THE SUPERIOR FORM OF GOVERNANCE: A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN THE VIEWS OF NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI AND LAO TZU

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
College of Arts and Sciences
San Sebastian College- Recoletos, Manila
August 2013

Vincent Roland R. Managuelod
Ray Joshua B. Valdez

INTRODUCTION
In Politics there are many schools of thought that form the basis for the policies used in the operation of the government. These schools of thought vary greatly in purpose and belief, with many of these schools actively opposing one another. Ultimately, whatever beliefs these schools of thought may hold, and whatever actions these beliefs may lead them and the state their purpose is to shape the state into what they believe is ideal and beneficial for all. Of the many ideologies which are followed by statesmen, varied they may be, the ultimate goal is to create a society according to their ideals. In this study we will be discussing two thinkers whose schools of thought have had a significant impact on political philosophy today.
The first is Niccolo Machiavelli. A philosopher, politician, diplomat and historian whose works have made his name a by-word for pragmatism and ruthlessness not just in politics but in everyday life. His most famous work, the Prince, advocated the separation of personal morals to that of one’s political morals, and the emphasis not on ideology but on what would be the most beneficial course of action to take. Though criticized by many for the amorality his beliefs possess, his influence in political thought has affected other prominent philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Adam Smith, David Hume and Thomas Hobbes.
The second is Lao Tzu. He was an ancient Chinese philosopher who founded the religion of Taoism, which emphasized living in harmony with the Tao, or the Way, which is still practiced to this day. His most famous work, the Tao Te Ching, argued for the ruler to be a passive force who interfered with the affairs of the people as little as possible, minimizing the role of the government in society. His beliefs and followers have had great influence in Chinese culture, and are advocated by anti-authoritarian and libertarian movements today.
Despite their vastly different backgrounds and beliefs, both thinkers have remarkable similarities that will be discussed in this study. Considering their influence on so many thinkers and politicians, a study on their similarities and differences would lead to a better understanding of how one can establish good governance and run a country properly.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY The idea of a person stepping into a position power, add to the fact that there are multitudes of ways on how the people expect this person to rule and govern them. Perhaps they expect this one man to seize absolute control of the populace immediately. Or, instead, maybe the average man fears his rash personality and critical attitude, and so his audience prays that his actions do not tip the balance of any peacefulness existing in the territory.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Both Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu seem to have a clear-cut view on how they believe the government should be run. In some ways, both men have very similar ideas; more often, though, they couldn't be more opposed. A few similarities brought forward are that people in power must not strive to make everyone content, nor must they be considered unmerciful and they should avoid being despised. The final view they both share is that they believe if the common people think they are happy, then whoever is in power will not fear for their power. However, it seems for each similarity they have, several oppositions occur in their place. The study will highlight the comparison between the two contrasting views of the Italian philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli and the founder of Taoism Lao-Tzu concerning the conduct of a leader on how he rules and governs the state and his citizens. Specifically their views opposing views on certain matters like

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Niccolo Machiavelli’s Political Beliefs
• The Ruler must be active in his participation with the government.
• The Ruler must be prepared for war, and make it his primary concern.
• The Ruler must preferably be feared, if he cannot be both loved and feared. Lao Tzu’s Political Beliefs
• The Ruler must be hands-off in his participation with the government.
• The Ruler’s primary concern is peace.
• The Ruler is ideally loved.

