A Perfect Dictator? Or did Saddam Hussein Follow Machiavelli‘s Advices? Essay Example

to Iraq, and was imprisoned again in 1964 and 1966 for plotting against the regime. In 1968 the Baath Party seized power in Iraq and Saddam Hussein became the leader of the country. This was the end of a valorous part. Saddam‘s revolutionary image gave him enough  support of the Iraqi people to perform a second part and get rid of his political opponents. In 1979, after murdering five other members of the Revolutionary Council he became an absolute ruler[2].

This was the criminal part. Machiavelli‘s words: “Yet it cannot be called talent to slay fellow-citizens, to deceive friends, to be without faith, without mercy, without religion; such methods may gain empire, but not glory[3]” are most suitable to his actions.Now let‘s consider what instructions does Machiavelli offer to a dictator to keep his power, and what Saddam Hussein really did. In Chapter XVII of “The Prince”, called “Concerning Cruelty And Clemency, And Whether It Is Better To Be Loved Than Feared” Machiavelli writes, that a monarch may be either loved or feared by his subjects. The best for the monarch is to inspire both love and fear, without hatred.

But, in case a it is impossible to do so, it is better to inspire fear, than love, because fear depends on the will of a ruler and love does not[4].It can be clearly indicated, that Saddam had chosen fear, rather than love. To make people love himself, he used a skillful propaganda and people‘s gullibility, and to make them afraid he established a ruthless secret police and played on people‘s fear, that an Islamic Republic would be installed in Iraq[5]. Saddam‘s rule brought little

good to Iraqi people, to make them love Hussein.

Exhausting war with Iran, UN sanctions political repressions and administrative blunders would have been fatal in normal circumstances[6]. Nevertheless, Hussein‘s capacity for trading upon human weaknesses allowed him to stay in power by inspiring fear.Our final issue is to clarify the reasons which led to the fall of the Husseinian regime and compare them with Machiavelli‘s ideas. In fact, the US intervention to Iraq was hardly successful in it‘s first days.

Iraqi‘s desperate resistance even caused talks about second Vietnam. But, the problem has been resolved in the fastest and most unexpected way. US forces entered Bagdad without any considerable struggle.Some explanation can be given to those facts if we turn to the fourth chapter of “The Prince”, called “Why The Kingdom Of Darius, Conquered By Alexander, Did Not Rebel Against The Successors Of Alexander At His Death”. In it, Machiavelli explains, that a state can be governed in two different ways: either by a prince, with a body of servants, who assist him to govern the kingdom; or by a prince and barons, who have their own subjects, recognizing them as lords[7].

The first type of states enjoy internal unity; it is hard for a conqueror to find assistance between it‘s subjects. But the good in such a dominion is that it is easy to be ruled after a conquest using a settled administrative system and official‘s habit to discipline. The second type of states are easy to be conquered, using support of the internal opposition, but they are hard to be controlled later, as this opposition appears to be confronting with the new ruler

same as with the old one.This rule is very much applicable to Iraq.

Even despite of severe oppression, Saddam Hussein had to face religious (Shiites), national (Kurds) and political (communists) opposition[8], which, certainly, did little to help Hussein at the decisive moment. Having suddenly appeared in the political vacuum, Hussein had no other choice, than to flee from Bagdad. But now it is not so hard to predict, that former opposition to Hussein will now continue struggling for it‘s old interests with the occupational forces and newly formed Iraqi authorities.It is hard to say, whether Saddam Hussein read Machiavelli‘s works and did he consciously tried to follow his advices. But still, as all other dictators, he had to obey the laws of political science, discovered by Machiavelli. And those laws predetermined the fall of his dictatorship.