Machiavelli's The Prince is an ambitious attempt to describe the steps necessary to achieve leadership success. The work dissects the elements of power; it identifies the sources from which it comes and the tactics necessary for its maintenance. His position is based on the assertion that power "is acquired either by the arms of others, or by one's own, or by fortune, or by virtue" (Ch. 1, p. 6), and he asserts that success in politics cannot exist outside of that. basic framework. Centuries later, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. would emerge from the masses as a leader, armed only with the directness of his goals and his means. King is generally accepted by those familiar with his political career as a successful leader - one whose goals were steadily achieved through the perseverance of his spirit and the support of his people. Yet Machiavelli clearly states that “all the armed prophets have conquered, and the unarmed have been ruined” (Ch. 6, p. 24). Machiavelli's inability to explain the success of a leader as antithetical to his beliefs as King betrays a fundamental flaw in the former's reasoning. Machiavelli's understanding of true leadership and true success is limited; it is shortsighted in assuming that all power must be absolute power and fails to recognize that the oppressed and the great can often converge to strive for a greater goal than mere material acquisition. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay. King manifests none of the qualities that Machiavelli identifies as virtuous. Rather than relying on cunning and ingenuity to manipulate or eliminate his opponents and constituents, King achieves his goals “openly, lovingly…with a willingness to accept the penalty” (p. 294). Machiavelli would then assert that his rise must necessarily be precipitated by fortune. As he states, “the fact of becoming a prince from a simple individual presupposes either virtue or fortune” (Ch. 6, p. 22). Again, King was not dependent on his own wealth or any outside funding for the duration of his career. And he certainly does not invoke the use of weapons. King's basic response guideline is "nonviolent direct action." The king emerges from the people as a leader, which immediately distinguishes him from all of Machiavelli's princes. According to Machiavelli, the interests of the governed are only important to the extent that they affect the governor's ability to rule. However, King, rather than using the people's backs as a springboard, takes their burden on his shoulders and brings it to the forefront of public attention. He is therefore loved by the people he leads. Machiavelli warns leaders against this supposed danger. According to him, love can only be maintained through the leader's continued expenditure on his people, whose affection is purchased. Yet, as he says, "Friendships that come at a price... can be bought, but they cannot be owned and, when the time comes, cannot be spent... Love is held together by a chain of obligations which, because men are wicked, are broken on every occasion for their own usefulness” (Ch. 17, p. 66-67). However, the esteem in which King's supporters hold him is different from that in which Machiavelli warns leaders against; its perpetuation does not depend on generosity and the distribution of material goods. King inspires a kind of unconditional love because it is based on the intangible. This is a true appreciation of the efforts and leadership provided byone of their own. When a leader like King takes up the fight for conditions as intangible as justice and freedom, and for the exclusive benefit of the population, he becomes loved by the people and thus gains a fortune that Machiavelli fails to identify: the eternal and unconditional support. masses. As these two types of leaders come from opposite ends of the world, across the social spectrum, their views on the fundamental elements of politics also differ radically. Machiavelli and King differ almost antithetically in their views on positive law. For the prince, laws are just tools used to control the masses, not codes that leaders themselves must follow. Furthermore, the existence of laws allows the prince to impress and terrify the population by mercilessly breaking them. The ability to transcend the law makes the prince an impressive and powerful image in the eyes of the people. King, for his part, respects the laws with the greatest respect possible: "I am in no way advocating evasion or defiance of the law... an individual who breaks a law which his conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the sanction. ... actually expresses the greatest respect for the law” (p. 294). King only sets out to break unjust laws after carefully considering whether they should actually be broken. He operates within the law, establishing himself more as a man of the people. The most fundamental difference, however, lies in each man's definition of success, his ultimate end. For Machiavelli, the prince himself is his own end. Machiavelli's ultimate goal is to find ways to ensure stability throughout the Italian region and ensure its security. He believes that this can only be accomplished through the establishment of a powerful absolute ruler. Thus, he guides his prince to use fortune and virtue to defend himself at all costs, in order to overcome all obstacles to achieve total power. This definition of success is measured largely in terms of material acquisition; the prince must acquire and retain control of a parcel of land, and it is the essence of his nature to do so: "...it is a very natural and ordinary thing to acquire, and always, when men do it, who can, they will be praised or not blamed” (Ch.3, p. 14). set of goods that can be acquired, and all opponents of his methods are obstacles to his goals. Thus, rivals are eliminated and the people are terrified or manipulated into silence. But for King, the people are an end in purpose. self According to him, “law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice” (p. 295), so that people can enjoy the highest degree of happiness in a society that treats all men equally. He fights to bring justice and equality to the most oppressed sectors of the population, and his success is measured by the intangible: the revelation of injustice and the establishment of a " positive peace full of substance” in which its people are recognized as equal members. of society; in other words: justice. King's end is entirely external to himself, he is only an agent of the people and for the people; every idea of ​​personal gain is subject to the benefit of the common good. By this definition, and through the knowledge of all that he accomplished, Martin Luther King Jr. was indeed successful. Machiavelli's problem lies in the fact that he only identifies two moods: "the people desire neither to be commanded nor oppressed by the great, and the great desire to command and oppress the people" (Ch.9, p.39). From this conflict of interest arises..