Introduction

The complex nature of human government has been in existence since the classical period. In addition, the human government continued to employ titanic resources, which made it further complex. Consequently, political philosophers tried to create an understanding and influence various stakeholders with respect to human government. Such political philosophers have attempted to provide intricacies as well as paradoxes revolving around the political system that controls and manages humanity. Amongst the political philosophers who have provided the intricacies and paradoxes on human government include Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. Machiavelli and Hobbes have provided similar and divergent views on purpose or end/goal of the government on one hand and the form that any efficient government should take (Hobbes, 2010; MacHiavelli, 2009; and MacHiavelli, 1996, All the chapters of the two books).
The following paper compares the views of Machiavelli and Hobbes in respect to the purpose/end/goal of the government and the form it needs to take in a bid to enhance efficiency.

Purpose/End/Goal of the Government

Contrast between Machiavelli and Hobbes
Machiavelli and Hobbes have both converging and diverging views on the purpose, goal, or end of the government. Machiavelli strongly believes that the main purpose/goal of the government is to be an instrument of power that controls all the subjects within a given nation or society. As an instrument of power, Machiavelli affirms that a government aims at satisfying the need of a ruler (MacHiavelli, 2009; p41 & 75, Chapter 10 Line Paragraph 2 and Chapter 23 Paragraph 1 and 2). In this perspective, the government of a nation or society as proposed by Machiavelli has its epicenter or focal point on the rule. Therefore, Machiavelli’s proposes that in any government, the ruler should be the instrument of power.
Machiavelli in his works, “The Prince” and “Discourses on Livy”, proposes that the other goal of a government is to retain power. Machiavelli describes a perfect prince or ruler as one who is cruel and cunning, which should be the basis of retaining power (MacHiavelli, 2009; p54-57 Chapter 15 Line 39). The foreign power that Machiavelli experienced in Italy in the late 1400s made the great political philosopher believe that an effective government needs to have a ruler who is not only cruel, forceful, and cunning (MacHiavelli, 2009 Chapter 17 Line 2 & 3; MacHiavelli, 1996, p97, 143, & 260 Chapters 47). In addition, Machiavelli asserted that creating fear was an important purpose/end of a government especially in respect to power retention.
According to Machiavelli, a cruel and a cunning prince (regarded as the ruler in any government system) should aim at creating and protecting wealth. In this case, being cruel, forceful, and cunning for a ruler in government is very crucial. Unfortunately, Machiavelli argued in his works that whilst creation of wealth should be the responsibility of every subject, such wealth should belong to a specific group (MacHiavelli, 1996; p61). Therefore, Machiavelli believed in a government that does not care about the subjects but only those in power.
In contrast, Thomas Hobbes was significantly influenced by the free government experienced in England in the late 1500s. After experiencing the laissez-fair style of government, Hobbes proposed in his work “Leviathan” that an ideal government should aim at achieving the goals of every individual or subject (Hobbes, 2010; p.115 Chapter 27). Hobbes proposed that there is a need to view government as a manifestation of the people. In this perspective, Hobbes differed with the idea that government is an instrument of power by proposing that an ideal government is one that is endowed with various resources including power (Hobbes, 2010, Chapter 10). Consequently, there is the need to use such endowments for the benefits of all the subjects.
Moreover, Hobbes affirmed that an ideal government should be compared to a covenant where the subjects trust their leadership to a particular ruler (Hobbes, 2010; p.62 Chapter 14). Therefore, in this perspective a ruler needs to accomplish the purposes or goals that the citizens would otherwise complete. In addition, every stakeholder in the government is given a responsibility. Therefore, every stakeholder needs to fulfill his or her responsibility. The ruler on the other hand, needs to ensure that every stakeholder has the required resources in accomplishing their responsibilities (Hobbes, 2010; p.77 Chapter 18). Hobbes believed that a government is formed as a manifestation of the divine power. In this respect, formation of government resulted from stakeholders seeking peace.
Another important role of the government as viewed by Hobbes was enhancing security and safety. Hobbes strongly believed that trusting a ruler with the divine power through a covenant was away of asking for security and safety (Hobbes, 2010; p.82 Chapter 19). Indisputably, the role or goal of an ideal government as proposed by Hobbes should be to enhance security and safety. Furthermore, security and safety are some of the components that enhance attainment of responsibilities. Therefore, the government has the role of enhancing security and safety within a given nation or society.

Comparison between Machiavelli and Hobbes

Despite the diverging views and concepts in respect to the role of government, Machiavelli and Hobbes had some converging ideas. Both Machiavelli and Hobbes believed in the same formation of government with varying needs (MacHiavelli, 2009; Hobbes, 2010). Machiavelli and Hobbes proposed that in most cases, governments are formed by people who seek peace and someone who can be in-charge. Both philosophers believe that formation of government by subjects aim at identifying one person who can be responsible in handling issues of peace within their society or nation (MacHiavelli, 2009; Hobbes, 2010). It is therefore evident that even though they had divergent ideas, concepts, and views on the roles of government, the two philosophers have converging ideas, concepts, and views on the formation of government on the basis of acquiring or obtaining peace.

