Comparing Kautilya In The Prince, Arthasastra And N. Machiavelli
There are 195 countries in the world and each of them has different leaders - some of them are better and some of them are worse. Kautilya in the treatise “Arthasastra” and N. Machiavelli in “The Prince” give very similarly but at the same time different views on leadership. Kautilya wrote the “Arthasastra” more than 10 centuries before Machiavelli wrote “the Prince”, so there are some theories and thoughts that Machiavelli’s treatise is based on Kautilya’s “Arthasastra” (Violatti 2014). Both authors were political thinkers at their time. They emphasize how nations and societies have to look in order to flourish and give advice about leadership - how leaders have to rule in order to be able to hold the power and to know how to conquer other
…show more content…
Kautilya and N. Machiavelli say that the ruler of the kingdom has to be one and he has to have a lot of power in his hands. Also, they both claim that counsellors, ministers and city managers are very important part of the kingdom and that king should ask them for advice, but they also say that in the end the ruler always have to listen himself, because he knows what is the best for his kingdom and his people and I strongly disagree with this point, because a king could not omniscient. Although everyone knows and agrees that the best form of rule is a democracy where every citizen has a right to participate in politics, we still can find some countries which are ruled by a strong leader or one strong political party. Usually, they have power over state’s counsellors and ministers. We could see this strong authority in Iran, China, North Korea and other dictatorship countries. There are some conspiracies that Kautilya’s “Arthasastra” and Machiavelli’s “the Prince” treatises actually are not based on advice how to be a good ruler but it is a ridicule at their time leaders (www.sparknotes.com). If the conspiracy is true, it shows that some things have not changed over centuries, it shows that strong government were found in 4th, in 15th as well as in 21st centuries. This is the reason why these treatises are still really relevant because we can still see examples of this strong rulership in a contemporary
Kautilya and N. Machiavelli say that the ruler of the kingdom has to be one and he has to have a lot of power in his hands. Also, they both claim that counsellors, ministers and city managers are very important part of the kingdom and that king should ask them for advice, but they also say that in the end the ruler always have to listen himself, because he knows what is the best for his kingdom and his people and I strongly disagree with this point, because a king could not omniscient. Although everyone knows and agrees that the best form of rule is a democracy where every citizen has a right to participate in politics, we still can find some countries which are ruled by a strong leader or one strong political party. Usually, they have power over state’s counsellors and ministers. We could see this strong authority in Iran, China, North Korea and other dictatorship countries. There are some conspiracies that Kautilya’s “Arthasastra” and Machiavelli’s “the Prince” treatises actually are not based on advice how to be a good ruler but it is a ridicule at their time leaders (www.sparknotes.com). If the conspiracy is true, it shows that some things have not changed over centuries, it shows that strong government were found in 4th, in 15th as well as in 21st centuries. This is the reason why these treatises are still really relevant because we can still see examples of this strong rulership in a contemporary