Machiavelli's Principles of Leadership Essay Example

The role of moral concepts in the state is a controversial topic to be discussed. Today's politics depicts different agendas, beliefs, and varying significance to political issues. Whereas, the Founding Fathers would not look twice at certain affairs. Many believe that the state has a due right of respect in regard to global politics. Leaders were often chosen based on brute strength and assertiveness rather than intelligence and cooperativeness. Each theorist tends to have differing opinions on the state and human nature. According to Machiavelli, all men are evil with no possibility of vindication. Machiavelli refers to someone who is cunning and ruthless, which mirrors his theories and concepts. While Machiavelli is a prominent amoral figure, he is still seen as "the father of modern political theory". The father has three prominent major principles he believed in. The first is that leaders should be feared and not loved. At the same time, he understood the nature of people and believed while strength was an important quality of a leader, fear could not reach the point of afraid. "There is no other way to guard yourself against flattery than by making men understand that telling you the truth will not offend you". I feel this determines that according to this philosopher, the state is immoral and essentially a location of power rather than a combination of state and people. Machiavelli believed leaders urged to take on the world as is, rather than what the leaders wanted it to be. As discussed, leaders were meant to be ruthless and if they could not take on the world as is, they were deemed weak. The next concept states that leaders should have the support of their people. While this seems like a combination of equality and liberty, support is rather individual from nexus political power. Machiavelli's third principle states leaders should hold good virtues and be rather intelligent. Again, this speaks to the nature of the state rather than the aggregate nation. On the opposing side is (arguably) Foucault. Foucault believed knowledge is power and that they are closely bound. Every exercise of power is supported by knowledge. Furthermore, Foucault supported the relationship between power and knowledge is used to control societal connections and institutions. Foucault also believed strongly that ethics and morals reflected self. This meant that freedom is directly reflected by self practices and beliefs. Foucault did not believe that the state and power are an agency or are structured by morals such as sovereign acts. He argued that the state is an arrangement of power relations, rather a practice than a "thing" and not a main source of power.  A key concept to Foucault was his approach to power. Power exceeds politics as an everyday phenomenon and that this is the reasoning as to why state power struggles do not automatically equal change. The norm of power in the state was strength and force for so long, Foucault seemed almost insane to believe power is embedded in personal perception and morals. He leaned away from the idea of power being an instrument of coercion and rather geared towards the "power is everywhere" phenomena. Power is what makes us who and what we are, according to Foucault. Power can be necessary, productive, and positive in the state, which reflects the moral concepts of equality, liberty, and nexus of power between state and people. While both of these philosophers had differing views on morals of the State and the State's power, there were many similar ideologies they shared. In all, the role of moral concepts in the State seems to vary over years, through societies and generations. There is no one right or wrong answer as the answer tends to modify according to current political climate and society.