The second treatise of government

0 Comment

According to Machiavelli human nature should not be given full liberty. If this happens there is a creation of an ignorant population that may challenge the reign of the prince. In this case the prince represents the leader. The prince had the authority to use whichever form of leadership as long what is under his command remain controlled. In one of the most controversial inclusion in his book is the justification of use of violence in leadership. He justifies the use of force in controlling and eliminating political opposition and rivalry. The use of force coerces the resistant individuals and control strong men who have the ability of challenging the existing leadership. He also justified the use of violence when it came to introduction of power and implementing new laws and regulations. In his argument people responded more effectively to the use force than any other form of approach (Waldron, 45). It is from his negative political approach many public institutions and bodies criticized his pieces of literature. The Machiavellian approaches were termed as enemies of democracy and leadership as they promoted dictatorship and the use of crude ways of leadership. Humanists, activists and religious institutions disregarded the literature used by Machiavelli. Machiavelli’s views on security and corruption are also based on who is at power. The authority should provide people with security. However, the security should be offered when the people are opposing the leadership o f the land. Regardless of the conduct of the leader, the people should be respectful to the leadership of the land. There are numerous instances where Machiavelli disregarded the nature of human rights. The nature of human rights is based on the fact that leadership should be based on the view of the citizens. The general view of a leaders should be created by the nature of is environment. Additionally, the modes used in leadership should not be crude and undemocratic. Machiavelli’s view is in deep contract with these views. In his view, a leader should not be changed by the nature of his environment but come up with changes that will suit his character (Waldron, 123). Even if the change is negative and unfair to the people, the leader should find other ways of implementing this change. According to Waldron human rights should be the most considered factor when coming up with policies of leadership (34). The author further argues that disregard of the nature of the Human rights what is created is not leadership for the people but leadership dictating the people. Dictatorship n itself is a negative aspect of the society. Leaders using this mode of leadership are enemies of liberty and democracy. The people should have a voice in which they give their responses to the kind of leadership they want. Machiavelli’s proposition of using violence is also a major hindrance to achieving liberal societies. His approaches were viewed as what human activists were against. However, looking at the literature by Machiavelli in another perspective brings out another scenario of his arguments. It is an obvious assumption that any leader should be able to control the people under his command. This means that regardless of what he does, the people should not surpass his authority. It is a human to create opposition and resistance. An effective leader should be