You are on page 1of 5

Compare the leadership and the way how POWER was being exercised by the Three Modules

(The Prince, The Republic and Enemy of the People). Who do you think is the best leader and
the most powerful of them all? Justify your answers by means of citing a particular part from
each respective plays/novel.
The three great works that were asked of us to be read are the following: An Enemy of
the People, The Prince and The Republic. Each literature is different because it describes the
situation that the author was in. But the common thing about the three works is about power. In
these works, power was shown as the main issue being tackled by the three great works. But
the power depicted in the three works is a bit different from each other as they encompass
different times and different situations. Just like the saying With great power comes great
responsibility, it is important for people, especially leaders, to exercise their powers rightly. This
means that they have to be responsible for all their actions.
In Henrik Ibsens play An Enemy of the People, leadership was shown through the
societal hierarchy within the people. There was a mayor, who had all the power, the doctor who
is the brother of the mayor and is considered to be powerful when it comes to the sciences, the
media, who has power over the masses, and the citizens of the certain town. The leadership
shown in this play is through the mayor because he holds the greatest power and he leads the
people of the town they are settled in. In this play, the one who holds the power is the leader
because everyone is subject to his mercy. The powerful one has the last say over any other
matter that concerns the town. This is evident in the scene wherein the doctor was labeled as
the enemy of the people of the town because the mayor and the media were against him, and
the media became in disagreement with the doctor because of the influence the mayor has
exerted on them. For this play, someone powerful is considered to be the leader as he can sway
people because of the influence he has on the people.
In contrast with this play is the essay written by Niccolo Machiavelli. In this essay, The
Prince, Machiavelli shows what a true leader must possess in order to be considered a good

prince. The powerful have all the qualities that Machiavelli has laid down. These qualities are
what would help the leader to be able to maintain their position as a leader. Anyone can be a
leader, but not all can be as powerful as the leader that Machiavelli has described. Machiavelli
noted that for a leader to be really powerful, he must be able to follow all the advices that he has
laid down in this essay. He stated that a leader without power can lose his principality or the
kingdom that he rules over because there will be foreign invaders, rebellions and revolts from
people who are unsatisfied with the governing family, the mercenaries that have been hired
would take over the place because there are no native forces that can defend you, or native
forces that are planning to overthrow the ruling force. All of these can be causes of the ruling
force to lose his kingdom, and above all, his power over the people. With the qualities
mentioned by Machiavelli, it is to be noted that a leader must not blindly follow and directly
interpret everything that was written, as they may not be applicable in modern times.
Lastly, in contrast to both Ibsens and Machiavellis works, Platos The Republic talked
about justice. In this series of books, Plato presented that humans are to be just because
without justice, people will fail to trust each other, thus causing the society to crumble. In the
olden Greek, leaders are powerful because they hold the power to let the people submit to their
will. But this all changed when one man died, thus making a mob rule out of the government. In
this mob rule, the citizens, or the people of the city-states of Greece, hold the power when it
comes to politics as they dictate what the leaders should and should not do. The leaders are
now only leaders in name and are not as powerful as the citizens of the city-states. Plato has
written this in the times Greece has been chaotic and determines whether Greek at that time are
just or not. But other than he mob rule that has been ruling the city-states, the sophists, or the
teachers of the educated young men, are also powerful. Sophists are considered to be always
correct, and no one can refute them. Due to this, many blindly believed in them, and Socrates,
as a philosopher, questioned them, which caused his demise. The leaders, or kings, of the city-

states are only leaders because the people chose them to be, but not because they are
powerful enough to sway the people.
An Enemy of the People and The Republic have something in common, that is the
people are powerful because they can the cause of ones fortune or demise. But the difference
is that in An Enemy of the People, the leader can still be as powerful as the citizens because
he has the last say in everything regarding politics. As for The Republic, the leaders are not as
powerful as the people because the people have to follow what they say in order to maintain in
that position. Also the sophists are to be powerful because they are considered to know of all
the truth regarding the world. The Princes power and leader are different from the two
because the leaders who have retained their positions and their kingdoms are considered to be
the most powerful.
After reading all three literatures, I personally think that Niccolo Machiavellis The Prince is the
most powerful text of all the three. This is because the essay can be used as a guide for people
not just in politics but also for ordinary everyday life. The essay can help people survive
because this essay has laid down basic principles on how one can survive when faced with
problems. He noted that it is good to be both loved and feared, but more on the hate side
because only with fear can they obey the leader. It is not good to be despised and hated by the
people because they can cause your fall if that happens. Though its set in the olden Italian
times, the principles laid down by Machiavelli are still useful in the modern times, but one must
not take the texts literally as they can be harmful to those who do so. For the most powerful
author, I think that it is Plato that is the most powerful. This is because even though
philosophers at the time of the ancient Greece were not accepted, he still chose to write about
how people must live. Now, Plato is considered to be one of the greatest philosophers that have
existed on Earth. Not only that, his works can also be credited as the first to ever write regarding
politics, which he wrote about justice and the laws. People look up to him because of his
knowledge and courage to speak out against the sophists even though he knows that

philosophers are banned in their times, especially after the death of his teacher, Socrates. In his
The Republic, this is evident when the character Socrates spoke about justice and refuted
what Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus have said. I think that the character Socrates
is the most powerful and the best leader out of all the characters that I have read. Though the
main lead in An Enemy of the People, Dr. Stockmann, can be considered as a powerful one
when he decided to go against his brother, Mayor Stockmann, and lived his life according to the
way he wanted to live it that the strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone, he
cannot be considered as the most powerful because he was convicted as the enemy of the
people even though he was in the right, and he has not executed his power over the people
properly. In Machiavellis The Prince, Machiavelli himself cannot be considered as the most
powerful because there is no proof the one he has dedicated the essay to have read the text
and was reinstated in his position. For Socrates, although he has not much power, he was able
to say what he wants to say calmly and without going into arguments because of the matter. He
has refuted the definitions of justice given by the other three without even them knowing it.
Because of this, I think that Socrates has exercised great power over them just by using his
logic. During the argument between Thrasymachus and Socrates, Socrates said: Why, my
good friend, I said, how can any one answer who knows, and says that he knows, just nothing;
and who, even if he has some faint notions of his own, is told by a man of authority not to utter
them? The natural thing is, that the speaker should be some one like yourself who professes to
know and can tell what he knows. Will you then kindly answer, for the edification of the company
and of myself? Another argument made by Socrates is: For which I am indebted to you, I said,
now that you have grown gentle towards me and have left off scolding. Nevertheless, I have not
been well entertained; but that was my own fault and not yours. As an epicure snatches a taste
of every dish which is successively brought to table, he not having allowed himself time to enjoy
the one before, so have I gone from one subject to another without having discovered what I
sought at first, the nature of justice. I left that enquiry and turned away to consider whether

justice is virtue and wisdom or evil and folly; and when there arose a further question about the
comparative advantages of justice and injustice, I could not refrain from passing on to that. And
the result of the whole discussion has been that I know nothing at all. For I know not what
justice is, and therefore I am not likely to know whether it is or is not a virtue, nor can I say
whether the just man is happy or unhappy. Because of his arguments, not only has Socrates
define what justice is, he has also proved that justice is both theologically and ontologically
good. He has also made the people present in the argument believe that justice is not based on
all the definitions that has been given to him, but because justice in itself is good for all the
people. To be able to instill such knowledge to the people is a great feat for him because with
the presence of the sophist, he would not be able to philosophize and convince the people of his
own thoughts. Therefore, I think that Socrates is the most powerful and the best leader among
all the characters because of his great knowledge and great courage that he has exemplified
while being in and argument.