. 22). Again, King does not rely on his own wealth, nor is he funded by outside parties for the duration of his career. And it certainly doesn't call for the use of weapons. King's basic guideline for response is "nonviolent direct action." The king emerges from the people as a leader, which immediately distinguishes him from any of Machiavelli's princes. According to Machiavelli, the interests of the governed are important only to the extent that they influence the ruler's leadership ability. King however, instead of using people's shoulders as stepping stones, places their burden on his shoulders and brings them to the forefront of public attention. This is why he is loved by the people he leads. Machiavelli warns leaders of this supposed danger. According to him, love can only be maintained through the leader's continuous commitment to his people, whose affection is purchased. However, as he states, "Friendships acquired at great cost... are purchased, but they are not possessed, and when the time comes they cannot be spent... Love is held back by a chain of obligations, which, as men I am evil, it is broken at every opportunity for its own benefit” (ch. 17, pages 66-67). However, the esteem enjoyed by King's followers is different from that of which Machiavelli warns the leaders; its perpetuation does not depend on generosity and the distribution of material goods. King inspires a kind of unconditional love because it is based on intangibles. It is a genuine appreciation for the efforts and leadership provided by one intangible conditions such as justice and freedom, and forthe exclusive benefit of the population, becomes dear to the people, and thus gains a fortune that Machiavelli fails to identify: the eternal and unconditional support of the masses. Since these two types of leaders come from two opposite ends of the social spectrum, their views on Fundamental elements of politics differ drastically. Machiavelli and King differ almost antithetically in their views on positive law. For the prince, laws are nothing more than tools used to control the masses, not codes that leaders themselves must abide by. Furthermore, the existence of laws allows the Prince to impress and terrorize the population by callously breaking them. The ability to transcend the law makes the prince a fantastic and powerful image for the people. King, on the other hand, holds the laws in the highest possible regard: "In no sense do I advocate evasion or defiance of the law... an individual who breaks a law which his conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the punishment...actually expresses the utmost respect for the law" (page 294). King strives to break unjust laws only after carefully examining whether they should really be broken. He operates within the bounds of the law, further establishing himself as a man of the people. The fundamental difference, however, lies in each man's definition of success, his ultimate goal. For Machiavelli the prince himself is the end of himself. Machiavelli's ultimate goal is to find the means to ensure stability for the entire Italian region and guarantee its security. He believes that this can only be achieved through the establishment of a powerful absolute ruler. Thus, he guides his prince to use luck and virtue to fend for himself at all costs, so as to rise above every obstacle to achieve total power. This definition of success is largely measured in material acquisition; the prince must acquire and maintain control over a body of land, and it is the essence of his nature to do so: "... it is a very natural and ordinary thing to acquire, and always, when men do it who can, they will be praised or not blamed" (ch. 3, page 14). In such a political atmosphere, the prince operates alone: ​​all others who harbor any ambition towards leadership are nothing more than competitors for the same set of acquirable goods, and any opposition to his methods is an obstacle to his goals. In this way, rivals are eliminated and people are terrorized or manipulated into silence. For King, however, the people are an end in themselves. According to him, "law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice" (p. 295), so that people can enjoy the greatest degree of happiness in a society that treats all men as equals. He fights to bring justice and equality to the most oppressed sector of the population, and his success is measured in intangible terms: the denunciation of injustice and the establishment of a "positive peace full of substance" in which his people are recognized as members on par. of the company; in other words: justice. The king's end is entirely outside of him, he is but an agent of and for the people; every idea of ​​personal gain is subordinated to the benefit of the greater good. By this definition, and through knowledge of all he accomplished, Martin Luther King Jr. was truly successful. Machiavelli's problem lies in the fact that he identifies only two moods: "the people desire neither to be commanded nor oppressed by the great, and the great desire to command and oppress the people" (chapter 9, page 39). From this conflict of interest comes the constant state of mistrust between leaders and their people. Please note: this is just an example. Get a personalized article from our writers now.