Good Governance
Ideal Method of Ruling

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
As seen in the image for the conceptual framework, Machiavelli’s the Prince and Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching contrasts primarily in three ways. Both Philosophers insist that these methods are necessary for government to function properly. Our study will revolve around these differences in methods of governance and rule, with the three differences being the primary factors that will be studied in this paper.
Machiavelli’s the Prince strongly advocates that rulers concern themselves with every aspect of running the state, a contrast to the proto-anarchism that Lao Tzu advocates. All of Machiavelli’s tenets point to the ruler as an active force, controlling every aspect of the state. Indeed, his purpose for writing the Prince was to teach rulers of his time how to hold and control states. Lao Tzu on the other hand believes that a ruler must practice as little control over the state as possible in order for the country to be ideal.
The second point of contrast is their belief in the necessity of war. Machiavelli believed that the main business of a ruler is to prepare for conflict at all times, even during times of peace. Lao Tzu however condemned warfare, reasoning that resorting to violence will always damage the state as well as its enemy.
Both thinkers also differ on how a ruler’s subjects should feel about him. Ideally one should be both feared and loved according to Machiavelli, but if one cannot be both then it would be best if the ruler is feared. Lao Tzu in contrast believes that the ruler who is loved by the people is more desirable than one who is feared, but despite this believes that a ruler who is a shadowy presence to his subjects trumps both being feared and being loved.
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
In a nation with such variety of different opinions and views, people have the freedom to choose the leader whom they think has the most policies they can see eye to eye with. That being said, people running for a leadership role can in turn voice their own beliefs and opinions, which in most cases will differ from most if not all of their opponents, in the hopes that it will attract more supporters. This is portrayed, for example here in the Philippines where we have a Democratic form of government. It is stated in Article VII Section 2 of our 1987 Constitution that anyone- as long as he or she is qualified for the job –can run for the position of President. While said article promotes the value of equal opportunity for all it also begrudgingly shows the laxity in effort we put on selecting our president. This in turn contributed to the increase of the number of our political parties in our country. It is the duty of the parties to narrow down the one candidate per party that will showcase their opinions, beliefs, how they believe the country should be run and how they want themselves to be known. Then, it is the people that elect the one who they feel is the better fit for the job.
But it’s not as easy as it sounds, due to people disagreeing on most matters often and historical figures, such as Lao-Tzu, the author of the Tao-te-ching (The Book of the Way and its Virtue), and Niccolo Machiavelli, the author of Il Principe (The Prince), have different views on the matter of how a leader is supposed to rule and govern. One of the main differences between the two thinker’s opinions on governing is whether or not a ruler should be a kind that is feared or one that is loved.
Wherever place where people can reside, there is and there always shall be a community, and in turn there is a leader in the community, and it is apparent that people have needed leaders to command them since the time of initial existence of the human beings. Therefore, people have endeavored to be great, admired and effective leaders, and many educated scholars during each of their times have suggested how to be a good leaders in each era. Among these well educated scholars that stood out, were Niccolo Machiavelli (1469) and Lao-Tzu (6th century BCE). On one hand Niccolo Machiavelli was the one who suggested that the methods of becoming a powerful prince, is through the many examples and the histories of how Kings lived in the past. On the other, Lao-Tzu suggested some completely different methods of becoming a great leader based on the Tao. Three major differences of their suggestions were ones about war preparedness, the handling of fortune and mercy towards subjects.
Machiavelli and Lao Tzu had different ideas about war. According to Machiavelli, war should be a profession of a prince. He suggested a prince to think about arms than personal luxuries, and he said being disarmed would make him to be despised. As understood in The Prince: “A Prince have no other objective, no other thought, nor take up any profession but that of war, its methods and its discipline, for that is the only art expected of a ruler. And it is of such great value that it not only keeps hereditary princes in power, but often raises men of lowly condition to that rank. It may be noted, on the other hand, that when princes give more thought to fine living than to arms, they have lost their states. The first cause of losing them is the neglect of this art, just as the first means of gaining them I proficiency in it.” (Chapter XIV page 59). However, according to Lao-Tzu, “Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself”. As explained in his book the Tao-Te-Ching: “Weapons are the tools of violence; all decent men detest them. Weapons are the tools of fear; a decent man will avoid them except in the direst necessity and, if compelled, will use them only with the utmost restraint. Peace is his highest value. If the peace has been shattered, how can he be content? His enemies are not demons, but human beings like himself. He doesn't wish them personal harm. Nor does he rejoice in victory. How could he rejoice in victory and delight in the slaughter of men? He enters a battle gravely, with sorrow and with great compassion, as if he were attending a funeral.” He advocates that a leader not to force anyone because the outcome will result in revenge. He believed that if a person does not harm others, they will not harm the person as well. Furthermore, both of them had different ideas of preparing war. Machiavelli encouraged a prince to train himself in peace time more than in time of war, and Lao-Tzu said, “No greater wrong than preparing to defend yourself”. It is evident that Machiavelli gives emphasis to preparing war at any given time, but Lao-Tzu had not even mention about preparing war nor defending themselves.
