The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli appealed to me as if it was a manual rather than a book in

gaining and retaining power as a leader of a city or state. Though it was intended for Lorenzo de Medici,
anyone who engage in politics can learn from the wisdom of Machiavelli. It was written in 16 th century
when religion and morality directly affect whatever we do in life so the way the book ignores these
entities is controversial. However, Machiavelli’s way of leadership presents a more realistic take rather
than idealistic and it gain prominence through time.

In his book, Machiavelli wrote a very orderly fashion on how an individual can come to power
and hang on their power – he lay down what must be done to do these. The Prince discusses two
principal types of governments: monarchies and republic. However, what it really focuses is about
dictatorship. Machiavelli highlighted the qualities that will lead to prince’s downfall as well as the
qualities to stay in power. Interestingly, Machiavelli believes that the qualities we find most moral to
other people can actually be the reasons why the prince could fall from power. According to him, it was
acceptable to do everything to stay in power even if it leads to crime and cruelty as long as it was
controlled and used wisely. This ideology challenges the morality of any reader of the book.

On my own opinion, Machiavelli’s The Prince teaches us that being and staying in power
requires strong resolve. If we allow ourselves be eaten by greed and monopolized this power, we must
be ready to sacrifice our morality. Machiavelli tells us about tyranny of the masses – that oppressing
your people through military force is acceptable and necessary to stay in power so long as it was
justified and controlled. As a citizen who enjoys democracy, these ideology of Machiavelli challenges my
perspective in leadership. Although his ideas may prove effective, I do not think that we can have people
with high morale with his way. For me, oppression of any form is bad. This will eventually lead to
unsatisfied citizens and may ignite revolutions against the government no matter how you control and
justify it. Take the Marcos’ regime for example. The former president and dictator held on to power for
over 20 years. Although he is in power for a long time, the people eventually revolved against his
government and overthrow him. Another example of failed dictatorship is Moammar Gaddafi of Libya.
He was deposed and killed by Libyans. History tells us that clinging to power for too long will eventually
leads to downfall. What is really disappointing about prolonged leadership through force or dictatorship
is the fact that the state was deprived of ever-growing leaders in form of different minds – that
harmonious and progressive passing of governance.