Pesikov 1

Margaret Pesikov Professor Segovis MGT 463 Power and Influence 4 March 2013

Machiavelli, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Is Power Acquired Through Fear or Love?

Throughout history, there have been various influential figures that have shaped many peoples opinions on effective power and influence. Several of the most prominent are Niccolo Machiavelli, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. All three are praised and respected around the world for their initiatives and philosophies on power, yet their opinions are radically different. Niccolo Machiavelli based a majority of his advice to leaders on fear and violence. He believed that all people were innately bad and could only be controlled through threat of punishment. Martin Luther King, on the other hand, believed that all men were created in the image of God and conflicts could be overcome with the power of love. Gandhi, like King, also believed in civil resistance and was very optimistic about human nature and was able to overcome British rule in India with the concept of satyagraha. All three men have left a lasting impact on the study of effective leadership, yet have very differing opinions on the purpose of power, nature of humans, means and ends, and how to implement change. In Machiavellis The Prince, it is evident that he places a very strong value on the power of leaders. To Machiavelli, power is synonymous with the possession of kingdoms as well as the minds of the people. Machiavelli thought that the goal is power, which means the domination of others, and the winners revel in it, savoring what Machiavelli calls the sweetness

Pesikov 2

of domination1. He believed that the power of princes lay in the amount of land they owned as well as support. He knew that in order for a prince to succeed and maintain a successful kingdom, he must have the support of the people and an army even if that requires deceit, manipulation, or violence. Princes should instill fear in people so that they are less likely to disobey or challenge their word. In addition, the prince should be well respected in society and portray himself as an excellent man2 which will make him more difficult to attack. Through the support of an army, the prince can protect himself from attackers and maintain his empire. Otherwise, the prince can expect to be overthrown. In addition, the prince should defeat his enemies and strike at points of weakness. Ultimately, the princes goal is to dominate others and win. Gandhi had a much different view of power. Gandhi did not see the purpose of power as a method of defeating people. He saw power as an opportunity to influence society to see the injustices that are committed. Gandhi used his power in India to defeat unjust laws and not people. Never once did he see the need for violence or manipulation to achieve his goals. Instead, he sought to change the behavior of the British and not annihilate them. In fact, he stated, acts of violence create bitterness in the survivors3. Like Machiavelli, Gandhi did see a need for an army. Throughout his mission, Gandhi had a consistent following of people that accompanied him on The Salt March, willingly were beaten for his cause, and joined him in his jail cell. However, he did not gain this following through violence or fear. He was able to convince the people of India to refuse to be ruled and empowered them to make a difference4.
1

Ledeen. Machiavelli on Modern leadership, 22. Machiavelli, The Prince, 47. The Hartwick Humanities in Management Institute, Gandhi, 6. The Hartwick Humanities in Management Institute, Gandhi, 16.

Pesikov 3

Martin Luther King Jr. chose a similar approach in his attempt to remove the limitations on civil rights for African Americans in the South of the United States. He, as well, chose to use his power in society to promote love. Instead of stimulating a revolt of blacks against whites in the South, King believed that power lay in loving your enemies. Like Gandhi, he did not believe in defeating or dominating enemies. In fact, he stated, when the opportunity presents itself for you to defeat your enemy, that is the time which you must not do it5. King believed that the ability to refrain from the hatred of an enemy demonstrated true power within a person. These positions on power ultimately had been shaped within these men by their outlooks on human nature. Gandhi had a very optimistic outlook on human nature and believed that all men had the power to change or control their nature. It was due to this that he had faith that his movement would eventually lead the British to understanding the harm they were doing to India. In addition, he also felt that all conflicts can be resolved if people would just recognize others as their equals as human beings. King had a similar opinion. He believed that all men were made in the image of God and had the potential for good. In his speech, Love, Law and Civil Disobedience, he expressed that there is something in human nature that can respond to goodness. So that man is neither innately good nor is he innately bad; he has potentialities for both6. Based on this he felt that if the African Americans in the South were to begin their movement with not hating white people and responding to discrimination with peace, there could be change. In addition, King was able to look further into the issue and realized that hatred may be a response to something that someone has done. Though the black people had not done anything cruel to white people, he used this idea to minimize negative judgments from whites. So that they would not call the blacks dirty, he asked them to wear nice clothing when breaking
5

Loving Your Enemies

(speech, Martin Luther King Jr., Dexter Avenue Baptist Church Montgomery, Alabama,

November 17, 1957).

