Here we analyze the other half of Niccolo Machiavelli's
"loved then feared or feared then loved" question. So is it
better to be feared first before being loved?
Fear first: Here is where respect (unfortunately) is earned. A
leader must first be feared for their power and authority. This makes
negative influences in the populace less likely to react to a leaders actions.
Leaders command authority through that fear and thus, people tend to
submit to them more readily. Of course this means they are also less likely to
give you the truth or question you if you should make a wrong turn in your
decision making. Essentially, you have a series of yes men, ready to
brown nose you in order not to be dismissed. This works at the population
level as well. A strong leader has authority over the populace to sway
them based on the actions the leader takes. In short, they command
authority through various levels of fear which can range, based on the leader,
from denying privileges to outright violation of rights. However, it is
usually best in my opinion to use this on the level of governmental leadership
to control your political allies and enemies. On the population, the
leader should avoid action unless it is necessary for the public good.
The Love second: In this case, once respect is
garnered, whether by persona, decision or reputation, the leader can then begin
acting benevolent. So a little good here, a small pinch of benefit there.
It is all about getting the jobs done that need to be done first.
In the old days of Dark Age to Colonial politics, this would mean
throwing a group or population a certain benefit, like trade privileges, or tax
relief on occasion. It could also mean aiding in farming through free
labor to the farmer via workers paid by the government who are out of work. Today,
this could come in the form of political kickbacks, and access to key specific
networking opportunities. In short, you give a little love toward those you
want loyalty on an irregular bases to insure that "yes I am thinking about
you, and I want your love returned." The end result is loyalty.
But it may come at a price. Some groups who do not benefit often
enough, if at all, may feel like they are being left out. In short, these
groups will begin counting on their fingers who benefits more and how often then
each other. This scenario must be avoided, and as such, benefits given
must be on a large scale in form like tax breaks to satiate the largest number
of individuals possible. Slowly but surely the population will like you more as
you open trade deals for cheaper goods, reduce taxes where possible, open up
new opportunities for the people to benefit from various forms of research and
aid the poor. All of this is done flashily however, and the leader and
his/her team must have the credit given to them to maintain the loyalty and the
image that while fearsome, the leader is someone to be admired.
Conclusion: I would agree with Machiavelli that
this is the better of the two options for it insures the safest and most likely
chance for success for a ruler. Presidents, and dictators both can learn
from this example to succeed where their counterparts have failed. So
aside from a series of yes men who fear your wrath, and the population or group
measuring each other up to see who may be favored more, I can find no
determinable weaknesses to this method of leadership. As such, this is
the model to follow, rather than the loved then hated method which my
government seems to prefer.
No comments:
Post a Comment