Political Systems

The different political systems which Machiavelli and Rousseau heralded contrasted greatly. Reasons for each of their doctrines were completely different, therefore the style of the institutions vary considerably. However it could be argued that the way of life for an ordinary citizen may not necessarily be as different. This essay intends to show firstly, the reasons behind both writers theories; secondly, the different political systems resulting from these; thirdly, the way of life under each system. Both writers' style of writing suggests that it is written for males, the name of Machiavellis book alone is an example of this. It is therefore very difficult to write this essay with females in mind, where possible, an impersonal pronoun has been used but unfortunately this is not always possible.

With each persons' reading of the two authors, different visualisations of how each system

will present themselves occurs. However in order for this essay to be of any relevance, some central themes in each writer must be evident. It therefore makes common sense in concentrating on generalisations of hypothetical States rather than attempting to relate each writer to an existing one.

Machiavelli has been described by some as a realist. The main objective for Machiavelli is success, or more poignantly defined as, success for the ruler of a country. His idea is a handbook for all monarchs in how to gain, maintain and increase ones' own power and glory in principalities, either existing, new or conquered. Machiavelli does not deny Christian values such as compassion, generosity or forgiveness but he believes that these traits, when followed by the ruler will lead to exploitation by the citizens and either the loss of power or a full scale civil war. Both of these could have been avoided by the ruler by being able to act more ruthlessly when (and only when) necessary. Machiavellis' concept of human nature is pessimistic, he believes that men are generally "ungrateful, fickle, feigners and dissemblers, avoiders of danger, eager for gain.". Machiavelli saw the Monarchs position as a balance between maximising power for themselves and giving away enough to the citizens for them to remain loyal. A train of thought that runs through Machiavellis work is that the Monarch is sovereign and should only give up any part of his power if he considers that the action will create more power, glory, loyalty or security.

Rousseaus' main concern was liberty, or the freedom of the individual citizen to act independently from other citizens. His concept of the General Will - where the citizens under the system vote for the laws that they believe necessary and so are incapable of breaking them because they also deem these laws morally correct - is central to this argument. Rousseau believed that the advancement of human society was corrupt as liberty had been eroded, therefore in a modern society, "Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains.". Generally, Rousseau can be said to be an optimist or even a romanticist about human nature, his idea of the state of nature is pictured as care-free, with simple desires and little else.

Machiavellis' system is a framework which can adjust to each idea, apart from the assumption of a monarchy not much else is described. References tend to be actions which are necessary for Machiavelli. For example, in a mixed principality recently conquered Machiavelli advises two courses of action, firstly to slaughter the existing ruling families which removes the threat of them attempting to regain power, secondly to not make any changes to the existing laws or impose new taxes, in order not to further aggravate the conquered citizens. This second course of action shows Machiavellis pragmatic approach not to write about what should be, but rather how the ruler should best adapt to a given situation.

Machiavellis' concern was the ruler keeping power. He states a number of times in 'The Prince' that the two main attributes needed to hold on to power are a good army and good laws. Quentin Skinner points out that "laws' here should probably not be understood in a narrow sense: rather Machiavelli had in mind 'laws' and 'customs' (or unwritten laws); in short, the factors making for political and social cohesion and stability." As long as these two goals are adhered to, the rest is not as difficult. Contrary to many peoples beliefs, Machiavelli did not believe merely in a tyrannical government. He argues for the ruler to be rational and to an extent, moral. When necessary, such as with law-breakers or conspirators, the punishment must be severe, uncompromising and swift, "men should either be caressed or crushed; because they can avenge slight injuries, but not those that are very severe.