6

Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience (speech, Martin Luther King Jr,

November 16, 1961).

Pesikov 4

segregation laws. King knew that by doing this, the good in people would be more likely to surface and stigmas and stereotyping would disappear faster. On the contrast, Machiavelli believed that Conflict is not the consequence of the rational pursuit of self-interest, either by states or by individuals; it flows straight from the deepest wellsprings of human nature7. This is very different from the idea of Gandhi who believed that human beings could resolve conflicts simply by finding a rational resolution where both sides are winners. This was impossible in the mind of Machiavelli because he felt that rationality played a minor role in conflict and it was human nature to be continuously involved in war and discord. Even when one conflict reached a resolution, another would follow. King also disagreed with Machiavelli and believed that much conflict was due to people not acknowledging their own flaws. He thought that if someone hates you, it is likely because you do something or have done something in the past to make them hate you. It is not human nature to engage in conflict; rather it is a reaction to something that can eventually be either controlled or eradicated. Also, in comparison to Kings and Gandhis optimistic view of human nature, Machiavelli did not believe that people were good. He said that men are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life, and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you8. He assumed that human beings were neither reliable nor loyal. Because of this assumption, he advised Princes to rule with fear and not love. Even an untrustworthy and bad person is afraid of consequences due to mans cowardly nature. This fear is what keeps people in line and maintains order in society. This was proven wrong by both Gandhis and Kings movements. Machiavelli would have warned Gandhi that despite the pledge
7

Ledeen. Machiavelli on Modern leadership, 36. Machiavelli, The Prince, 43.

Pesikov 5

that his men took for the resistance, upon getting hit or imprisoned, their cowardly nature would surface and they would leave the movement. Even further, he would have said that when Gandhi was jailed, India would stop resisting the British and would join their side because they had the power, the ammunition, and were the side that was succeeding. Gandhi thought otherwise and was correct. The men that pledged to nonviolence remained by Gandhis side even after being beaten, abused, and imprisoned. King disproved of Machiavellian theories as well with the nonviolent movement that he was involved in. When the black people broke segregation laws, they were imprisoned and often times beaten. A majority of these activists were students who had put their futures in jeopardy in order to try and change the laws of the south. Despite experiencing consistent harassment, violence, and occasional murder, these people stuck with the cause and remained determined to succeed. Without this positive outlook of human nature, Gandhi and King would not have had faith in the effectiveness of a nonviolent movement. There are many different ways of achieving a goal. In all dilemmas, one must always analyze the resources he or she has available to them and evaluate all possible actions given the resources at hand. Occasionally, it may seem that unethical or violent means may gain results more efficiently. It is critical, however, to realize that reaching a goal quicker through manipulative means may not result in the optimal outcome. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi both believed that the means used in the process represented the end. Their idea of peace as an end was achieved by peaceful means. In Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience, Martin Luther King states that immoral destructive means cannot bring about moral and constructive ends.9 Gandhi felt the same way and ensured that the means he used coincided with the end that he

Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience (speech, Martin Luther King Jr,

November 16, 1961).

