The ideal ruler in N. Machiavelli's treatise "The Sovereign"

The treatise "The Sovereign" was published after the death of the author, although it was written back in 1513, when Machiavelli, who was removed from recent political life, was actively rethinking it. The entire book consists of an introduction and twenty-six chapters. First of all, Machiavelli touched upon the issue of obtaining, or rather, capturing state power. Further, he tried to analyze the historical experience on the example of the conquests of Alexander the Great. Trying to characterize the essence of the state, he outlined his vision of the role of citizens in the state and the criteria for the strength of a particular government. Several chapters were devoted to the role of the Church and the army in the state, which he considered a very important stronghold of any ruler. In the end, he approached the most exciting question for him - the personality of the ruler - the “sovereign” (in some translations, “prince”), to which he devoted most of the work - seven chapters. Developing this key idea, he also added the requirements for the "sovereign's" advisers, and analyzed recent history his homeland of Italy, calling for it to be made an independent and powerful state.

So, according to Machiavelli, the ideal ruler is a stingy, cruel, inspiring fear and respect among the subjects, sometimes treacherous (not restraining his communication if it does not correspond to the “state interest”), smart, brave, active and determined person. By stinginess, Machiavelli understood the rejection of luxury, excessive spending, which not only devastated the treasury, but also corrupted the ruler himself, making him a pampered puppet of his whims. It is difficult to assess cruelty from the point of view of the late Middle Ages and modern times, but obviously cruelty in The Sovereign was understood as an uncompromising struggle against political opponents, up to complete physical extermination and maintaining an atmosphere of respectful fear in society. However, the author of The Sovereign emphasized, causing fear among citizens, the ruler should not go to extremes, so as not to cause hatred and contempt. Therefore, it is impossible to encroach on the property and women of citizens, because violated property and personal interests most often become the causes of riots. Contempt for the "sovereign" can be caused by his indecision, constant hesitation in state affairs, which is perceived as signs of political weakness. Any decision of the ruler must be firm, he himself must be a man of sound mind, and choose for himself the appropriate advisers by whom he will be judged. Thus, Machiavelli rejected the laws of Christian morality in politics, as well as any other morality. He believed that where in question about power, morality is only a manifestation of weakness or a trick. In this treatise, he spoke very cynically about human moral qualities: “It can be said about people in general that they are ungrateful and fickle, prone to hypocrisy and deceit, that they are scared away by danger and attract profit: as long as you do them good, they are yours with all your heart. They promise to spare nothing for you - neither blood, nor life, nor children, nor property, but when you need them, they will immediately turn away from you.

Machiavelli also wrote “People are always bad until they are forced to do good by necessity” (“Sovereign”, 2013. p. 82). Consequently, the categories of good and evil in the work "The Sovereign" appear in a completely new light. Good or good is what serves to build a strong state, and evil is any opposition this process. The state and its ruler become the absolute value of human society: “When the highest value, the unity of the state, is placed on the scales, the ruler should not be afraid to be considered cruel. You can execute as many troublemakers as you need, because executions affect the fate of a few, and disorder is a disaster for everyone” (“Sovereign”, 2013. p. 295). From these quotes, one can also understand that Machiavelli considered the mass of people unable to ensure their social well-being without the guidance of a reasonable and tough ruler who would maintain a fair socio-economic balance and protect his people from external encroachments. That is, history is made by the individual, not the masses. And the main tools of the ruler should be laws and military force. Laws are good in peacetime, but in times of uprisings or wars, when the ruler can lose his power, he himself can break and change them in the name of the common good. When the operation of the law becomes completely insufficient, brute force is used. At the same time, the army should not be hired, but its own, national, devoted to the “sovereign”.

But such a state of affairs does not exclude some kind of democracy: “It is impossible to honestly, without infringing on others, satisfy the claims of the nobility, but it is possible - the demands of the people, since the people have a more honest goal than the nobility: the nobility wants to oppress the people, and the people do not want to be oppressed” (“Sovereign”, 2013. p. 301). In peacetime, representatives of different classes may be involved in the administration of the republic. And the ideal ruler must satisfy the primary needs of all segments of the population, while being quick to punish, not rush to rewards, because rare incentives are more valued and incline subordinates to respect. Any good head of state should not “rest on his laurels” after gaining power, but continue to fight for it, fight against fate itself, not even delay the war if such a need is ripe. And he should not be confused by the concepts of "morality" and "honesty". Any word given by the “sovereign” belongs only to him and can be returned to him. And any method of capturing and retaining power is not bad if the “sovereign” in its qualities meets the requirements of an ideal ruler. Hence the catchphrase attributed to Machiavelli: "The end justifies the means." And although it is not found in the text of the treatise, it could well serve as an epigraph to it. This is where the term Machiavellianism and the controversial fame of Machiavelli come from.

Machiavelli made a clear distinction between politics, religion and ethics, which is also characteristic of modern political science, with the exception of ethical rules. He refuted the assertion of Augustine the Blessed about the divinity of power that dominated society. Any power, he believed, is the result of only human efforts. And politics is a set of means of retaining power in the interests of the whole society (“state interests”).

This notion of the priority of public interests over private interests has also long been entrenched in Western political thought. Politics is not an ideal, it is the realities of life, and the great merit of the treatise "The Prince" and indeed Machiavelli's work lies in the new critically neutral attitude to politics that still exists in political science as a science. The very paradox of the political views of the philosopher, which causes controversy around his ideas, lies in the fact that he did not reject morality as such, but believed that it strives for the sublime, and politics gravitates towards the real, earthly, and, therefore, attempts to associations only harm society. It makes no sense to believe that a ruler, a politician, will be absolutely honest, that he will always keep his word and show nobility when his power is in danger. In many ways, these bold judgments are very much in common with modernity, because although ethical standards are formally fixed in global politics, in practice they are violated every day by politicians and entire states. A vivid example of this is the recent scandal about the total surveillance of the American intelligence services for citizens of other states, contrary to official declarations. foreign policy USA.

Therefore, it is unfair to consider Machiavelli an insidious intriguer and to attribute political immorality to him. After all, under true morality in politics, the thinker understands the fulfillment of public duty, in this case, the duty of the ruler. But the avoidance of public duty is immorality. Therefore, the ratio of politics and morality Machiavelli decides simply and uncompromisingly: the achievement of political goals by any means is more moral than the observance of moral norms without achieving a political goal. Reading his treatise "The Sovereign", we, firstly, must take into account the conditions and reasons for its writing. And, secondly, having discarded the "extremes" of that era, we should pay attention to the rational component of his works. After all, Machiavelli considered cruelty and disregard for morality by the ruler not as a goal, but as a means, the goal was not the personal benefit of the ruler, but the very “state interests”, the common good of the people. As a patriot, he wanted to see Italy united and strong. That is why he created the image of an ideal ruler, on the one hand, as a utopian character, on the other hand, having compiled a kind of political code, a set of recommendations for Italian politicians. Could he have imagined that this code would go down in history? There is another, more topical issue, to what extent Machiavelli's views on the state and the personality of the sovereign, enshrined in his writings, are applicable to the present? Scientists disagree. In our opinion, in part, yes, because they allow a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of power and the personality of politicians. So, in the USSR, the government ignored the recommendation not to encroach on the property of citizens: the ban on private property caused hatred for the ruling power with the final collapse of the Union. At the same time, and modern Russia, and the United States, are strengthening their military power. There are many examples. the main problem These are chameleon politicians. From the point of view of Machiavellianism, they are not so bad, but now, as in Italy in the 7th century. it is difficult to understand how and whose interests they actually defend?