They also had differ in ideas on how a leader is supposed to use his fortune wisely. According to Machiavelli, “a prince should not worry about being called a miser because he can save his income to use on war and prevent his people to pay excessive taxes.” (Chapter XVI, page 6) He contemplated being only generous would result in running out of money, but he suggested to show generosity when a prince must control the property of others. Lao Tzu in turn is quite different. “Throw away industry and profit, and there won't be any thieves” (Chapter XIX) If the Master is wealthy, his people would suffer from poverty and robbery. He suggested not spending money on weapons for war and not charging too much tax. Machiavelli's method of managing a leader's fortune was concentrated on preparing war and avoiding hatred, but Lao Tzu wanted a leader to use fortune for his people.
The last major difference of their ideas is about mercy. Machiavelli let the leader to become cruel if he needs to be. Machiavelli said, “A prince, therefore, must be indifferent to the charge of cruelty if he is to keep his subjects loyal and united. Having set an example once or twice, he may thereafter act far more mercifully than the princes who, through excessive kindness, allows disorders to arise from which murder and rapine ensue” (Chapter XVII, page 65). He suggested that the leader must desire to be measured merciful, but he proposed him not to misuse his mercy because excessive mercy would spoil the community. He thought excessive mercy would cause turmoil and murder, so he proposed a need of cruelty for the people to become united and prepare for any combat. The purpose of being cruel comes more clearly when he said, “it is much safer to be feared than to be loved” (Chapter XVII, page 71). He thought showing his cruelty would command his large army more efficiently. In contrast once more, Lao Tzu proposed that a Master must not to be cruel to his people at all. “If you don't trust the people, you make them untrustworthy.” His proposing methods to treat the Master's people are all about mercy. He suggested a leader not to control his people because they will become more virtuous without prohibitions. Moreover, he said, “Best is a leader who is loved” (Chapter XVII, page 19).
In his book Tao-Te-Ching, Lao-Tzu takes an understandable and reasonable standpoint towards how a ruler should lead his subjects. The best leader, exemplifying Tao leadership, is one whose existence is barely known by the people. Like most ideal forms of rulers, except dictators and some others, they want the people they govern to be fond of them and to have a special connection with them. In the book, Lao-Tzu stays, “The best of all rulers is but a shadowy presence to his subjects. Next comes the ruler they love and praise; Next comes one they fear; Next comes one with whom they take liberties.” (Chapter XVII, page 19). Lao-Tzu thinks that if the people feel affection for the leader, his ruling would run much more efficiently than if they detested him. He also states that if a government is too involved or controlling, the people will revolt. Lao-Tzu believes that a ruler should see the good in all of his people and trust in them that they will do the right things.
On the contrary though, in Niccolo Machiavelli’s book, the Prince, he voices his opinion that a ruler should work towards being feared rather than loved. Although feared and hatred are sometimes associated, he makes it a point to mention that being hated is not beneficial for him or his country. From the pretext of The Prince, “A prince must nevertheless make himself feared in such a manner that he will avoid hatred, even if he does not acquire love; since to be feared and not to be hated can very well be combined; and this will always be so when he keeps his hands off the property and the women of his citizens and his subjects” (Chapter XVII, page 71) stated by Machiavelli portrays the possibility of being feared but not hated. Both ways are efficient ways to run a government although they are completely different.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Considering the age of both books, it is unsurprising that many authors and philosophers have written books on Lao Tzu and Machiavelli's works. In the case of Machiavelli in fact, several authors have written refutations of his work. In our study to understand the differences between the Tao Te Ching and The Prince it is necessary therefore to review the works of other writers concerning their beliefs and philosophies. Doing so will allow us to understand their work better and make our comparisons clear and concise. Many of the books chosen are commentaries or books whose ideas bear similarities to the works of both Lao Tzu and Machiavelli, which should give us further insight on their thoughts and beliefs. Machiavelli's The Prince will of course be the primary source of information that will be used when referring to the Italian Philosopher's ideas. Of particular interest to us will be Chapter XVII of the Prince, Cruelty and compassion; whether it is better to be loved than feared or the reverse. It is in this chapter that Machiavelli's most well-known maxim; 'It is better to be feared than loved' comes