In my history class this new school year, we’ve just discussed the theories of Machiavelli. During the Renaissance, he wrote a book of advice about public policy, entitled The Prince. In The Prince, Machiavelli states, “one can say this in general of men: they are ungrateful, disloyal, insincere and deceitful, timid of danger and avid of profit…. Love is a bond of obligation which these miserable creatures break whenever it suits them to do so; but fear holds them fast by a dread of punishment that never passes.” In other words, it is better for a ruler to be feared rather than loved.

This may seem to be true. After all, because humans are imperfect, they will sometimes be looking out for their self-interests instead of the interests of the ruler. Therefore, a good system (for the ruler) would make sure that the ruler and the constituents have common interests. Machiavelli understands this to mean that the ruler should threaten his subjects to make sure they have his interests in mind.

But what if Machiavelli is forgetting something? What would stop a constituent who obeys based on fear from changing his allegiance when a more frightening ruler appears?

However, a subject of the ruler would be reluctant to change his allegiance if it were based on love, because love is not transferred so easily. A person’s pride in their homeland and leader is more powerful than fear.

This is why a democracy works so well. Support for the government is not based on fear, but on love, especially since the government is made up of the constituents themselves. Thus, the citizens and “rulers” have common interests, without requiring fear.