We carry out all types of student work

The meaning of the image of an ideal sovereign for a modern political leader (based on the work of N. Machiavelli "The Sovereign")

original work

Excerpt from work

Russian State Social University Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities Department of Political Science and social policy Course work

"The Importance of the Image of the Ideal Sovereign for a Modern Political Leader (Based on N. Machiavelli's "The Sovereign")"

in the discipline "History of political doctrines"

student of the 2nd year of the full-time department Lotyshev Evgeny Alexandrovich Moscow - 2011

• Introduction
• Chapter 1. The main ideas of N. Machiavelli as prerequisites for the formation of the image of an ideal political leader
• 1. 1 Europe at the turn of the XV-XVI centuries. ekov
• 1.2 The image of the ideal sovereign
• Chapter 2 Features of the development of political leadership at the present stage
• 2 . 1 Political leadership as the basis for the formation of the image of a modern leader
• 2. 2 The image of a modern political leader
• Conclusion
• References
• Introduction
• The relevance of research.
• At the moment, the topic of political leadership is quite relevant, primarily due to the upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections, as well as a rather unstable political situation in the country, which led to a decrease in the level of public confidence in the current government officials.
• In connection with the current circumstances, the question “how should a political leader behave, and who, in principle, can become this very leader” has gained considerable importance. This topic is being discussed extremely actively on the Internet: in social networks, blogs, and on public portals.
• In this situation, it seems quite natural to try to turn to historical experience humanity, namely to the political treatise of the outstanding educator of the turn of the XV - XVI centuries, Nicolo Machiavelli "The Sovereign", in which the great thinker sets out his ideas about how a person should behave, who, by the will of fate or his own work, got the right to govern the state.
• This work contains a large number of examples of the reign of sovereigns, as well as important political decisions made by them. Machiavelli examines in detail such categories and concepts as generosity and frugality, cruelty and mercy, love and hatred as applied to the political activities of sovereigns.
• For example, Machiavelli’s idea that “the sovereign should have no other thoughts, no other concerns, no other business than war, military institutions and military science, for war is the only duty that the ruler cannot impose on another” Machiavelli N. Selected works. M .: "Knowledge", 1982., is so categorical and radical that it cannot but attract attention. Including the philosopher's statement that "the sovereign, if he wants to retain power, must acquire the ability to retreat from goodness and use this skill as needed" Machiavelli N. Selected Works. M .: "Knowledge", 1982. These theses, like many other theses of Machiavelli included in the treatise, are supported by objective arguments in the form of examples from real life, therefore they deserve the attention that has been given to them for five centuries now by people of the political interested in science in one way or another.
• Thus, the work "The Sovereign" can be considered a good practical work, because it summarizes the experience of past centuries and contemporary political events, it contains original conclusions and useful recommendations from an experienced practitioner, a specialist in his field.
• The object of study is the work of Machiavelli "The Emperor".
• The subject of the research is the features of the formation of the image of the ideal sovereign in the interpretation of N. Machiavelli.
• Target term paper -- to determine the main criteria and provisions of the activity of the ideal sovereign, which are important in the formation of a modern political leader.
• The stated goal is the following tasks:

§ determine the main personal qualities the ideal sovereign according to the treatise;

§ find out what was the political situation in Europe at the turn of the XV-XVI;

§ identify the main criteria for the successful activity of a modern political leader.

The degree of scientific development.

In the study of the problem posed, the works and ideas of many authors were studied. Of these, special attention was paid to the Renaissance by such authors as Gukovsky V.A. Gukovsky V.A. Italian Renaissance, Leningrad, 1990., Losev A.F. Losev A.F. Aesthetics of the Renaissance, Moscow, Thought, 1978., Reale J. Reale J. Western philosophy from its origins to the present day. Volume 2. Middle Ages. - LLP TC "Petropolis", 1995., Sokolov V. Sokolov V. I. European philosophy of the 15th-17th centuries, Moscow, 1984. I., Marsilio Ficino Marsilio Ficino - Memories of St. Petersburg, 1990.

Including studied works devoted to a more detailed consideration of the philosophy of Machiavelli on the example of his outstanding treatise. The authors of these works are such scholars as Hans Delbruck Hans Delbruck - History of military art, vol. IV. M, Rutenburg V.I. Rutenburg V.I. Titans of the Renaissance, Leningrad, 1976., Gorfunkel A.Kh. Gorfunkel A.Kh. Philosophy of the Renaissance, Moscow, Higher School, 1980., Dzhivelegov A.K. Dzhivelegov A.K. - "Niccolò Machiavelli", v.1. - M, 1996., Kuznetsov B. G. Kuznetsov B. G. Ideas and images of the Renaissance, Moscow, Nauka, 1985., Kravchenko I.A. Kravchenko I.A. Machiavelli: technology of effective leadership. // Socis. - 1993. and many others.

ideal sovereign political leadership

Chapter 1. The main ideas of N. Machiavelli as prerequisites for the formation of the image of an ideal political leader

1.1 Europe at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries ekov

Machiavelli is an outstanding figure in the field of political philosophy of the Renaissance. The period of his creative activity coincided with a rather specific time. But before describing the situation existing at that time in Europe, including Italy, it makes sense to consider a few facts from the author's biography.

Niccolo di Bernardo Machiavelli (May 3, 1469, Florence - June 21, 1527, ibid.). His family was quite ancient - they settled in Florence as early as the 12th century, many members of this family were members of the city Council of Five Hundred, there were military leaders and priests in the family. His father was a fairly well-known lawyer, and besides, since he came from the class of nobles (aristocrats), he also owned a small estate. In general, contrary to the statements of Niccolo, their family was far from poor. In any case, the parents were able to give their son a brilliant classical education, even if the financial situation of the family did not allow Niccolò to take a university course. A good education instilled in him a love for classical Greco-Roman literature, for history. After graduating from the city and the school of Master Matteo, he did not enter the university, choosing as his teacher Titus Livius, Cicero, Tacitus, Caesar, Virgil and Suetonius.

Machiavelli was in charge of military and foreign affairs for a long time as secretary of the Commission of Ten of the Florentine Republic. Until 1512, Machiavelli was engaged in violent political activity: he showed himself both as a successful diplomat and as a psychologist and organizer. As a diplomat, Machiavelli visited Spain, Germany, Rome, France, whose travel reports were distinguished by a deep analysis of the political and military structure of these states. The study of the works of ancient authors and rich experience in the future will serve as the foundation for writing his work.

As a politician, Machiavelli knew how to accept and appreciate, above all, success and, quite like a Jesuit, to justify almost any means leading to the achievement of the goal. Nevertheless, he was a patriot of his country, both Florence and all of Italy, which is already proved by the fact that he undertook to write his treatise, in which he desperately tries to formulate the image of an ideal ruler for his beloved country.

Now it is worth giving some description of the social environment in which the author had to stay while writing his main work. This is important because constantly changing circumstances often determine the author's vision of the problem. And the circumstances accompanying the creative activity of Machiavelli were very specific. In particular, Europe of that time, like Italy itself, was something stormy, restless, contradictory: human freedom confessed the main value but life itself was worth nothing. All states, including Italy, were drowning in the blood of their citizens. Religious wars became more frequent, such as in the Netherlands, where the Geze fought against Catholic Spaniards; France, where the Catholics opposed the Huguenots; England, where Catholics and Protestants mercilessly exterminated each other.

Machiavelli's homeland, Italy, ceased to be a state at all. All its parts won sovereignty, many turned into seigneuries. With this system, the external forms of the republican system were preserved, but in fact the city-states were ruled by representatives of one noble family, which transferred power according to a purely dynastic principle. Italy became a disorderly mixture of independent states, within which monarchical, aristocratic or democratic rule was established by chance. It included the Papal States, the Duchy of Milan, the Florentine and Venetian Republics and the Kingdom of Naples.

Most famous people of that time were extremely controversial personalities. The famous Pope Alexander VI Borgia was gifted with outstanding abilities in the field of political activity, but at the same time he was known as a libertine, seeking to kill everyone who did not want to be submissive to him. The tyrant Sigismund Malatesta “exceeded all barbarians in cruelty. With his bloody hands, he subjected the innocent and guilty to terrible tortures. He oppressed the poor, robbed the rich of their property, did not spare either orphans or widows” Venediktov A. Renaissance in Rimini. M., 1970. S. 63. However, in spite of everything, Malatesta, according to his contemporary Pope Pius II, “possessed a wide knowledge of philosophy, talked with humanists for a long time, listened with pleasure to love sonnets and showed the most refined taste in judgments about painting and sculpture » Venediktov A. Renaissance in Rimini. M., 1970. S. 64.

