Machiavelli and Socrates are two people who lived during times of great instability, political fragmentation, and war. Living in these times helped form their views on the role of government in a society, and these views are accurately depicted in The Prince: And the Discourses by Machiavelli, and Plato’s account of Socrates in The Apology and Crito. Although these pieces were written at different moments in time, it is safe to say that the arguments of both authors are similar in theory, but different in practice. While both agree that the people should be happy—or at least hold the illusion of happiness—and that they must obey the orders of the state, they differ in their approaches to politics, in their thoughts on how to rise to power, and in their values on public interest. With that, Socrates would most likely disagree with most of the arguments suggested by Machiavelli on how to be the ideal “Prince”.
The purpose of Machiavelli’s The Prince, is to create a guide for Lorenzo de Medici, the ruler of Florence in 1492, explaining how a person can successfully rise to power and remain in office afterward. Because at this time Machiavelli was frowned upon by the new regime and removed from office, his goal was to hopefully regain his political reputation with the help of Lorenzo de Medici. Machiavelli emphasizes how important it is for a sovereign to be feared but at the same time liked by the public. He believes that this equilibrium between fear and amiability will then breed a compliant and a well-respected leader (Machiavelli, 57). Additionally, Machiavelli speaks about how it is integral for a prince to ensure that the people will always need him, because if they do not depend on him, then they will be uncontrollable (Machiavelli, 63). Overall, his point of view suggests that power is needed above all else and offers tips on how a ruler can maintain his authority, no matter how unjust it may be. Although Machiavelli was not able to convince Lorenzo to reinstate his political reputation, his ideologies have influenced many of the political regimes that exist today.
In Plato’s The Apology of Socrates, Plato centers his writing around Socrates’ interest to learn and value on how important it is to share your intellect with the public. Socrates was charged and sentenced to death for “corrupting the youth” and “defaming the deities” (Plato, 1969, 42). This occurred after he sought answers from the elites, but was unable to find any causing them to appear unwise. In his teachings, he spoke for the public. He believed that his political stance was important to be heard, even though he was just a citizen like the rest of the people. After being charged, Socrates was given the choice of leaving the commonwealth or being sentenced death. His decision—described in Crito—in the end was to be exiled, further supporting his ideologies on the significance in living and dying for what you believe in. The extensive teachings included in both readings have also greatly contributed to the styles of governing that are used nowadays.
In the Apology Socrates delves into how corruption is inevitable. We see this in his statement “a man who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life if he is to survive for even a short time” (Plato, 34). What he means by this is anyone who is truly looking for justice would not be a politician or a leader, instead he would live a private life. This implies that people do things for what benefits themselves, not others, making it close to impossible to live in a society free of corruption. He furthers this argument by posing the question “Do you think I would have survived all these years if I were engaged in public affairs and, acting as a good man must, came to the help of justice and considered this the most important thing?” (Plato, 35). He then follows this question by negating it and saying that it would be impossible for himself and for any man of Athens to do so. He is essentially saying that he could not be an ethical human if he was a politician because no politician can be an agent of justice. This is very similar to Machiavelli’s repetitive argument that people will always act in their best interest, and therefore, regardless of whether they are serving for the state or for the people, they will always choose what is inherently beneficial to themselves. Therefore, according to Socrates, serving for the government would make them corrupt as their intentions do not reflect those of society. While these points of view seem similar in theory, Socrates would still disagree upon the teachings of Machiavelli due to their conflicting approaches to politics.
Machiavelli approaches politics from the perspective of the government. Everything he writes about is regarding how the leader can maintain his power and gain more power through time. He emphasizes the importance of keeping the people happy so that they are easier to control. However, he believes that if the public becomes unhappy, “men must either be caressed or else annihilated” (Machiavelli, 9) This means that the people must be content, or be exiled, eliminating any subversive thought that may come up. He then proceeds by saying “the injury therefore that we do to a man must be such that we need not fear his vengeance” (Machiavelli, 9). In other words, as a ruler you can do any harm that you want to the public, as long as it does not result in them being able to get back at you. This shows how Machiavelli undermines what may be good for the people, if it means that the leader will remain in power. On the other hand, Socrates would argue the complete opposite. He believes that the people should express their feelings and feel however they want—happy or unhappy—and that it is the job of the government to fix things if they are, in fact, unhappy. His entire argument is oriented around the idea that the government must rule in a way that shows conscience of what is in the best interest of the people. Additionally, Socrates argues that the people’s trust in the government is vital to the success of a leader. He believes that if there is genuine trust in the government, and the government can return that trust, the people and the leaders will be able to coincide in harmony. While Socrates argues for genuine trust, Machiavelli states that the people need only to believe that they trust in the government to be happy. In addition to their contrasting political approaches, they both hold different values on how public interest should be used.
