The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli Versus Letter from Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King

downloadDownload
  • Words 2017
  • Pages 4
Download PDF

I. Introduction

Martin Luther King and Niccolò Machiavelli could not be further apart in their ideologies on political violence. King is historically lauded as a nonviolent champion, while Machiavelli is known for his ruthless advocacy for violence if it means achieving political success. While King had large, seemingly-unattainable goals for the future of race relations, he never once took to violence to achieve his ends. Instead, he approached the dilemma with peace and humanity. King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail and Machiavelli’s The Prince will be analyzed in terms of nonviolent activism and political action and violence.

II. Letter from Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King

Martin Luther King spent the entirety of his life advocating for change, always in a peaceful way with a strict discouragement of violence. While protesting these injustices and advocating for civil rights, King was arrested and put in jail in Birmingham, Alabama. Even while in his jail cell, King never let violence cross his mind, and he continued to advocate for those on the outside to remain peaceful and nonviolent in their demonstrations and protests. Early on in the Letter from Birmingham Jail, King explains his business being in Birmingham, stating: “Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct action program if such were deemed necessary.” He was arrested for his work in peacefully protesting the abhorrent conditions for black people in Birmingham, Alabama. King further states that he is “…in Birmingham because injustice is here.” King regularly disavowed using violence to “justify the means” (Machiavelli) and instead always relied on nonviolent action. King was critical of his counterparts of the time in the Letter from Birmingham Jail, the Black Nationalists: “The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad’s Muslim movement.” King disagreed with the countering movements of the time, deeming them as inciting violence, and hurting the peaceful movement that he perceived as the movement more likely to be successful and more receptive to the white people of the time. King had a point in being fearful of black leaders like Elijah Muhammad, and his mentee, Malcolm X. King had already expressed disdain and fear of inaction by the “white moderate,” and with actors who were not opposed to violence such as Muhammad and Malcolm X, the white moderates would have likely been even more reluctant to support the movement (possibly might have even become outright opposed to it). In the Letter from Birmingham Jail, King says this about white moderates: “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice.” King views the inaction and unwillingness to get into “good trouble” as current Representative John Lewis would say, as the biggest impediment to the progress of civil rights, more than the Ku Klux Klan and any bigoted racist. King has so much validity in this statement, and can still be applied to today’s society. Those afraid of change, and unwilling to get “dirty” and uplift people of color, women, LGBT people, or any other marginalized group, are the biggest hindrance to the progress that needs to be achieved in this country. MLK was aware of this threat in his own time, and strived so hard to sustain a movement that would get those moderate whites on their side. Not falling into the stereotype of the angry or dangerous black was critical to achieving the success that King desired. King viewed the “black nationalists” as stoking the flames of white people to view them as those “rabble rousers” and “outside agitators” as stated in the Letter from Birmingham Jail. He also feared that succumbing to anger and violence would result in bloodshed and senseless acts that repudiate the Christian morals that he held dear to in all aspects of his life. King sought to foster a country in which blacks and whites could live side-by-side in peace and harmony, and respect each other as equals, and he viewed resorting to violence as destroying this dream.