Pesikov 6

wished to achieve. King and Gandhi both thought that as long as you use means that represent the ends you want, the end is likely to occur and be sustainable. In Gandhis case, he had very few options regarding which means to utilize. Saul D. Alinsky thinks that if Gandhi had access to guns, he might have considered forming an army to revolt against the British10. It is very unlikely that he would have chosen to resort to violence, however, even with access to weapons due to his deep religious beliefs and personal values. Gandhi was a firm believer in ahimsa which is that idea that injuring another living thing also injured the person committing the injury. Therefore, Gandhi would have likely used peaceful means regardless of the circumstances he faced. Due to this, Gandhi is considered an extremely moral figure in history and is highly revered to this day. Machiavelli did not see ethical means as a necessity to achieving the desired ends. He was ruthless and had confidence in the idea that deceit and violence were acceptable to use in order to achieve success and attain more power. Rules for Radicals, reveals this as Machiavellis greatest weakness because he did not realize that it was necessary to appear moral not only to achieve a desired outcome but to sustain it. Though unethical means may succeed, in the longrun it is impossible for a lasting impact. This can be seen in many historical events as well as recent business situations. For example, by 2001, Enron had accumulated unimaginable wealth using unethical and manipulative means. Though they had succeeded in the short-term, eventually their means were revealed and the company was destroyed. Johnson & Johnson, conversely, during the Tylenol poisoning scandal, behaved very ethically. Upon learning of the cyanide, the CEO ordered an immediate recall of the product, despite the fact that the company would suffer exorbitant losses, and cooperated with the media and the public. By behaving ethically and having the goal of well-being for others in mind, Johnson & Johnson suffered
10

Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, 38.

Pesikov 7

short-term losses but was able to retain its strong brand image after the scandal. This is further reinforcement that Machiavelli was incorrect to say that morals were not relevant to politics. Means, whether good or bad, ethical or unethical, must have a strategy to them that will ultimately result in change. Though there are many differences between Machiavellis strategies for change and those of Gandhis and Kings, there are several similarities as well. Martin Luther King believed the nonviolence was the most effective strategy because it persuaded people into supporting a cause instead of forcing them to accept it with fear. Both Kings and Gandhis strategy was voluntary suffering because it was able to overpower violence because violence became ineffective. In addition, it brought attention and sympathy from outsiders who were observing because they were touched by the non-retaliation. In Kings Loving Your Enemies11 speech, he also said that love was an effective strategy because the power of love will eventually cause enemies to break down under the load and transform. While Machiavellis strategy involved domination and the submission of his enemies, Gandhi and King wished to transform their enemies because they knew that this was much more constructive and sustainable. Gandhi believed in the strategy of satyagraha, which essentially means holding to the truth. His strategy was discipline and consistency. Gandhi believed that as long as his supporters stayed committed to the pledge they had made to him, change was inevitable. Machiavellis strategies were force and violence. He believed that fear was the way to successfully implement or prevent change. Even though his strategy of fear and violence is very different from the idea of nonviolence, Machiavelli does relate to both King and Gandhi in several ways regarding change. All three men realize that the key to implementing change is having a support system whether it is in the form of mercenaries or people who are unarmed and

11

Loving Your Enemies

(speech, Martin Luther King Jr., Dexter Avenue Baptist Church Montgomery, Alabama,

November 17, 1957).

Pesikov 8

want to fight for your cause. Without people backing you, you virtually have no power. In addition, for strategies to work, consistency is very important. When a prince rules by fear, a display of leniency or carelessness may delegitimize his power, and if a member of Gandhis movement had not been able to withstand the beatings and had murdered a British officer, the movement would probably have failed.

Works Cited Alinsky, Saul David. Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals. New York: Random House, 1971. Print. Hartwick Classic Leadership Cases. Oneonta, NY: Hartwick Humanities in Management Institute, Hartwick College, 1993. Print.

Pesikov 9

Ledeen, Michael Arthur. Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules Are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago. New York: Truman Talley, 1999. Print. Machiavelli, Niccol, W. K. Marriott, Nelle Fuller, and Thomas Hobbes. The Prince,. Chicago: Encyclopdia Britannica, 1955. Print.