To be Feared or Loved?

[therussian]

Machiavelli clearly states in his book "The Prince" that a ruler should be more feared than loved.

"Here a question arises: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved. . . . Love endures by a bond which men, being scoundrels, may break whenever it serves their advantage to do so; but fear is supported by the dread of pain, which is ever present."
-Niccolo Machiavelli

Which do you think is more effective in ruling a country and people? Do you agree with Machiavelli?

[Solar]

Loved by the people, feared by rivals. Works well.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Loved by the people, feared by rivals. Works well.

I agree with that.

[Erik]

Loved is always better because it's easier to make people do what you want if you are loved.
Respected is also good thing.
Our mayor isn't realy loved, but he is strongly respected and almost everybody does what he asks.

I think leaders should only be feared if they can't be loved or respected, but this already shows he is a poor leader.

[Rowan11088]

Loved is always better because it's easier to make people do what you want if you are loved.
Respected is also good thing.
Our mayor isn't realy loved, but he is strongly respected and almost everybody does what he asks.

I think leaders should only be feared if they can't be loved or respected, but this already shows he is a poor leader.

Well I think you're looking only at very modern instances, in which there are a lot of factors differing from Machiavelli's time. Nowadays, doing things that would instill fear will get you in trouble with other countries, or in the case of a mayor with the national government. Once you have an elected rulership the fear thing starts to be problematic in terms of getting you re-elected. But if you're a dictator without a UN to watch over you, being feared is definitely superior. When you're talking about a small group, like a military squad or another sort of team, being loved is the way to go because you intimately know each person, and they feel accountable if they oppose you. Being "loved" in the distant way that a politician can be is a much weaker bond, which puts less pressure on peoples' consciences.

[Solar]

Yea, I was thinking on ancient/medieval ruler terms. In present-day politics, being feared is not a great tool for keeping power. It still works, but foreign intervention is a lot more likely, and then it all falls apart.

[First Crusader]

It is nice to be feared AND loved. Is more difficult than choosing one over the other, but it is possible.

[John I Tzimisces]

Well, Julius Caesar was loved by the masses (...generally), and feared completely by his rivals. Therefore, his rule was stable, but short, since his rivals didn't like him all that much. The soviet union instilled fear and hatred, especially in certain satellite states, among its people, leading to all out revolts. (which Were, admittedly, crushed)
Having the people fear you is only asking for a rebellion or revolution, because outright hatred comes out of fear. Having rivals love you, on the other hand, means your govt is backing you...but what sacrifices are you making to the people to secure this political safety?

Its such a tangled web, there is no answer but the theoretical one that it is simply best to be both loved and feared.

[Rowan11088]

Well, Julius Caesar was loved by the masses (...generally), and feared completely by his rivals. Therefore, his rule was stable, but short, since his rivals didn't like him all that much. The soviet union instilled fear and hatred, especially in certain satellite states, among its people, leading to all out revolts. (which Were, admittedly, crushed)
Having the people fear you is only asking for a rebellion or revolution, because outright hatred comes out of fear.

Historically though, revolts and rebellions are not that successful. Also, they tend to occur when the fear is abated slightly, just long enough for people to look around and actually REALIZE they're oppressed. It's called the Revolution of Rising Expectations (not entirely sure on the exact words), a somewhat popular historical theory. If a feared leader shows weakness, or even just tries to be nice for a little while, that's when they get hit with rebellions. But if the fear keeps up, you're likely not to have any, or just to have the easily quashable types.

[Lord Tomyris]

Love in today's society...and God is meant to be both loved and feared.

[Big War Bird]

When the **** hits the fan (as it almost always does) I think would rather have wanted to be loved than feared. A loved ruler might be allowed to retire, a feared ruler gets strung up by his testicles.

[John I Tzimisces]

When the **** hits the fan (as it almost always does) I think would rather have wanted to be loved than feared. A loved ruler might be allowed to retire, a feared ruler gets strung up by his testicles.

Thats a, uhh, clever way to put it, but yeah, thats right. Look at what happened to that poor dope mussolini. Maybe thats more due to him just being a terrible leader, but hey

[MadKow]

Machiavelli wrote about how to achieve and maintain power not about how to better rule a country. It's better to be loved. A ruler that is loved by the people owns a status that is akin to the chinese "Mandate of Heaven", and in modern societies is the legitimacy given by popular vote.