At the same time, there is a statement by Marsilio Ficino describing Italy:

“I hear nothing but the noise of weapons, the clatter of horses, bombardment strikes, I see nothing but tears, robbery, fires, murders” Op. Italian humanists of the Renaissance (XV century). M., 1985, S. 211., - here, according to him, is an exhaustive description of the life of the era.

But despite this, it seems that neither in previous nor in subsequent centuries, not only Italy, but also any other country did not give birth to so many giants of philosophical work. It was in Italy that everything new that had matured in the depths of the Middle Ages spilled out first of all, and seemed to disperse in circles throughout Europe of that time. Even though this is an exaggeration, in a sense, these waves awakened Shakespeare in England, Villon and Ronsard in France, Dürer in Germany. What then to say about Italy itself, where for three centuries such lights of human genius shone, equal to which in the history of Europe no longer appeared. This time absorbed all the values ​​​​of the ancient world - the very land of Italy, keeping in itself the priceless heritage of the Republican and Imperial Rome, and through it Greece of the times of its highest prosperity, gave humanity, who looked at the world again, the wisdom of Aristotle, Plato, Herodotus, eloquence Cicero, the genius of Virgil and Ovid, the chased Latin of Caesar. But the centuries of Christianity, the centuries of faith in the spiritual principle, in the divine destiny of man, in the triumph of the Spirit over mortal flesh, enriched the ancient cult of man as the most beautiful creation of nature with awareness of the spiritual power of man - the creator, the driving force of his own destiny.

There are different ways to explain the rise of the culture of that time against the backdrop of the tragedies of real life. Perhaps spiritual truth should be born in suffering as the only possible way overcoming them. Here, the point of view of Nikolai Berdyaev is interesting, who tries to explain the contradictions of the Renaissance by saying that “the Renaissance is a stormy clash of two principles, that both pagan and Christian principles are strong in it. The duality of consciousness left its mark on the Renaissance (Renaissance), inherited from the experience of the Middle Ages with all its bifurcations into God and the devil, heaven and earth, spirit and flesh - it combines the Christian transcendental consciousness, tearing all boundaries, with the consciousness of ancient naturalism . The whole Renaissance was not whole for a single moment, could not be just a return to paganism” Berdyaev N. A. The meaning of history. M.: Thought, 1990. - S. 107.

In particular, it is worth adding to this that secular centers of science and art began to emerge at that time, the activities of which were outside the control of the church. The new worldview turned to antiquity, seeing in it an example of humanistic, not ascetic relations. The invention of printing in the middle of the 15th century, in turn, played a huge role in the spread of the ancient heritage and new views throughout Europe.

Time itself then demanded geniuses. A man of any talent could not afford to remain in obscurity. And Machiavelli became one of those people. The Renaissance gave the world an outstanding philosopher in the field of political thought.

Machiavelli's views on politics were well-founded and conditioned by the richest personal experience, which is why his work attracts so much attention. By the way, assessments of N. Machiavelli's work throughout history have been very different: some criticize him for immorality, while others, on the contrary, praise him for realism. However, it is obvious that his work is an outstanding work, which has been confirmed for several centuries.

But Machiavelli nevertheless gained gigantic popularity, first among the Italians, and after all the peoples of Europe, in the first years after the treatise was published. Since the people, somewhere in the depths of their masses, understood that the Italians could become a strong nation capable of competing with other peoples only if the Italian lands unite and turn from disparate parts into an integral unitary state. In this case, only a true leader, a person capable of uniting disparate forces into one and, most importantly, managing them, could fit into the role of the head of such a state.

Under these conditions, Machiavelli's treatise comes in handy, because this work describes the image of that same leader. Moreover, it is described quite accessible, without unnecessary phrases that confuse. Exactly as a person who cares would describe him; knowledgeable person; a person who wants to achieve a result through his work - to describe a full-fledged image of a political leader, which Italy needed at that moment.

1.2 The image of the ideal sovereign

Based on the needs of the society of that time, Machiavelli comes to the conclusion that the most important task is the formation of a single unitary Italian state. Developing his thoughts, he comes to the following conclusion: only a sovereign can become a leader capable of leading the people and building a united state. Not a concrete historical personality, but something abstract, symbolic, possessing qualities that in their totality are inaccessible to any living ruler. That is why Machiavelli devotes most of his research to the question: what should a sovereign be like in order to fulfill the historical task of building a new state. The study is built strictly logically, objectively.

Considering generosity and thrift, Machiavelli notes that those sovereigns who strove to be generous spent all their wealth in a short time. After the exhaustion of the treasury, they were forced to raise existing and establish new taxes, which led to the hatred of their subjects. Therefore, Machiavelli advises the sovereign not to be afraid to be known as avaricious. But then the author considers some possible situations when such advice will not be useful, but harmful. And throughout the work he cites specific historical facts illustrating his claims. As a result, the author formulates such a quality as moderate generosity. Minimal donations from the sovereign to the people, which will force the subjects to treat the leader with great respect, but not to see in him a thoughtless adventurer and squanderer of state wealth.

Talking about such qualities as cruelty and mercy, Machiavelli immediately writes that "every sovereign would like to be known as merciful, not cruel" Machiavelli N. Selected Works. M.: Khud.lit., 1982. - S. 88. Another thing is that often, in order to retain power, the ruler has to show cruelty. If the state is threatened by chaos, disorder, then the task of the sovereign is to prevent this, even if it is necessary to arrange some kind of reprisals. Indeed, in relation to the rest of the citizens, these executions will be a noble deed, since unrest and chaos would cause them suffering.

It is because of this part of the work that Machiavelli was accused of inciting cruelty and illegibility in the choice of means. The Sovereign is a treatise on the role, place and significance of the head of state, and it was declared a manual for absolute monarchs and dictators. But Machiavelli was not a promoter of cruelty and hypocrisy, but a researcher of the methods and essence of government.

In addition, the accusers “did not notice” in the same chapter the following words of the author: “However, the new sovereign should not be gullible, suspicious and quick to punish, in all his actions he should be restrained, prudent and merciful” Machiavelli N. Selected Works. M.: Khud.lit., 1982. - S. 90. Machiavelli justified the use of cruel measures only under unavoidable circumstances. If the well-being of the state and its citizens was under threat.

At the same time, as a true ideologist of the bourgeoisie, Machiavelli declares the inviolability of private property, homes and families of citizens. Everything else depends on the sovereign himself, whom Machiavelli advises to rely only on what depends on himself.

Machiavelli also emphasizes that it is unacceptable for a sovereign to be a romantic. He must be realistic. This also applies to the question of whether it is necessary to keep the word given earlier. The answer is this: one must keep one's word only in a situation where it cannot harm the state. In other words, Machiavelli includes in the list useful qualities the ideal political leader is the ability to act according to circumstances. “So, of all the animals, let the sovereign become like two: a lion and a fox” Machiavelli N. Selected Works. M .: Khud.lit., 1982. - S. 96. That is, let him be strong, like the king of beasts, and at the same time cunning and resourceful, like a fox - Machiavelli calls on the sovereign to be vigilant.

The predominance of general state interests over private, general political goals over any other determines the nature of the psychology of the new sovereign.

The author pays much attention to the relations of the new sovereign with the people. First of all, he warns that the ruler should not commit acts that could cause hatred or contempt of his subjects. The sovereign can cause contempt for himself by inconstancy, frivolity, effeminacy, cowardice.

It is in this chapter that Machiavelli clearly articulates the inviolability of private property. In no case should the sovereign violate these sacred rights, as this will lead to hatred of the ruler from the people faster than anything else.

The author argues that two dangers can lie in wait for the sovereign. One comes from within, the other from outside. And, if you can protect yourself from the second with weapons, thick walls of fortresses, then you can protect yourself from the first by allowing actions for which subjects will have reason to hate the sovereign. The hatred of the people, according to Machiavelli, most dangerous phenomenon for a political leader.

Machiavelli draws a clear line between the people and the nobility. And he believes that achieving a balance between these two groups of society is one of the most important tasks of the sovereign. He also argued that the people are the most powerful force.

