Comparing Machiavelli's The Prince And The Discours

Machiavelli analyses the strengths and weaknesses of both auctorial governments and monarchal governments in his works The Prince and The Discourses. According to Machiavelli, governments, no matter what form they take, descend into corruption. Aristocracies become oligarchy’s, monarchies become tyrannous, etc. (Machiavelli, 111). Thus, Machiavelli states that the superlative governmental system is for all three forms of ‘good governments’ to be combined under one constitution. In this way, each form of government is better able to keep the others in check. However, Machiavelli favors the republican form of government over principalities because he believes it is better able to stave off corruption and is able to make better decisions.
The corruption within principalities is evident, Machiavelli states that, “a prince had nothing else to do than to excel all the rest in luxury, indulgence… consequently soon drew upon himself the general hatred of the
Machiavelli prefers the republic to the principality though he states a republic is much more difficult to purify and takes much longer to create a long-lasting republic, free of corruption. Unlike a prince, however, a republic is less likely to make poor decisions under pressure. A prince is prone to paranoia and fear because they alone govern their country, whereas, a republic is better able to stay focused (267). Furthermore, a prince is likely to make decisions that will only benefit himself. For example, a prince would backstab any loyal follower who had served him simply to further his own selfish needs (268). A republic however, would be likelier to make decisions that would benefit the people. Thus, Machiavelli supports republics because of their love of liberty and country unlike the princes love of self and power (112). In this way, republics are efficient and difficult to corrupt unlike a