Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 – 1527) was a nobleman with an unstable fortune that
ultimately learnt to support himself through his writing career. His most acclaimed
work, “The Prince”, is a basic dissertation on the qualities a prince or a leader must
have in order to retain his power and authority. Similarly, the “Tao-te Ching” is a
philosophical document that is known to be written by Lao-tzu. The document
provides a foundation for the religion of Taoism and speaks about good leadership and
moral behavior. While Machiavelli believes in practical, dominant and severe methods,
Lao-tzu approaches the theme of leadership with detachment, patience and
equanimity. Therefore, as both Lao-tzu and Machiavelli seem to have two extremely
contrasting philosophies on good leadership, extracting and applying specific qualities,
simultaneously, from each could result in forming a comparatively better new-age
leader for the state.
Machiavelli’s guidelines to maintain a leader’s power lean more towards harsh,
strict, cruel and deceitful methods. He believes that “it is much safer to be feared than
to be loved” (44) as men, in general, are unappreciative, fearful, cheats, volatile and
greedy. It is better for a leader to be feared than loved because the fear of punishment
and one’s wrath would push discipline onto the people as well as the fairness of the
consequences given would build respect towards the leader regardless of the
harsh/painful outcome. On the other hand, Lao-tzu states, “there is no greater illusion
than fear”(26; Section 46), which means that fear in itself is a false idea or belief that
only exists in one’s mind. According to Lao-tzu, fear is the most prominent falsity
amongst people. His philosophy is that once one overcomes the whole element of
“fear”, he/she will forever be safe from it. Evidently, both the writers’ views oppose
each other. While Machiavelli states that being feared is more effective, Lao-tzu claims
2
that the concept of fear in itself doesn’t exist, thus rendering Machiavelli’s advice to be
counter-productive. Realistically, encouraging the masses to completely overcome fear
would be an impractical task. However, by aiming to gain the peoples’ respect, with the
use of executing justice fairly and based on necessity, instead of instilling fear in them,
the leader could achieve stability and balance in his/her rule.
Machiavelli’s promotion of violence and destruction further reveals his barbaric
opinions on man. He emphasizes on the quality of a prince knowing how to switch back
and forth from actually being good and pretending to be good, as he believes that
deceiving the majorities would result in future positive outcomes. This is further
supported by his claim that “a man who wishes to make a vocation of being good at all
times will come to ruin among so many who are not good” (40). The quote implies that
in spite of the pureness of one’s intentions, the majorities surrounding him/her will
inevitably contaminate the goodness of one’s aspirations. Ironically, Lao-tzu believes,
“when there is no desire, all things are at peace”(25; Section 37), which implies that
any and every intention that one has disables him/her from achieving ultimate
satisfaction or happiness. On one hand, following Machiavelli’s advice could result in
the widespread of corruption due to the constantly increasing negative influences in
one’s environment, whereas following Lao-tzu’s passive statement could lead to utter
failure, as having entirely no desires or curiosity goes against basic human nature, as
well as the history and future of life. However, a constructive characteristic can be
developed by making oneself aware and prepared for the possibility of negative
influences and obligations; and perhaps substituting the idea of “desires” with
“expectations”, as one would be unable to be disappointed if he/she was oblivious to
what the outcome would be.
3
Another significant quality that is discussed by both writers’ is to do with a
leader’s position on generosity and miserliness. Machiavelli declares that, “above all
other things a prince must guard himself against being despised and hated; and
generosity leads you to both one and the other”(43), which means that a leader must
not be bothered with worrying about being overly generous, as it would result in
oppression and misuse. Instead, he suggests that a leader must strive to be
parsimonious, as it could result in future stability of the state. However, Lao-tzu
advises that, “for governing a country well there is nothing better than
moderation”(28; Section 59), which means that in order to smoothly lead a country
one must completely avoid reacting in extremes and establish specific limits to all
decisions and actions. While Machiavelli’s advice seems slightly excessive and
unpredictable, Lao-tzu’s literal words prove to be logical and reasonable. However, his
intended interpretation of “moderation” is “freedom from [one’s] own ideas”(28;
Section 59), which implies that in order for one to lead well, he/she must free
themselves from ambitions and desires so that a fair and moderate decision/action is
taken. Therefore, by applying Lao-tzu’s literal words to Machiavelli’s advice on
generosity, one could attain the ability to achieve proper balance between being
generous and a miser.
Machiavelli’s political philosophy maximizes the power of the state, whereas Laotzu’s philosophy contains an anti-materialistic view and minimizes the state’s power to
persecute the people. In the opinion of Machiavelli, “a prince must not worry about the
reproach of cruelty when it is a matter of keeping his subjects united and loyal”(43),
which means that a leader should disregard the consequences for being cruel and firm
in order to be able to provide efficiently and sufficiently for his state. In comparison,
4
Lao-tzu states that, “governing a large country is like frying a small fish. You spoil it
with too much poking”(28; Section 60), which implies that leaders that resort to
unnecessary cruelty and continuous provocations are bound to fail. Nonetheless, by
giving absolute freedom, as Lao-tzu suggests, a leader would be exposing the people to
immense vulnerabilities as well as the risk of failure and chaos. Hence, following
Machiavelli’s advice during specific consequential situations, where the leader should
disregard his/her worries on cruelty, and following Lao-tzu’s advice during other
times, could prove to create fair and decent results. This is because the execution of
legitimate consequences would always be dependent on the severity of the situation,
where only the most important issues would be considered. Furthermore, the
controlled increase of freedom could prevent dissatisfaction amongst the people and
help gain their respect and loyalty.
Today, the extreme nature of Lao-tzu and Machiavelli’s philosophies would prove
to be an unfavorable guide on leadership. Lao-tzu’s advice focuses on freedom and
enlightenment, whereas Machiavelli’s advice revolves around domination, power and
authority. Giving a country complete freedom to govern itself or cruelly intimidating it
to follow all of one’s commands would be immensely impractical in today’s society. The
people have overthrown dictatorships throughout history due to rebellions, and the
concept of democracy has prevailed. Moreover, Machiavellian leaders would find it
exceedingly difficult to successfully participate in elections and campaigns, as their
demanding, violent and forceful leadership style could have the possibility to violate
varying fundamental human/civil rights. Similarly, Lao-tzu’s leaders would have a
contradictive situation because their philosophy emphasizes the act of doing nothing
and detachment from materialistic possessions.
5
In order to be a good leader in the times of today, one would have to extract
particular qualities from each of the two philosophies’ and merge them together to
create a precise balance in one’s leadership abilities. By choosing individual qualities
from both philosophies and applying them to oneself accordingly, one is opening
oneself to varying perspectives, creating room for communication, equality, justice, and
earning natural respect from one’s people, without the use of force and brutality.
Both, Lao-tzu and Machiavelli have excessively opposing philosophies on
leadership. Machiavelli’s approach towards good leadership is more practical and
economical, when compared to Lao-Tzu’s detached and inactive philosophy. His
manner of persuasion hardly allows his readers to find a logical opposition as he uses
rhetoric devices, such as comparing and contrasting, as well as providing other point of
views and examples. In contrast, Lao-tzu takes a soft and wise tone by structuring the
writing in poem form and providing aphorisms to state his point, causing the reader to
feel calm. Therefore, being aware of and developing the diverse, positive and important
qualities, where the specific characteristics differ from one individual to another,
suggested by Niccolo Machiavelli and Lao-tzu, could contribute to the birth of a better
new-age leader.