Machiavelli pays attention not only to how to organize power, but also to how to keep this power. The author gives advice not abstract, but confirmed by real historical events. On the issue of maintaining power after its conquest, Machiavelli considers a large number of suitable methods: choosing friends and advisers, building or, conversely, destroying fortresses, maintaining an army, etc.

Honoring and respecting the sovereign by his subjects is one of the main conditions for maintaining his power in the country. “Nothing can inspire such reverence for the sovereign as military enterprises and extraordinary deeds” Machiavelli N. Selected Works. M.: Khud.lit., 1982. - S. 124, - says Machiavelli. In essence, he sets out a kind of code of conduct and actions of the new sovereign, which should be aimed at increasing his authority at home and abroad, at glorifying his name, virtues and valor. “The sovereign is also respected if he openly declares himself an enemy or a friend,” that is, he does not hesitate if it is necessary to speak out for or against. Machiavelli draws a multifaceted image of the new sovereign.

The author does not bypass such an important issue as the ruler's advisers - his inner circle. Whether they are good or bad, "depends on the prudence of sovereigns." It is precisely what kind of people the ruler brings closer to his person that speaks of his wisdom. Machiavelli believes that the first mistake or, conversely, the first success of the ruler, is the choice of advisers. Having chosen good advisers, the sovereign should try to keep their loyalty with the help of wealth and honors.

Machiavelli considers it important to be able not to fall under the influence of flatterers. However, to protect yourself from them, not to fall under their influence, without losing respect, is not as easy as it seems. Machiavelli also refutes the widespread opinion that the wisdom of a sovereign largely depends on good advice. This is wrong. On the contrary, according to the author, it is useless for a sovereign who himself does not possess wisdom to give good advice. Machiavelli places on the ruler all responsibility for the state of the state, for the preservation and strengthening of power. The author advises the ruler to rely less on fate, and pay more attention to ruling, wise and skillful. The sovereign must rely, first of all, on his ability to govern the state and on the created army, and not on fate. Although Machiavelli admits that fate is "guilty" of half of the events, he leaves the other half in the hands of man.

More than once or twice, in various chapters on various subjects, Machiavelli returns to the issue of the sovereign's army. Any army can be attributed, in his opinion, to one of four groups: own, hired, allied and mixed. And constantly, considering various historical situations, the author comes to the conclusion that hired and allied troops are dangerous for the ruler. Machiavelli believes that his strong army is simply necessary for any ruler who does not want to lose power. The author considers his own army "as the true basis of any military enterprise, because you cannot have better soldiers than your own" Machiavelli N. Selected Works. M.: Khud.lit., 1982. - S. 61.

Machiavelli proceeds from real life experience and tries to build his theoretical constructions on the foundation of this experience. Therefore, the image of the ideal sovereign created by him, which is described in the treatise, can serve as a help for a political leader.

Chapter 2. Features of the development of political leadership at the present stage

2.1 Political leadership as the basis for the formation of the image of a modern leader

Political leadership is political management, leadership, movement at the head of events and processes. Often this mission is carried out by people with a set of special qualities that are not characteristic of the average level of the country's population, political, personal, business.

Based on the selection of the most characteristic features political leadership, you can determine the type of leader, his predictability, find out whether he is effective for some specific conditions. M.J. Hermann Hermann M. Styles of leadership in the formation of foreign policy // Political Studies. - 1991. identifies five political styles of behavior, each of which affects the image of the leader: depressive, demonstrative, paranoid, schizoid and compulsive.

Paranoid political style. The type of leader that can be described by the term "master". Such a person is characterized by suspicion, distrust of others, hypersensitivity to hidden threats and motives, a constant thirst for power, control over other people. His behavior and actions are often unpredictable. In addition, a paranoid-style politician does not accept a point of view other than his own, rejects any information that does not confirm his theories, attitudes and beliefs.

The type of thinking of such a politician is inversion, when reality is viewed through the extremes of "white" - "black", and people are divided into "enemies" and "friends". The leader's desire for unlimited power is provided by him through constant manipulation of subordinates, intrigues and clashes with each other in their own interests. This style is often accompanied by a desire to suppress or humiliate another politician at any cost, even contrary to elementary logic.

The danger of such a leader lies in the fact that his style may coincide with the political behavior of the broad masses in societies without stable democratic traditions, with a weak political culture. Such a political style is not so effective outwardly, but it can have a significant resource for mobilizing the population, is able to solve strategically important tasks in a limited time frame, and consistently implement its political course. However, the "owner" can effectively lead only by relying on a developed punitive system, political terror. I. V. Stalin, Ivan the Terrible are considered representatives of the paranoid political.

Demonstrative political style. It is characteristic of the type of leader who can be called an "artist", since he always "plays for the audience." He is distinguished by a love of demonstrations, he is seized by a passionate desire to please, to constantly attract attention to himself. Such a leader is quite “controllable”, predictable, and can lose his vigilance after listening to enough flatterers. However, he can lose his composure when faced with criticism. Least of all, representatives of the demonstrative style are predisposed to hard and creative work, designed for a long time. They are good at turning points, in situations of discontent, disappointment, when you need to "start" and lead the crowd. However, their energy is not enough for a long time, they, as a rule, are unable to complete the work they have begun. "Artists" are more emotional than pragmatic. A.F. Kerensky, L.D. Trotsky, V.V. Zhirinovsky can be attributed to this style of leadership.

A compulsive political style is usually characteristic of a leader collective image which can be referred to as "excellent". It is characterized by an almost obsessive desire to do everything in the best way, regardless of the possibilities. The style of his behavior is characterized by tension, lack of lightness, flexibility, maneuver. He is constantly preoccupied, petty, too punctual. The “excellent student” feels especially uncomfortable in extreme conditions, when it is necessary to make decisions quickly and use non-standard methods. As a result, the “A” student strictly follows the chosen political course, although it may not correspond to the realities of life, he strives not to compromise his principles and, on the basis of these principles, unite with other “A” students. L. I. Brezhnev can be considered a typical representative of such a political style.

The depressive political style is personified by the "comrade-in-arms". A leader of this type is not able to play a leading role and therefore tries to unite with those who can really "make politics". "Companion" often idealizes individuals and political movements, and he trudges in the tail of events. It does not have a clear political course, sustainable approaches to solving emerging problems. He perceives political reality cautiously and pessimistically, revealing weakness and political lack of will. Such leaders include the Emperor of Russia Nicholas II.

The schizoid political style is closely related to the depressive one. It is represented by the leader - "loner". Self-isolation and self-isolation of him from participation in specific events are more distinct. "Lonely" prefers the position of an outside observer. Political responsibility in this case is practically absent.

The schizoid style of behavior is historically transient, less independent and ineffective. The “loner” leader, as he participates in political life and expands his powers, transforms his style, supplementing it with the features of a paranoid and demonstrative style. This change in political style was characteristic political biography V. I. Lenin (before the revolution of 1917 - "loner", and after it the features of "owner" and "artist" were added).

Based on these styles, we can conclude that the most suitable for the image of the ideal sovereign is the paranoid style. It is he who contributes to political decisions aimed at centralizing power, tightening punitive measures, and, consequently, rapid geopolitical development. And the image of a manager with this style of political leadership is formed quite concrete: the most serious, collected, tough sovereign.

These political styles determine what the image of a political leader is and to some extent allow predicting the direction of political decisions of a politician.

Thus, it can be argued that the style of political leadership determines the image of the leader, and, consequently, his fate as a manager.

2.2 The image of a modern political leader

Political leadership as a phenomenon considered by political science plays essential role in the social, state structure. From what qualities a political leader will be endowed, for example, who has recently begun public administration may depend on the course of development of a society, a state, or even a number of states in the future. And in the conditions global peace this is especially noteworthy.

Turning to the consideration of the qualities that are integral to the image of a modern political leader, one can cite as an example the opinion of L. Trotsky, who believed that the February Revolution raised Kerensky and Tsereteli to power not because they were smarter and more agile than the royal clique, but because that they represented, at least temporarily, the revolutionary masses. The Bolsheviks defeated petty-bourgeois democracy not by the personal superiority of the leaders, but by a new combination of social forces: the proletariat, in accordance with Lenin's theory, finally succeeded in leading the dissatisfied peasants against the bourgeoisie. Based on this example, we can distinguish the first and required quality political leader. The ability to adequately accumulate and skillfully express the interests of the broad masses through their actions.