Click to get a unique essay

Our writers can write you a new plagiarism-free essay on any topic

III. The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli

Machiavelli possesses a very different view on violence than King does. Machiavelli encourages and praises violence at many turns throughout The Prince. He starts off in the work with the first sub-header being titled “Constant Readiness for War.” Machiavelli believes that the ideal “prince” should always be ready to engage in violence, and participate in war: “A prince should therefore have no other aim or thought, nor take up any other thing for his study, but war and its organisation and discipline” (Ebenstein, 151). Machiavelli views the readiness and ability to go to war to be one of the primary focuses of a successful and effective prince. He’s not necessarily wrong about this either, when both the past and modern history are looked at. Ancient political leaders that were successful always utilized military force to achieve and actualize their goals. Alexander The Great is a prime example of this. He used war as a means to expand his empire, conquer new lands, and bring new people into his fold. In the time of Machiavelli and predating him, war was usually the only way to get things done. Machiavelli and the Florentines fell out of power in Italy due to the military intervention of the Medici: “In 1512 he lost his job when the republican government, based on French support, was replaced by the absolutist regime of the Medici, who had been restored to power with papal help” (Ebenstein, 144). Machiavelli had lived and saw the effectiveness of war, succumbing to the power of those that were able to usurp control from the Florentines. War as an effective way of attaining power and land can also be seen in relatively modern times. In 1948, when the United Nations voted to establish an independent Jewish State in the Middle East, military conflict was the means used to effectively carve out and maintain that land. The current Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been able to dominate the Palestinians and bolster Israel’s strength because of his “constant readiness for war” and willingness to participate in military action. Machiavelli would praise the actions of Netanyahu, as he was a strong proponent of direct and violent action to attain the desired ends (Ebenstein, 152). Machiavelli also continually stresses in The Prince that a ruler should not only always be on the offensive when feasible, but must also always be on the defensive and ready for any and all threats. War was necessary to rule, and to keep that power (Ebenstein, 151). The example of Francesco Sforza becoming Duke of Milan is used as an example of how violence can allow one to assume power. It is stated that “through being well armed,” Sforza was able to ascend to the Dukedom (Ebenstein, 151). In more recent times, this same kind of violent political action can be seen in the 2017 coup d’état of Zimbabwe. There were disputes between two prominent Zimbabwean government officials, over who would succeed the aging President Mugabe. The tense disagreement was between the former Vice President, Emmerson Mnangagwa, and the First Lady, Grace Mugabe. The First Lady discredited the Vice President, and used lies and deceit to discredit him and any potential campaign for the Presidency that he would launch. Grace Mugabe personified the “ends justifying the means (Machiavelli)” by allegedly poisoning and attempting to murder Mnangagwa. These claims have not been verified, but if First Lady Mugabe did attempt to poison him, Machiavelli would have praised this. First Lady Mugabe discredited the Vice President for months publicly, and was even able to persuade her husband to fire him from his role. Mugabe had stripped her main opponent of all of his power and status, and had seemingly cleared the way for herself to assume the Presidency after her husband’s time was up. Mnangagwa did not give up though, and employed some of his own Machiavellian tactics to combat the Mugabes. Mnangagwa bolstered his forces, and got some Zimbabwean military forces to defect to his side. Mnangagwa utilized his military to remove President Mugabe from power, for allowing his wife to usurp corrupt power, forcing him to resign or face impeachment. First Lady Mugabe was expelled from the party, and stripped of all of her standing and power. Mnangagwa was sworn in shortly after the coup, as the President of Zimbabwe. Mnangagwa effectively utilized military force, war and violence, to achieve his goals of becoming President; something that Machiavelli advocated for, and would have praised. Machiavelli also believed that violence could be used to keep the prince’s subjects and citizens in line. “A prince, therefore, must not mind incurring the charge of cruelty for the purpose of keeping his subjects united and faithful…” (Ebenstein, 154). Machiavelli thought that being “cruel” was sometimes necessary in holding onto power and keeping the people subjugated and fearful of the ruler. We see leaders using this tactic in many different points in history, such as: Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Kim Jong-un of North Korea, and Mohammed Bin Salman Al Saud of Saudi Arabia. Machiavelli views dictators such as these figures as utilizing that “cruelty” in order to keep the subjects in line, and “united and faithful.”

IV. Conclusion

King and Machiavelli would have disagreed on vastly every core principle that the other held dear. King would disavow Machiavelli’s reliance on violence and disdain for others to achieve any possibly goal, and Machiavelli would have spun King to be an ineffective leader that should have took gaining the power that he so desired into his own hands by direct political action, even if that involved being violent. As asked in the prompt: “Are there times when political violence is necessary, even desirable?” There seems to be a middle ground to this answer. In the eyes of peace, the same eyes that King shared: nonviolent and peaceful action should be the first option when seeking to achieve goals and enact change. In the Letter from Birmingham Jail, King states this: “In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action.” In any of these four core steps, violence is never suggested. King realizes that direct action can be taken in a way that results in no casualties, and in no bloodshed. He was proven right too, his movement forced whites to reconcile with the injustices that America had committed and was committing, and forced them to pass laws and change some of the culture in the country. King also found the power in remaining peaceful, and juxtaposing that image against the violence of bigots. It’s powerful to show a people, seeking to be respected and valued, never stooping to the level of those oppressing them. It gave his movement credibility and respect, and even though there’s still work to be done in today’s society, he achieved many of the goals that the Civil Rights Movement at the time envisioned. However, Machiavelli is not completely wrong in his methodology of using political violence in his direct action. We can see at several points in history, that sometimes, corruption and other evil forces will never bend to peaceful protests. Political violence can be necessary as a last resort, especially in instances such as the American Revolution, in which people fled oppression and persecution to establish a more free land in which they could live. Violence should never be the de facto answer, but it needs to be recognized when it needs to be utilized to achieve the change that is being sought after.

Works Cited

  1. Ebenstein, William, and Alan O. Ebenstein. Introduction to Political Thinkers. Cengage Learning, 2002.
  2. King, Martin Luther. “‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]”.” Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.], www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html.

image

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.