Aristotle and Machiavelli on good government characteristics and behavior

¶ … Aristotle and Machiavelli on the Characteristics and behavior of a good government.

Aristotle and Machiavelli offer two opposing views on what constitutes good government. The main source of this dichotomy of political views is their drastically different view on what virtues is along with the criteria that make a good political leader. In order to correctly evaluate the differences between the Aristotelian and the Machiavellian systems of thought, it is crucial to understand the difference between their views on human nature.

Aristotle's claim that man is a political animal is one of the most famous philosophical approaches to human nature. Aristotle's "political animal" means that man can only develop within a state, and can only thrive using his rational capabilities and obeying laws and traditions. Man has inherent capabilities and the possibility to develop them to their full potential within the city-state. On the other hand, Machiavelli argues that human nature is generally self-seeking and self-interested. Moreover, he holds that ambition is a common feature of those who have acquired a certain amount of power, but that the majority of people lack ambition and are usually content with what they have unless they are threatened from the outside. His view on human nature is centered on the assumption that man is never loyal and that goodwill is temporary and tributary to personal interests.

For Machiavelli, virtue is synonymous to the qualities that are praised by other members of society. Also, although he advocates that a leader should be virtuous at least in theory, i.e. virtues such as compassion and generosity is detrimental to the principality, the leader must forsake them. Moreover, a prince should not be afraid to employ any means in order to defend his principality, including cruelty and dishonesty. All vices are forgiven if they are used to the benefit of the state. However, these vices cannot be pursued for their own sake; they are not an end in themselves, but must be regarded as means to an end. Similarly to virtues, they are to be abandoned if they do not help the state. In this sense, the behavior of the prince must be observed taking into consideration that it is his responsibility to defend his principality, and not moral values. Aristotle's view is deeply contrasting. Aristotle defines virtue as excellence in fulfilling one's potential that was provided by nature. This potential is in fact each man's ability to perform a certain task and fulfill a certain role in society. It is very important to note here that this role is determined by man's capacity to reason which is in fact, the key to understanding Aristotle's view on human nature. Regarding political regimes, Aristotle characterizes monarchy, aristocracy and polity as the good type of regimes whereas tyranny, oligarchy and democracy are labeled as 'corrupt'. The basic feature of a good government is that it rules in favor of the common interest while corrupt governments rule according to their own interest.

As far as the rule of law, Aristotle argues that in a good state, i.e. with a good government, there is a rule of law, and not of men, in other words, that man is to judge man according to laws which apply to everyone. In this sense, the rule of law implies both obedience to laws, and checks and balances, a system which is aimed at exercising control over both the rule and magistrates. Also, laws must be obeyed in order for the government to be considered 'good'. Again, there is a clear opposition between the Aristotelian and the Machiavellian systems of thought. Machiavelli holds that good laws originate in good military in the sense that he regards war as the only method of state creation as states can only be built upon the foundation of war. Moreover, he argues in favor of the rule of man since the prince has the authority to employ any means in order to defend his state.