The second most important feature of the image of a political leader is his innovativeness. This means that the leader must constantly put forward new ideas, integrate them into the masses, and at the same time he must take into account other people's innovative proposals. A political leader is required not only to collect and inventory the interests of the masses, and to indulge these interests, but precisely their innovative understanding, development and correction.

Innovativeness, constructive thinking of a political leader is best expressed in his political credo, expressed in the program. All famous political leaders have gone down in history thanks to the innovation and originality of their political programs (Roosevelt, Kennedy, Sheskar, D'Estaing, Lenin, etc.). An important part of the innovation program is a clearly defined goal that can rationally unite the interests of a wide variety of public associations and groups. The political program of the leader must be strong motivationally, it must give a clear answer to the voter: what advantages, economic, social and spiritual benefits does he personally, his family, the team gain in case of successful implementation of the leader's program.

The third most important aspect of the image of a political leader should be political awareness. Without a deep knowledge of the problems of the standard of living, the interests of various communities of people, public opinion, it is difficult to claim the role of a politician, even on a local scale. Political information describes, first of all, the state and expectations of various social groups and institutions by which one can judge the trends in the development of their relationships with each other, with the state and various public institutions. Therefore, as it may seem at first glance, small, fractional information characterizing the random facts of life, and super-large, gross, describing society as a whole and by region, this is all political information. Political information should serve, first of all, not to lose sight of the junction of interests of social groups, regions, nations and states as a whole.

The fourth most important quality is the lexicon of a political leader. The current professional lexicon of political leaders is very densely colored with modern terms, without a deep understanding of them. In addition, most people do not understand it (lexicon). There are still many words in the political lexicon designed to stigmatize the enemy, to reveal the enemy, to disengage from the opponent. All this does not affect the image of the politician. Consequently, the leader should use rare words and expressions that are incomprehensible to the layman as rarely as possible. If hermeneutics is rapidly developing abroad, with the help of which the language, political theses, terminological baggage of political leaders is analyzed, then in Russia it is still at the very beginning of development.

The fifth quality is a sense of political time. And, in particular, in the last century, political theorists have a very important feature leader was considered his ability to feel the political time. A leader who compromises before a certain time loses credibility. A late compromise leader loses initiative and may be defeated (Gorbachev and the Baltics). Therefore, the winners are those leaders who keenly feel the course of political time and do everything on time. As soon as a political leader does not feel the change in political conditions, the conjuncture to which he is no longer able to adapt, he becomes either a laughingstock or a disaster for his party or country.

The position of a leader forces him to be very careful in everyday and political life, because his deeds, actions, behavior, qualities are constantly in sight and all this is more strictly evaluated by people, and the success or failure of that party, that course, that direction largely depends on this. whom he serves.

The candidate for leadership also faces the danger of complete dissolution, absolute identification with these interests. In this case, it is no longer a leader, but simply a leader. The leader is the one who accumulated momentary interests, the demands of a certain social system, more often the crowd, and could not go further, deeper than these superficial requests. The leader is the one who is not able to tear himself away, to surpass the lowest strata of social consciousness. If the nomenklatura is an obedient mouthpiece of the "tops", then the leader is no less obedient mouthpiece of the "bottom". Indulging the "lower classes" is no less destructive than crawling before the top. This leads to Ochlocracy - the power of the mob. Lawlessness and destruction of the already existing social order, up to the collapse of the state. At the same time, it is obvious that a political leader must rely on this or that organization, be it a party, union, association, etc. The leader must rely on the decisive links of the political system, otherwise it is impossible for him to move up the political ladder to its very heights.

The danger for a political leader is also negativism, blaming and scourging enemies. The past tense has confirmed the need to promote political leaders of a new, democratic type to leading positions, capable of waging a genuine struggle for influence among citizens who prove their ability to manage word and deed. The most characteristic mistake of modern leaders is the substitution of the goal for the means to achieve it. Both at the macro and micro levels. The goal is the welfare and free development of the people, and the means are democratization and the market. But now these means are seen as ends. Without a doubt, it is clear that the deep development of mechanisms for achieving goals is essential element activities of a political leader, but it is absolutely unacceptable to mix goals and means. But if in the first years of perestroika in Russia society was attracted by people of words, figuratively thinking, owning oratory, now the views of society have turned to people of action, practical deeds - true spokesmen for the political interests of the people.

Conclusion

In this work, the main criteria and provisions of the activity of the ideal sovereign according to Machiavelli, which are important in shaping the image of a modern political leader, were determined.

For the deepest understanding of the author's ideas, a picture was described that represented Italy and Europe during the period of Machiavelli's work. Scattered lands, a huge number of warriors, conflicting personalities at the head of states. All this contributed to the creation of a radical image of a political leader, which Italy needed.

On the basis of the studied work by N. Machiavelli “The Sovereign”, the following main provisions of the activity of the ideal sovereign can be distinguished: moderate generosity (minimum donations sufficient to form a positive image among subjects); realism, flexibility (the ability to abandon past promises, but only for the good of a serious goal - the well-being of the state); the ability to actively use the punitive apparatus; the ability to choose wise advisers; the ability to feel changes in the mood in society.

For further analysis, it was necessary to determine the criteria for the successful activity of a modern political leader. These included such qualities as innovation, the ability to feel the political time (to do everything on time, based on the surrounding circumstances), the ability to convey one's ideas to the people, the ability to feel public moods and needs, as well as an important component of a modern political leader is awareness.

Based on the above options for the main styles of political leadership that are important in shaping the image of a politician, we can conclude that the paranoid style would be most suitable for the image of an ideal sovereign according to Machiavelli. It is he who contributes to political decisions aimed at centralizing power, tightening punitive measures, and, consequently, rapid geopolitical development.

It can be argued that the image of an ideal sovereign intersects with the image of a modern political leader in such aspects as realism, flexibility, the ability to feel political time, innovativeness, etc. This allows us to conclude that the image of an ideal sovereign created by Machiavelli can serve as a help in the activities of modern political leaders.

List of used literature

1. Effective manager. Views and illustrations / ed. J. Billsberry. MIME. M.: LINK, 1999.

2. History of management: Textbook / under. ed. Gross D.V. - M .: INFRA-M, 1997.

3. Hans Delbruck - History of military art, vol. IV. - M, 1996.

4. Gorfunkel A. Kh. Philosophy of the Renaissance, Moscow, Higher School, 1980.

5. Gukovsky V. A. Italian Renaissance, Leningrad, 1990.

6. Dzhivelegov A.K. - "Niccolò Machiavelli", v.1. - M, 1996.

7. Kravchenko AI History of management. M.: INFRA-M, 2000

8. Kravchenko I. A. Machiavelli: technology of effective leadership. // Socis. — 1993.

9. Kuznetsov B. G. Ideas and images of the Renaissance, Moscow, Nauka, 1985.

10. History of political and legal doctrines. Textbook / Ed. O. E. Leist. — M.: Yurid.lit., 1997.

11. Losev A.F. Aesthetics of the Renaissance, Moscow, Thought, 1978 / 8, "www.site" /.

12. Machiavelli N. Selected Works. M.: Khud.lit., 1982.

13. Machiavelli N. Works. St. Petersburg: Crystal, 1998.

14. Marsilio Ficino - Memories of St. Petersburg, 1990.

15. Niccolo Machiavelli "The Sovereign" M .: Eksmo-Press, 1999

16. History of political and legal doctrines. Textbook for universities / Ed. V. S. Norseyants. — M.: Infra-M, 1997.

17. Pugachev V. P. and Solovyov A. I. "Introduction to Political Science" - M., 1996

18. Reale J. Western philosophy from its origins to the present day. Volume 2. Middle Ages. - LLP TK "Petropolis", 1995.

19. Rutenburg V. I. Titans of the Renaissance, Leningrad, 1976.

20. Semenova II History of management: Textbook for universities. — M.: UNITI-DANA, 2000.

21. Seven notes of the manager. Table book of the leader. M.: Did ART, 1996.

22. Sokolov V.I. European philosophy of the 15th-17th centuries, Moscow, 1984.

23. Great thinkers of the West / Per. from English. Fedorina V. - M .: Kron-press, 1999.

24. Hermann M. Styles of leadership in the formation of foreign policy // Political research. — 1991.

“The first task is to understand the work as the author himself understood it, without going beyond the limits of his understanding. The solution of this problem is very difficult and usually requires the involvement of a huge amount of material.

