The Prince-18

I was never much of a history person, but I do remember this book being quoted in my history books. My memory is a bit hazy about what context it was quoted in, but I believe it was put in a bad light due to it's line about how it is better for a ruler to be feared then it is to be loved by his people. Taking that one statement by itself makes it seem like the book is about how to oppress the common people in the same way as a dictator.

Why this particular bit of propaganda was deemed necessary I do not know, however I do know that this book is not as history books would portray it. It does say that it is better to be feared than loved, but it also says that the fear should not stretch to the point of hate. In it's entirety the part of the book in question describes how a ruler should not oppress his people, but should not hesitate to enforce the law and make his subjects fear his wrath. In all honesty that's what any government setup is meant to do, the government takes care of the governed, but the courts will punish anyone who breaks the laws set by the government for the sake of the nation. At least, that's the idea, the actual execution often takes a less simple and honest course of action, but that is not the point here.

All in all this book describes a perfectly reasonable plan for a ruler to take, there are parts that seem less than benevolent, such as establishing your colonies in areas inhabited by the poor since they will be unable to do any harm once dispersed and stripped of all their land, but all in all there is none of the "evil tyrant" philosophy that history textbooks attribute to this novel.

Things like not engaging in wars that do not benefit you and place you in a stronger position or not relying on foreign/mercenary troops to defend your homeland are simply common sense. They have nothing to do with dictatorship, or even monarchy to an extent. These concepts can be taken from this book, rewritten for modern forms of government, and applied without any trouble.

There really isn't much else to say about this book, the main question is why the government feels the need to shine a bad light on this book and raise public opinion against it. Most people would probably not read it in the first place, and those who did would not see any major discrepancy between the system described and how our current system is supposed to work. They may think certain diplomatic decisions are more or less wise, but since most of the book deals with common sense anyway it wouldn't turn a person into a political activist if they weren't already prone to actively opposing illogical and stupid decisions. My only guess is that the government doesn't want anyone knowing how any part of politics work, but that doesn't seem like a good enough reason.

I have said my piece now, I leave it to any comments to add more, perhaps someone will know why there is a need to put this book in a bad light.