Throughout Machiavelli’s book The Prince, he constantly mentions the importance of having the people at least think they are satisfied, even if they are not. This is relevant when looking at Machiavelli’s use of the public interest to rise to power. In his opinion, public interest should be used as a tool to get what the government wants. In other words, if the people are requesting something, they should follow through with it if it does not hurt the government. This is because Machiavelli argues “a wise prince will seek means by which his subjects will always and in every possible condition of things have need of his government, and then they will always be faithful to him” (Machiavelli, 39). In other words, the people should be in a constant need of assistance in order for them to be controlled, because in his mind, the best chance a government has for survival is for the people to think they are getting what they want. In order to do so, Machiavelli states that the Prince should make it seem like he is working to satisfy the people, while always keeping them at a disadvantage. He can do this by granting benefits “little by little” (Machiavelli, 9) so that they do not get everything they want all at once. Socrates would completely disagree with these assertions and in fact argues the opposite in his works. He believes that the people should be kept at a constant need of fulfillment and that public interest should be the driving force of the government. If the people want something, the government should do what they can in order to make them happy. If this happens, then the people will always be happy and the society will be stable. In addition to this disagreement, Socrates would frown upon Machiavelli strategies on how to a leader should rise to power.
As stated earlier, Machiavelli always argues for what will be best for the government. In the sense of attaining and maintaining power, he believes that having the support of the general public is the most important form of support to have. This is because the easiest way to have a government run smoothly is to ensure that the population supports it, allowing it to be able to do what it wants while keeping the people happy at the same time. We see this when he says “a prince must live with his subjects in such a way that no accident of good or evil or fortune can deflect him from his course” (Machiavelli, 39). What he means by this is that no matter if the government is doing good or bad, the people still support the prince because they will not think the evil is coming from him. Instead, they will believe it is happening because of an external force. However, Socrates had a different interpretation on how to attain and maintain power. To him, it was important to get the most informed members of society to provide their support, because that is what would be best for the people. He says, “one should always take expert advice rather than majority advice” (Plato, 83), which in other words suggests that those with the most intellect should be the ones that are supporting the individual as opposed to the general public. He does this because, like Machiavelli, he knows that the people will do what is best for themselves, but the most informed will offer solutions with the most likely opportunity for an outcome of success.
Overall, Socrates agreed with Machiavelli that the best way for the state to function would be absolute adherence to whichever institution was governing, because it needed to be assumed that the public’s best interest was aligned with its motives. In this regard, he and Machiavelli both believed that the individual was indebted to the state. In practice, however, Socrates was also an agent of change through the open and controlled discussion of subversive thought, and believed in this respect that the institution was obliged to reflect the wants and constraints of its constituency. Socrates also differs with Machiavelli in his approaches to politics, in his thoughts on how to rise to power, and in his values on public interest. We can look at Machiavelli’s take on the government as a pyramid, with the people at the bottom and the leader at the top. The leader is at the top, always doing what is right for them while still maintaining the illusion of happiness among the people. On the other hand, we can look at Socrates’ take on the role of the government as a cycle, with the leader still with higher importance, but constantly giving back to the people, as the people give back to the state. Although the ideas of Socrates and Machiavelli appear similar in theory, there are many differences in how they would execute these ideas. It is hard to say which one has the best approach or which one would ultimately obtain the best results. They both have pros in their methods, and they both have faults. But they do have a common, final thread – a thread that has been the quest of rulers across the ages: seeking the happiness of the people while ensuring the leader remains in a position of power.