The second task is to use one's temporary cultural outsideness. Inclusion in our (alien for the author) context”. MM. Bakhtin. As mentioned above, the main work of Machiavelli "The Sovereign" and today is a reference book for many politicians, serves as a kind of set of rules for political rule.

Machiavelli is directly concerned with the properties of pure individuality. It is in them - as in an unremovable condition - that the solution of his applied problem rests. The individual as the subject of historical action, and he as the "universal man" who must shrivel up to the "sovereign", are, after all, one and the same individual. The ordinary politician - the concrete "this one" - is limited by his separateness; he, let's say, is naturally inclined to act either deliberately, slowly, cautiously, or assertively and recklessly. Meanwhile, it turns out that it would be best if the ruler were a person who is able to behave this way, and that way, and in every way, that is, change according to circumstances, act as he sees fit, and in this sense transgress the boundaries of his nature, with its singularity and readiness to be the creator of himself. Machiavelli, as you know, imagines, describes, expects, and proclaims about him in his treatise on the "Sovereign". Only such a person can become a great politician and savior of Italy.

"Individualism" Machiavelli had no internal, spiritual problems, all the problems of the Sovereign - in the outside world.

The Renaissance did not yet know the concept of personality, but it prepared it closely. The concept of humanistic dialogism and "variety" served as the basis for the foreknowledge of personality. Rolled up inside the individual, they gave a highly paradoxical conception of the "universal man", that is, a kind of Renaissance man without properties, the individual as his own possibility. This was something like the first fantastic sketch of the idea of ​​personality.

So: in Machiavelli one can observe the first crisis of this idea. According to Machiavelli, if we approach the nature of an individual with requests for energetic practical goal-setting, its radical transformation is required. “Fortune” is not able to resist the natural individual, who himself is only one of the moments of a whimsical naturalistic combination of chances. Only a free individuality in relation to itself, not predetermined by ready-made paradigms of behavior, not limited by its partiality and smallness, only its valor is able to challenge fate. Something extremely important precisely for the constitution of the modern European individual personality was thus taught in The Sovereign with incomparable poignancy.

Machiavelli's scholars certainly have long taken into account that at the center of all the Florentine's reflections on history and politics was the "valiant" individual, capable of achieving his goals. However, the study concerned only how Machiavelli saw him: what is meant by “valor”, to what extent “fortune” puts limits on human capabilities, what, in fact, this “fortune” is, should we consider an impeccably rational and therefore successful sovereign concentrated image of reality or, rather, an ideal project, and so on. In the same theoretical circle, there have always been attempts to reveal the perniciousness (or, on the contrary, the historical compulsion and justification) of Machiavelli's extreme "individualism", which does not recognize obstacles for the strong personality he praises.

Although it is in no way possible for the new sovereign to avoid cruel measures, “nevertheless, he must behave moderately, prudently and mercifully. Or: "The sovereign must try to show greatness, fortitude, significance and firmness in his actions." “The sovereign must also show himself an admirer of talents, show honor to those who have distinguished themselves in any art or craft. He should encourage the citizens to calmly go about their business, whether it be trade, agriculture, or anything else ... He should be an example of mercy, generosity and breadth, but at the same time firmly observe the greatness of his dignity, which should be present in his every action »<3>.

Machiavelli demands generosity from the ruler, in essence, no less than treachery. About generosity, he drops: "... and many others have reached the highest degrees," for "they were and were reputed to be generous." He writes quite characteristically about generosity, that this virtue must be able to "use skillfully and properly"<3>.

“A reasonable ruler cannot and should not remain true to his promise if it turns against him and if the reasons that prompted him to make a promise have disappeared. Such instruction would not be good if the people were good; but since they are wicked and would not keep their word given to you, there is no need for you to keep it. And what ruler lacked a plausible pretext to break a promise and when? Countless fresh examples could be cited...” etc. All this is preceded by a general theoretical consideration: “You must know that there are two ways to fight: firstly, legally, secondly, by force. The first way is inherent in man, the second - in animals; but as the former is often insufficient, the latter must also be resorted to. Thus, the sovereign must be able to excellently use what is characteristic of both man and animal. This is what the ancient authors allegorically taught the sovereigns, who told about how Achilles and many other sovereigns in ancient times were given to be raised by the centaur Chiron, so that he would nurture and teach them. What does it mean to have a half-animal, half-human mentor, if not that the sovereign must be able to combine both of these natures, because one without the other would make his power short-lived?<3>.

Readers of Machiavelli have always paid and are paying attention (which is quite natural) to the justification in the treatise - contrary to generally accepted morality - of violence and deceit, the "animal" nature of the sovereign. Moreover, the author himself gives this the most arguments and words. But it is very important to understand that references to another, "human", good and legitimate side of state activity, in no way have the character of a rhetorical trick, an empty excuse. Theoretically, both "nature" are equally necessary: ​​for the sovereign to appear in the form of a Centaur. Indeed, without such duality, the universal ability to "use" one's virtues and vices would disappear. After the already quoted phrase that “if ... the virtues are always possessed and followed, then they are harmful; but if the sovereign gives the impression of possessing them, then they are useful, ”then it says:

“In other words, one must appear compassionate, faithful to the word, merciful, sincere, pious, and actually be; but keep in mind the readiness, if necessary, not to be such that you can and are able to change it into opposite qualities.<3>.

The answer is not that Machiavelli preached some unheard-of, diabolical hypocrisy, the point is that, according to Machiavelli, the "wise sovereign" is not hypocritical at all. The ideal sovereign that Machiavelli sees is really generous, straightforward, compassionate, etc.; and he is really stingy, cunning, cruel.

Of course, Machiavelli repeatedly reminds that a ruler who wants to follow the good unswervingly will inevitably fail, because people are evil by nature; if he resorts to violence and deceit, he will be able to win and consolidate power for the benefit of the same people. This motive is in the treatise. But it is by no means the choice in favor of evil that constitutes the deep conflict of The Sovereign. Machiavelli does not make such an absolute choice at all. True, the author, without flinching, speaks out for the vicious behavior of a politician, if it promises success. It is not difficult to type from Machiavelli the appropriate quotations that inspire us with disgust. But they cannot be truly interpreted outside the purpose and meaning of his ideological construction as a whole.

In chapter 19, Machiavelli discusses three examples of virtuous Roman emperors and four examples of vicious emperors. “Mark, Pertinax and Alexander were all people of a modest lifestyle, they loved justice, hated cruelty, were diligent to mercy and goodness - and all, except Mark, ended badly. Only Mark lived his life and died in the greatest honor."<3>. However, he did not need to seek power, he inherited it - and managed to firmly hold on, "inspiring respect with his many virtues" to soldiers and people, so that "there was no one who would hate or despise him"<3>. But in another case: the dissolute Praetorians did not want to demolish honest life, to which Pertinax forced them, and killed him. The kindness of Alexander was such that during the 14 years of his reign he did not execute a single person, but he himself was killed by the rebel troops. “It should be noted: good deeds can incur hatred in the same way as bad deeds”<3>.

Next, Machiavelli moves on to examples of a different kind. “If you now consider, on the contrary, the qualities of Commodus, Severus, Antoninus Caracalla and Maximipus, you will find that they were distinguished by extreme cruelty and rapacity, and all, except Severus, ended badly”<3>. There one out of three succeeded, here one out of four; statistics, if I may say so, are not even in favor of vice ...