from, which is often considered to be a laconic summation of the man's beliefs. In many chapters, most notable Chapter XV he emphasized the need for the prince to constantly be prepared for warfare, and how he should have no other objective or thought other than the conduct of war. The preservation of the ruler's power over his country, whether it be acquired through heredity or by military arms is Machiavelli's primary concern, in contrast to many other Political Philosophers before him, who concerned themselves with the ideal way of running society than the realist approach that Machiavelli advocated. One belief of his in particular is his opinion on how a prince should run his finances. He believed that it is necessary not to overburden one's citizens with taxes but that does not mean that the prince should be generous with his money. Being generous, he argued, would eventually bankrupt the prince, so he should not mind being called a miser. While it is considered ideal for a ruler to spend his money on the people, Machiavelli felt that this is only necessary to control them, and to do so simply for the sake of altruism is unadvised.
Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching will also be one of the main sources of information for the researcher’s study. Though brief in substance compared to the Prince it nonetheless expresses the ideas of Lao Tzu satisfyingly. His beliefs in how a ruler should act is remarkably different from his contemporary Confucius, and other Poltical Philosophers of his time for that matter. His idea of an ideal ruler is remarkably similar to the philosophy of Libertarianism, a broad set of ideals whose central tenet is that individual freedom is the highest priority. His belief that the ruler should be a shadowy one who rarely exercises direct control is the ideal way that a ruler should behave. Governments should rarely exert control on its subjects, as to do so would eventually lead to instability and ruin for the state. The use of force is heavily frowned upon in the Tao Te Ching, and if war is necessary it must be ended as quickly as possible and with equally little fanfare. Encouraging warfare will only bring the country to ruin. While Machiavelli advocates that a ruler be ruthless and pragmatic, Lao Tzu feels that he should not be ambitious and should be content with what he has. To be otherwise, Lao Tzu argued, would make the ruler unfit to govern, as he would eventually cause misfortune for his subjects. There should be as few limits as possible imposed on the people, as to do so would only cause discord and suffering for them.
Many philosophers, especially those from the Enlightenment era were of the same opinion as Lao Tzu. The writer Henry David Thoreau, in his essay Civil Disobedience believed that 'The government is best which governs least', similar to Lao Tzu's belief that a ruler must not exercise much of his power to be most effective. The concept of a 'Natural Law' found in Greek thinkers also bears similarities with the 'Tao' that Lao Tzu advocates, being a natural force that must be followed by man in order for there to be harmony in the world. Murray N. Ruthbard believed that Lao Tzu was the first libertarian.
Frederick The Great's Anti-Machiavel is, as the name suggests a refutation of Niccolo Machiavelli's the Prince. While Machiavelli's work contends that the Prince's main concern is the preservation of his own power, the Prussian King argued that the purpose of a ruler was always the welfare of its people. In his essay Frederick pointed out how Machiavelli's examples were eventually deposed and failed to maintain their power. Frederick also argued that Machiavelli failed to acknowledge examples of rulers who failed despite following the same principles that rulers he acknowledged as practicing what Machiavelli considers to be the most effective political strategies. In the Anti-Machiavel Frederick refutes every chapter of Machiavelli's work, championing the rationalist and benevolent views popular during the contemporary Enlightenment period when he was still alive. Philosopher Baruch Spinoza was heavily influenced by Machiavelli's writings. In particular, Machiavelli's advocacy of realism in handling politics was given greater importance than theorizing on what was the ideal society. His work the Political Treatise repeats Machiavelli's criticism of theorizing the ideal society, and instead believed that only through proper analysis of the situation . From this, it can be concluded that Lao Tzu's work can be considered to be moral in nature, while Machiavelli's is amoral. Lao Tzu, like many philosophers in his time was concerned with the ideal society. Unlike other philosophers however, Lao Tzu desired that the ruler be passive in his rule of the country in order for there to be peace. Machiavelli had no interest in what is ideal or not, and preferred simply for the ruler to concern himself with running his country.

BIBLIOGRAPHY * Nederman, Cary, "Niccolò Machiavelli", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/machiavelli/>. * Chan, Alan, "Laozi", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/laozi/>. * Steinberg, Justin, "Spinoza's Political Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/spinoza-political/>. * Hansen, Chad, "Daoism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/daoism/>. * "Frederick the Great's Anti-Machiavel." WebCite Query Result. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Aug. 2013. * "Thoreau - Webtext on "Resistance to Civil Government"" Thoreau - Webtext on "Resistance to Civil Government" N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Aug. 2013. * Rothbard, Murray N. "The Ludwig Von Mises Institute." The Ancient Chinese Libertarian Tradition. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Aug. 2013. * Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. New York: Penguin Group, 2005. Print. * Lao Tzu. Tao Te Ching. New York: Penguin Group, 2009. Print.