Garcia, Raphael Emmanuel M.

2015 11867
BA Political Science, 3-1
POSC80 – Political theories
Baes, Aldrin P.

Discussion “Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove”
Autodidact

Can we justify the imposition of fear rather than love?

I have never been attracted to Machiavelli’s principles or in a broader term, philosophy—

though he never did actually see himself as a person who practices that—a philosopher. It is
because I have always seen him as a person who promotes coercion. For me, if you are really born
a great, charismatic and righteous leader—also seen by your subjects that way—you don’t have to
instill fear in order for them to follow you. Just the fact that they see you as the supreme one is
already enough.

One of the most memorable terms that Plato coined, for me, is the “philosopher kings” or
the ones destined to be the leaders of the state. Their qualifications include being able to see past
the senses, and the relevant one—based on what we’re talking about— is the ability of instilling a
myth; making his subjects believe that he is an immortal or god-like being, in a way. A leader who
can make his subjects see him as a person to be followed since he is destined to be followed. It is
a myth, but his ability is to make them believe and of course, he should succeed in doing so. The
thing I am pointing out here, obviously, is that fear isn’t necessary, or if so, isn’t the main point of
being a leader. Just the mere idea that you are the supreme being, capable of governing the state,
possessing some kind of powers, wise in his decisions and provides credibility, is enough for
people to follow you.

However, there is a philosopher in my mind that, somehow, resembles or supports his idea
of preventing emotions from contaminating our decisions. It is one of the dictums that has managed
to be stuck in my mind, “Law should be reason free from passion.” —Aristotle

It can be associated with Machiavelli’s idea that has been one of his key points as a
philosopher involving the iron fist and the velvet glove which is, “It is better to be feared than to
be loved.”

Both have, somehow, a similar idea since they are implying that emotions or feelings
shouldn’t be applied on the legality of things. They shouldn’t be involved in terms of reasoning.
Garcia, Raphael Emmanuel M.
2015 11867
BA Political Science, 3-1
POSC80 – Political theories
Baes, Aldrin P.
We shouldn’t let them affect our decisions since it corrupts our minds. Though the problem is, it
is really hard to impose since we can’t do things without consulting our feelings. We always feel
empathy or sympathy towards things. If you will notice in the latter statement, there’s that word
again— “feel”. It’s always involved in everything when in fact, it shouldn’t be. Aristotle pointed
out that our laws must not be influenced by those but rather with reasoning and philosophy. Since
we are human beings—again, we can’t help but to involve our—figuratively speaking—heart. No
matter how hard we try or how thorough we think of things, there will always be an ample amount
of feelings involved.

The difference of their statements, however, is that Aristotle didn’t talk about the
promotion of fear. He just pointed out that passion shouldn’t be present in the decisions we are
making as long as the general welfare is concerned. Niccolo Machiavelli, on the other hand, is
implying that the people should feel scared of him in order for them to follow him. He’d rather be
feared than loved which is quite absurd since I see love as an emotion of great surrender. It talks
about sacrifice. If people learned how to love you, it is more likely that they will follow you since
they have already surrendered their rights to you; also seeing that you are great enough to govern
them—which brings us back to the idea of the social-contract theory. In the past discussions, we
emphasized how grave emotions drive us to the point that it corrupts our decision-making process.
So how is that different from the people blindly following their ruler, already bonded by their love,
or affection towards him?

Another difference of their ideas is that Machiavelli imposes power without morals while,
on the other hand, Aristotle supported otherwise. Clearly, I find the latter more reasonable since if
you are really concerned with the general welfare—which is the main purpose of the state—you
will need morals in order to meet the needs of the majority.

The point of this paper has been made. It is not really to impose love but to justify that fear
isn’t the key component towards great leadership.