About the most virtuous Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher on the throne, Machiavelli speaks with respect. Sever, who "behaved, sometimes like a ferocious lion, sometimes like a cunning fox," is a person in his eyes who also deserves admiration. Here are two sovereigns who acted in opposite ways, but both triumphed. And also: here are the rulers who acted in the same way, but one won, the others lost. Each acted according to his character, but the circumstances were different each time.

Whom should the “wise sovereign” imitate, Mark or Severus? “... The new sovereign in the new state cannot imitate the actions of Mark and there is no need for him to be like the North; but he should borrow from the North those qualities that are necessary for the founding of the state, and from Mark those worthy and glorious qualities that are suitable for maintaining the state, already established and strong "<3>. This means that neither Severus, nor Mark, nor continuous vice, nor persistent virtue are themselves, but still not an example of a statesman.

Machiavelli writes: “Let no one think that one can always make infallible decisions, on the contrary, all decisions are doubtful; for it is in the order of things that, trying to avoid one trouble, you get into another. Wisdom lies only in weighing all possible troubles and considering the least evil for good.<3>. There are no absolute solutions, there are certainly no useful ways of behaving. To choose the least evil at every moment is what it means to be universal, embracing everything human in itself, however, not actual, but in reserve, on demand.

So, we need a “rare person” ... And if the Sovereign, in the final analysis, is not merciful, not cruel, not cunning, not straightforward, not generous, not stingy, but such as changing circumstances require, this is by no means simply means impersonality. State "wisdom" needs a special concentration of personal talents. “The sovereign, first of all, should create an impression of himself with every act as a great and famous person”<3>.

You have to come out of yourself. Intellectually - and in all respects. "... Only those methods of protection are good, reliable and durable, which depend on yourself and on your valor." Accordingly, those who have lost power, let them blame themselves for this. To take advantage of the chances that fortune provides from time to time is only capable of some kind of extraordinary, dominating his own nature, independent of himself and at the same time completely emanating from himself.

Everyone has heard that, according to Machiavelli, "the end justifies the means." Machiavelli actually said something similar.

It is very easy to object, and it has been objected a thousand times, that the very best end is tarnished, perverted by bad means, since the end is already embedded in the means, while the means enter into chemical composition goals, they are systemically inseparable, etc. All this is elementary and fair. However, Machiavelli’s real and, perhaps, completely new problem is not that the Sovereign must, if necessary, resort to violence, deceit, but that when he resorts to mercy, this is also a prudent political action, and not an organic individual behavior. The personality of the ruler acts as a means, no matter how he behaves. Politics, according to Machiavelli, makes such a transformation necessary, and this is infinitely deeper than the choice between an honest or dishonest means.

In Machiavelli - perhaps precisely because the question was posed within the limits of narrow political expediency, and not on a metaphysical plane - the politician is frighteningly free from everything that could limit his individual command, from God, from accepted morality, from his own nature, from everything except circumstance. But this same unprecedented freedom turns it potentially into everything that modern European history and culture will allow an individual to become.

So, since the author of The Sovereign created a striking model of an individual who is completely free in relation to himself and decides for himself how to behave, what he should be in a particular situation, by the initial definition this is something very familiar to us, reminiscent of an idealized humanistic individual capable of " become what he wants."

But the humanists took the "valiant" and "heroic" person alone with them (and also in an abstract-rhetorical relationship to the community and fellow citizens, in concentrated creative pursuits or in the midst of a more or less conventional "active life", in pastoral dreams, or, perhaps, in the family,). And Machiavelli unlocks this individual and rudely throws him into the flow of history.<1>.

Machiavelli seems to be the only one who in the Renaissance culture, having reduced the "universal man" to the "sovereign", thereby gave the nascent personality this unexpected experimental dimension. Starting with Shakespeare, Cervantes and Spinoza, no one who was concerned about the testing of individual life and soul by social practice could pass by the harsh considerations of the Florentine. It is no coincidence that the treatise on the "Sovereign", accidentally dropped by the outgoing Renaissance era, became famous and vital beyond its borders. Ultimately, Machiavelli not so much distorted or narrowed the central problem of humanism as radically transformed it and brought it through the narrow channel of the Renaissance directly into the expanses of the culture of subsequent centuries, including, of course, our tragic age.<1>

"The Emperor" Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli(1469 - 1527) - Italian politician, historian and writer.

Machiavelli saw his vocation in political activity, he always strove with all his heart to take an active part in events.

The modest possibilities of the family of the future writer did not allow Niccolo Machiavelli to enter the institute. But his ability to self-educate was truly amazing. While still a young man, Machiavelli was introduced to the basics of legal and commercial sciences, which was very useful to him in his future political life.

In 1498, Machiavelli successfully passed the competition and was appointed by decree of the Great Council to the post of Chancellor of the Second Chancellery, which was far from a minor position.

For 14 years and 5 months of service, Machiavelli wrote more than four thousand official letters and reports, a large number of draft laws, government orders, military orders, made many domestic and 23 foreign trips. He was given complex diplomatic assignments at the courts of the French king, the German emperor, Italian princes, the pope ...

Staying in different countries, Machiavelli studied in detail the various forms of socio-political organizations, revealed their essential features, and objectively compared their capabilities. Based on the study of rich factual material, he raised and tried to solve important theoretical problems in the field of politics, state, administration, and military affairs.

The political activity of Machiavelli was interrupted by the dramatic events of the autumn of 1502 - the death of the republic. Machiavelli was stripped of his post and the right to hold any public office and expelled. But these events did not break Machiavelli: he finds the strength to engage in literature and scientific research. He wanted to be useful to his country with books.

One of his most important works "Sovereign" Machiavelli created in 1513. It was published only in 1532, after the death of the author.

The works of Machiavelli must be considered as a natural expression of his era. The conditions in which he lived were determined by contradictions in three areas: within the Florentine Republic (the need for the development of a city-state), within Italy (the internecine struggle between the Italian states and the papacy), within Europe (commercial competition, the participation of the Italian republics in big European politics). ).

What was the state of Italy at that time? It has ceased to be a state. All its parts won sovereignty, many turned into seigneuries. With this system, the external forms of the republican system were preserved, but in fact the city-states were ruled by representatives of one noble family, which transferred power according to a purely dynastic principle. Italy became a disorderly mixture of independent states, within which monarchical, aristocratic or democratic rule was established by chance.

Italy became the scene of wars that foreign powers began to wage over her lands. The Germans, the French, the Swiss constantly attacked and plundered Italy.

In these terrible years, the work “The Sovereign” by Niccolo Machiavelli appeared, the reading of which must be approached from the point of view of those historical events.

In his work, which caused a lot of controversy, Machiavelli does not follow the lead of those who offered a touching ideal of a sovereign with only excellent positive qualities. He paints a picture of the realistic qualities that real rulers had and still have. And the advice - how the new sovereign should be in real life - he gives reasoned, referring to the actual events of world history.

The new Sovereign Niccolo Machiavelli is not just a person with a set of qualities and properties, not just an ideal image. Machiavelli thoroughly, carefully, carefully and thoughtfully builds a visible, lively and attractive image of the New Sovereign.

Machiavelli examines in detail such categories and concepts as generosity and frugality, cruelty and mercy, love and hatred.

Considering generosity and thrift, Machiavelli notes that those sovereigns who strove to be generous spent all their wealth in a short time. After the exhaustion of the treasury, they were forced to raise existing and establish new taxes, which led to the hatred of their subjects. Therefore, Machiavelli advises the sovereign not to be afraid to be known as avaricious. But then the author considers some possible situations when such advice will not be useful, but harmful. And, as throughout the work, he cites specific historical facts illustrating his statements.

Talking about such qualities as cruelty and mercy, Machiavelli immediately writes that "every sovereign would like to be known as merciful, not cruel." Another thing is that often, in order to retain power, the ruler has to be cruel. If the country is threatened with disorder, then the sovereign is simply obliged to prevent this, even if it is necessary to inflict several massacres. But in relation to numerous subjects, these executions will become an act of mercy, since disorder would bring grief and suffering to them.

It is because of this part of Machiavelli's work that they were accused of calling for cruelty and illegibility in the choice of means. The Sovereign is a treatise on the role, place and significance of the head of state, and he was declared a manual for absolute monarchs and dictators. But Machiavelli was not a propagandist of cruelty and hypocrisy, but a researcher of the methods and essence of autocracy.

