English Language Resources Online - series on leadership, power, politics, part 4

English Language Resources Online - series on leadership, power, politics, part 4

This series on my English language and essay site deals with leadership, power and politics, and also with an important side issue of virtue and leadership. You have seen an instance of a good essay with all the good aspects of writing, in terms of good essay style, good essay structure and good essay skills being shown in writing, in the previous essay on the difference between political power and legitimacy. To see Mabel L Q H's essay, click here: the difference between political power and political legitimacy.

However, to improve one's writing, there is a need to look beyond just the good essays and learn from them. It is also a good idea to look at writing that has flaws and problems, so that you can learn what not to do. This is the first time that my site is going to post up an essay that has several flaws in ideas, writing skills and writing style, so that you can learn from it. The learning point here is that we can learn what not to do but observing what people do in bad writing, and then improve.

What is bad writing? How is the essay below bad, compared to other writing here on this site? Why does it appear to be a well written essay to people who have not been learning skills and ideas in writing? How come it seems to the casual observer that bad writing seems to be as good as good writing? What moves does the writer fail to make here? What moves does the writer make that are good, and what moves that the writer makes that are simply, for want of a better word, wrong? How can we improve this essay?

And beyond that, for thinking and critical skills, what is good writing and what is bad writing? What is the distinction? Is it merely technical, or does flair play a role?

This essay is an analytical essay on Virtue and Leadership - and it has several technical flaws as well as conceptual flaws.

Title: Are there certain virtues that are necessary for leadership?
Or does it all depend on the situation?: Comparing Machiavellian and Confucian schools of thought

(Part 1)

The word ‘virtue’, being the complex social construct it is, has been interpreted and understood very differently throughout history. Although the term ‘virtue’ used today has a moral connotation, this may not have always been the case in the past; the most obvious example being Machiavelli’s The Prince. However, virtue can be broadly understood as a feature of one’s character: a disposition to act in a certain way in relevant circumstances. With regards to leadership, both Machiavelli and Confucius have mentioned the importance of their respective interpretations of “virtue” (defining the term ‘virtue’ is beyond the scope of this paper, hence quotation marks have been used to indicate inclusion of all interpretations). As much as these two interpretations may seem to be poles apart to the reader, there is surprisingly one commonality in their understanding of the functioning of “virtue” in leadership – they both suggest that there is indeed no certain set of “virtues” that assists in leadership, but that the “virtue” in leadership depends on what situation the leader is facing or going to face. This ironical match may then suggest a guideline to understand the relationship between virtue and leadership. But let us first understand the two very contrasting standpoints that Machiavelli and Confucius come from in their interpretation of “virtue” in the realm of leadership.

Although Niccolo Machiavelli did not advocate dissimulation and cruelty at times, he reserves his praise for those who know how and when to use force and guile. He explains how a strong and effective ruler can best serve the interest of his principality. His advice was not meant for just anyone: it was advice for princes – rulers whose actions determine the fate of their subjects. Such people, he suggests, should not be squeamish. They need to act swiftly and effectively to do what is best; and what may be the best for the principality may include ignoring conventional morality.

The Prince was written in the genre of ‘mirrors of princes’ – short tracts advising and inspiring rulers. These were popular in the Renaissance and would typically advocate virtues such as courage and compassion (Pg 48, Ref 3). But Machiavelli’s advice was in complete contrast to that of others – whereby a successful prince will only honour his word when it suits him to do so, though it usually pays him to simply appear honest. He conveys a message that a prince needs to know how to act like a beast: a challenge to the humanistic tradition in which a prince is expected to act as moral exemplar to his people.

The key concept in understanding The Prince is the Italian word virtù, usually translated as prowess. Although it comes from the Latin word for virtue (virtus) (Pg 42, Ref 2), it has, for Machiavelli, a very different meaning. Throughout the book his aim was to explain how a prince can display this quality of virtù. This virtù can perhaps be understood as the ability to act swiftly and effectively to help secure the safety of his authority and continuing prosperity of the principality. This would include making false promises or murdering those who threaten the prince even if it would mean butchering his own supporters.

Machiavelli’s model of a prince who demonstrates virtù was Cesare Borgia (C7, Pg19, Ref 1). His prowess involved tricking the Orsini into coming to Sinigaglia where he had them murdered. However, the move of Borgia’s which Machiavelli seems to appreciate the most was taken against one of his own employees – Remirro de Orco. Remirro, a cruel henchman of Borgia, was successful in pacifying Romagna through violence. Borgia realized that such cruelties “aroused some hatred against him” (C7, Pg20, Ref1), and in order to expunge that hatred, he had Remirro murdered and left hacked in two halves in a public piazza. Machiavelli applauds Borgia’s virtù and the way, with a single brutal spectacle, he kept the people of Romagna both appeased and stupefied. But in the very next chapter he contrasts Borgia’s approach with that of Agathocles. Agathocles became the king of Syracuse by crime: he slaughtered the senators and the elite of Syracuse and simply seized power. Though the means of both Borgia and Agathocles towards political power were similar, but Agathocles’ “excessive cruelty and inhumanity and his infinite crimes” (C8, Pg24, Ref 1) made Machiavelli not credit him with having virtù. Not ruling out this judgement of Machiavelli as simply a self-contradiction, there is a more plausible conjecture to explain this. While Borgia kept his people in law and order (despite being almost certainly inspired by a lust for power), Agathocles was just a brutal tyrant whose actions left Syracuse in a worse situation than before; his actions were nothing more than criminal and hence he did not demonstrate virtù.

According to Machiavelli, since a prince cannot rely on inheritance, he must acquire. He suggests that this can be done through “one’s own arms” and not by depending on others. Yet surely the prince needs assistance from others (without really depending on them). Now he cannot get help through the gratitude of those whom he benefits, because the beneficiaries already believe or soon convince themselves that they are entitled to their benefits, hence that the prince is obliged to provide those benefits (C7, Pg14, Ref 1). Machiavelli warns that when the prince runs out of such benefits, the beneficiaries would not show any more gratitude to the prince. So he suggests that the practical solution to this problem is to use fear – that the prince can prevent such an attitude among beneficiaries by putting them in fear of his authority. They must at times be unrewarded or punished when they deserve benefits; so that they will be “grateful” to receive them. Such kind of gratitude can be manufactured if a prince mixes some deliberate but unexpected actions of injustice with his justice. This will cause his beneficiaries to not take his benefits for granted and come to his side when he needs their help, not merely when they want to.
The justice of the prince is thus more impressive and effective when contrasted with his injustice. The virtù a prince is reputed for, regardless of the actuality of its existence, is the virtù he needs and one that is most useful to him (C18, Ref 1). Virtù, in the actions of a prince, needs vice as a recurring and steady associate for him to sustain his political authority. And in order to keep this possible, virtù must include the occasional practice of vice. This is very well reflected in the fifteenth chapter of ‘The Prince’ where Machiavelli claims to “depart from the orders of others.”

Having broadly understood the Machiavellian virtù, the Confucian interpretation of “virtue” (termed ‘Confucian virtue(s)’ from here onwards) can now be explored to realise how contrary these two viewpoints appear to be.

What have you learnt from this academic paper? What have you learnt about writing, essay skills, critical thinking and essay techniques? The second part follows in the next post here on English Language Resources Online.

English Language Resources Online