Being ruled by a Machiavellian prince ensures that the citizens under this reign of power lives happily and securely since a Machiavellian prince’s main goal as a ruler is to secure the state. A Weberian statesman rules in similar ways, however the force that comes with his rulings may make citizens not feel as happy and secure. The ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli and Max Weber about how a prince or statesman should rule, in some ways, work in tandem; however, a Machiavellian prince rules better than a Weberian statesman.
The 21st century exposed us to politicians that we deem sly and dishonest. However, according to Niccolo Machiavelli, politicians are not simply bad people just because they lie and dissemble and maneuver. A good politician holds all these attributes in order to protect, enhance, and bring honor to the state. The perfect prince would appear to be “merciful, faithful, humane, honest, and religious,” but “know how to enter into evil, when forced by necessity” to ” maintain his state.” Consequently, the people living under this prince would benefit in the peace that comes with his reign. Being compassionate may be a virtue, but citizens need effective ruling over nice ruling and if a call upon some darker arts need to be issued, then a ruler should have the right to enter this evil. According to Machiavelli, a prince has to enter this evil because in order to keep his citizens loyal, he cannot be concerned with the shame the relates to cruelty, but rather “with very few examples he will be more merciful than those who for the sake of too much mercy allow disorders to continue . . . for these customarily hurt a whole community, but the executions that come from the prince hurt one particular person” (66). Systematically crime harms organized communities, but if a ruler harms one specific person as opposed to the majority, the person will be used as an example to the community to not create more destruction to their home.