In addition, the accusers “did not notice” in the same chapter the following words of the author: “However, the new sovereign should not be gullible, suspicious and quick to punish, in all his actions he should be restrained, prudent and merciful.” Machiavelli justified the use of cruel measures only under unavoidable circumstances.

At the same time, as a true ideologist of the bourgeoisie, Machiavelli declares the inviolability of private property, homes and families of citizens. Everything else depends on the sovereign himself, to whom Machiavelli advises to rely only on what depends on himself.

He advises Emperor Machiavelli not to be a romantic in politics. You have to be realistic. This also applies to whether the ruler needs to keep his word. It is necessary, but only if it does not run counter to the interests of his state. The sovereign must act as circumstances dictate to him. “So, of all the animals, let the sovereign become like two: a lion and a fox.” That is, let him be strong, like the king of beasts, and at the same time cunning and resourceful, like a fox. Machiavelli calls on the sovereign to be vigilant.

The predominance of general state interests over private, general political goals over any other determines the nature of the psychology of the new sovereign.

Machiavelli pays much attention to the relationship of the new sovereign with the people.

First of all, he warns that the ruler should not commit acts that could cause hatred or contempt of his subjects. The sovereign can cause contempt for himself by inconstancy, frivolity, effeminacy, cowardice.

It is in this chapter that Machiavelli clearly articulates the inviolability of private property. In no case should the sovereign violate these sacred rights, as this will lead to hatred of the ruler from the people faster than anything else.

The ruler, according to the author of The Sovereign, can face only two dangers: from the outside and from the inside. Against danger from without, one can defend oneself with weapons and valor. And against conspiracies from within, there is one most important means - "not to be hated by the people."

Machiavelli clearly divides the subjects of the sovereign into the nobility and the people. He considers achieving a balance between these groups one of the most important tasks of a wise ruler. Moreover, it is not unreasonable that he believes that the people are a much greater force than noble subjects.

Machiavelli taught not only to establish power, but also attached great importance to how to maintain this power. The author gives advice not abstract, but confirmed by real historical events. On the issue of maintaining power after its conquest, Machiavelli considers a large number of suitable methods: choosing friends and advisers, building or, conversely, destroying fortresses, maintaining an army, etc.

Honoring and respecting the sovereign by his subjects is one of the main conditions for maintaining his power in the country. “Nothing can inspire such reverence for the sovereign as military enterprises and extraordinary deeds,” says Machiavelli. In essence, he sets out a kind of code of conduct and actions of the new sovereign, which should be aimed at increasing his authority at home and abroad, at glorifying his name, virtues and valor.

“The sovereign is also respected if he openly declares himself an enemy or a friend,” that is, he does not hesitate if it is necessary to speak out for or against. Machiavelli draws a multifaceted image of the new sovereign.

The author does not bypass such an important issue as the ruler's advisers - his inner circle. Whether they are good or bad, "depends on the prudence of sovereigns." It is precisely what kind of people the ruler brings closer to his person that speaks of his wisdom. Machiavelli believes that the first mistake or, conversely, the first success of the ruler, is the choice of advisers.

Having chosen good advisers, the sovereign should try to keep their loyalty with the help of wealth and honors.

In one of the chapters of his work, Machiavelli tries to warn the sovereign against flatterers. Protecting yourself from them, not falling under their influence, without losing respect, is not as easy as it seems.

Machiavelli also refutes the widespread opinion that the wisdom of a sovereign largely depends on good advice. This is not so, on the contrary, "it is useless for a sovereign who himself does not have wisdom to give good advice."

Giving the new sovereign unlimited power, Machiavelli, in strict accordance with this, places on him all responsibility for the state of the state, for maintaining and strengthening power. The author advises the ruler to rely less on fate, and pay more attention to ruling, wise and skillful. The sovereign must rely primarily on his ability to govern the state and on the created army, and not on fate.

Although Machiavelli admits that fate is "guilty" of half of the events, he leaves the other half in the hands of man.

More than once or twice, in various chapters on various subjects, Machiavelli returns to the issue of the sovereign's army. Any army can be attributed, in his opinion, to one of four groups: own, hired, allied and mixed. And constantly, considering various historical situations, the author comes to the conclusion that hired and allied troops are dangerous for the ruler. Machiavelli believes that his own strong army is simply necessary for any ruler who does not want to lose power. The author considers his own army "as the true basis of any military enterprise, because you cannot have better soldiers than your own."

One of the most important achievements of Machiavelli is the isolation of politics into an independent science. Politics, according to Machiavelli's beliefs, is a symbol of a person's faith, and therefore it should occupy a dominant position in the worldview.

Based on the requirements of his time, Machiavelli formulates an important historical task - the creation of a single unitary Italian state. In the course of thought, Machiavelli comes to the conclusion that only the sovereign can lead the people to the construction of a new state. Not a concrete historical personality, but something abstract, symbolic, possessing qualities that in their totality are inaccessible to any living ruler. That is why Machiavelli devotes most of his research to the question: what should be the sovereign in order to fulfill the historical task of building a new state.

The study is built strictly logically, objectively. Machiavelli proceeds from real life experience and tries to build his theoretical constructions on the foundation of this experience. "The Sovereign" is a living picture of that time.

All mentioned persons of the work are real. The author's contemporaries or historical figures are displayed in The Sovereign in order to prove or disprove something. There is nothing accidental in Machiavelli's choice of names, events, places of battles, everything performs a certain function.

The style of the "sovereign" is unusual for scientific works of that time. This is not the style of treatises, but the style of a man of action, a man who wants to cause action.

The works of Machiavelli are the expression of a personality who wants to intervene in the politics and history of his country. Machiavelli is a person who comprehends and reveals the main trends of his era, its main requirements and aspirations, who decided to radically change the further development of his country.

Very indicative in this respect is Chapter IX on the civil principality. In it, Machiavelli reveals the relationship of the sovereign, the nobility and the people among themselves, their interests and goals. Power is acquired through the disposition of the people or the nobility. The nobles want to oppress the people, but the people do not want to be oppressed. As a result, either the nobles nominate a ruler from their ranks, or the people give this title to their chosen one. Machiavelli considers the power received from the people to be much more durable, since the sovereign can protect himself from the nobility, but not from the hostile people.

Machiavelli convincingly advises the sovereign never to incur the wrath and hatred of the people. On the contrary, a wise sovereign will always find a way to win over the people to his side. Thus, the alignment of class forces, the structure of political power form the strategy and tactics of all participants in the political life of the state.

Machiavelli's political attitudes rest on fundamental social foundations. The political life of the Italian city-states gave Machiavelli great opportunities for sociological observations.

In the 16th - 17th centuries, his works were sought for help in political and diplomatic art, in the 18th century - for explanations of the methods and techniques of public administration. For the historical school of the 19th century, Machiavelli was an authoritative chronicler and historian; in the 20th century, he is “advised” as a classic of political sociology.

REFERENCES

Machiavelli Niccolo. Sovereign. - In the book: Machiavelli Niccolo. Selected works. M., 1982.

Dolgov K. Humanism, Renaissance and political philosophy of Niccolò Machiavelli. - In the book: Machiavelli Niccolo. Selected works. M., 1982.

Yusim M.A. Ethics of Machiavelli. - M., 1990.

Temnov E.I. Machiavelli. - M., 1990.

History of political doctrines. Ed. K.A. Mokicheva. - M., 1971.

Rutenburg V.I. Titans of the Renaissance. - M., 1991.

Similar abstracts:

Profound changes in the socio-economic and spiritual life of Italy at the end of the XIV century. played a decisive role in the emergence and development of a pan-European culture, called the Renaissance.

The end justifies the means - this terrible formula, as many believe, produces a double impression: it attracts and frightens, just like its author - Niccolò Machiavelli.

The ideas of N. Machiavelli gave life to the modern sociological theory of elites (V. Pareto, G. Mosca, C. Mills) and influenced the author of the theory of managerial revolution, J. Burnheim.

Machiavelli, Niccolo)