Form of Government

Contrast between Machiavelli and Hobbes
Machiavelli in his works “The Prince” and “Discourses on Livy”, focus mainly on the government as an instrument of power. According to his perceptions, Machiavelli strongly believed that an ideal form of government is one where the ruler has absolute power. Based on his works of “The Prince” and “Discourses on Livy”, Machiavelli, an Italian was influenced by the foreign power rule thus believing that any government should focus on the self-determined ruler as an instrument of power (MacHiavelli, 2009; MacHiavelli, 1996). In his perception and experience, Machiavelli confirms that an ideal form of government should have rulers that are not only elites but also those who are popular. An influential and popular leader is able to command the subjects in a bid to attaining specific goals and objectives.
In “The Prince”, Machiavelli proposed a strong monarch system of government that has cruel and cunning prince capable of instilling fear amongst the subjects. The main aim of instilling fear amongst the subjects as proposed by Machiavelli is for the Prince to continue being in power (MacHiavelli, 2009; p20-22). The only rulers or princes capable of instilling fear are those that are not only influential but also very popular. Power retention will make the prince or ruler of a given government to continue accomplishing his selfish gains. In Chapter 2 of “The Prince”, Machiavelli proposed the idea of having hereditary principles, which are the basis of monarch system of government (MacHiavelli, 2009; p18).
Machiavelli’s proposed form of government is one where the ruler should not be challenged in any aspect even if the ruler is not performing as required (MacHiavelli, 1996; p81-88). However, Machiavelli believes that an ideal form of government is one where the leader or ruler does not relax. Such rulers should aim at preserving a given kingdom through all possible means. It is in this perspective that Machiavelli claims in Chapter 19 of Book 1 of “Discourses on Livy” that a weak leader cannot replace a strong leading on the basis of preservation of a kingdom (MacHiavelli, 1996; p52). Princes that are weak cannot endure the war that a kingdom should be involved in throughout the process of preserving their kingdom. Therefore, Machiavelli strongly believed in retaining of power through preservation of the kingdom.
On a different perspective, Hobbes in his work “Leviathan” believed in a laissez-faire style of government. Laissez-fair form of government proposed by Hobbes is one that acknowledges covenant between the rulers and subjects (Hobbes, 2009; p.91 and 151 Chapters 21 and 26). Hobbes proposed that in most cases the formation of an ideal government was based on an agreement between the subjects and their rulers for the purposes of accomplishing certain objectives such as enhancement of peace. In this respect, since the subjects have bestowed some privileges and responsibilities to the ruler especially in respect to security and safety, Hobbes believed in “Leviathan” that every subject needs to obey the ruler (Hobbes, 2010, p.252 Chapter 43). Therefore, Hobbes purported that an ideal form of government is one where all the subjects obey the ruler.
In addition, Hobbes proposed that an ideal form of government is one where all the stakeholders follow the rules or developed laws. Moreover, Hobbes proposed that an ideal form of government need to have the ruler obeying the rule of law. Even though the ruler should have absolute power in the form of government proposed by Hobbes, it is also true that such rulers need to obey the rule of law (Hobbes, 2010; p. 214 Chapter 42). It is in the obeying of rule of law by all stakeholders that the objective of security and safety together with peace will be attainable. Therefore, Hobbes proposed a form of government where every stakeholder is bound to follow all the pre-determined laws or rules.
Hobbes also proposed in his work “Leviathan” that an ideal form of government needs to be in small proportions whilst keeping the relationship amongst them and with a supernatural being (Hobbes, 2010; p.126 Chapter 27). Whilst in small proportions, Hobbes also proposed that an ideal form of government needs to focus on justice, which is envisioned to have the vision of all the stakeholders within the nation or society under discussion (Hobbes, 2010; p.42 Chapter 10). In respect to a just government, Hobbes claimed that there is a need to employ resources and other relevant strategies where every individual fight towards a common goal such as attainment of a peaceful, safe, and secure environment.

Comparison between Machiavelli and Hobbes

Even though Machiavelli and Hobbes differ in various aspects of the ideal form of government, there are similarities in respect to some ideas, views, and concepts on ideal forms of government (MacHiavelli, 2009; Hobbes, 2010). In their submissions, Machiavelli and Hobbes believed that an ideal form of government should have separation of powers where the leader or ruler has absolute power. Such absolute power becomes very useful in ensuring that all the objectives of enhancing security, peace, and safety are achieved. In addition, both Machiavelli and Hobbes strongly believed in the use of law and application of some specific forces such as the army in order to implement the laws and other stated objectives and goals (MacHiavelli, 2009; Hobbes, 2010). In this respects, an ideal government according to both Machiavelli and Hobbes needs to have guiding principles in the form of laws, which should be implemented by various institutions.

Conclusion

It is evident from the above discussions that both Hobbes and Machiavelli had revolutionary concepts and views on the role and form of government especially with respect to humanity. However, it is important to note that their environment significantly influenced their views and perceptions of the government. Whereas Hobbes was influenced by the free England government, Machiavelli had the experience of a foreign power, which caused a cruelty and cunning perception of the government. Through “Leviathan”, Hobbes described a good government as one that is free and should aim at ensuring that every subject benefits from the available resources.
On the other hand, Machiavelli used his works of “The Prince” and “Discourses on Livy” to state that governments should be instruments of power where one person, ruler or prince takes charge of every resource. Nonetheless, it is ironical that neither Hobbes nor Machiavelli provides a specific inclination either towards democracy or republic as it is experienced in the modern government. Indisputably, Hobbes and Machiavelli are regarded as great political philosophers who have shaped the governments around the global perspective.

List of References

Hobbes, T., 2010, Leviathan. Digireads.com Publishing. ISBN: 1-4209-3388-4.
Machiavelli, N., 1996, Discourses on Livy. Translated by Mansfield, Harvey and Tarcov, Nathan. London: University of Chicago. ISBN: 0-226-50035-7.
MacHiavelli, N., 2009, The Prince. Plano, TX: Veroglyphic Publishing. ISBN: 1-4421-3119-4.