It is better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both.

 

'Lord of the Flies' by William Golding, is a famous novel written in 1954 containing several recurring motifs and themes. The overall message is that humans are innately evil. In addition to exploiting innate evil, Golding writes alongside the belief of a famous Italian diplomat named Machiavelli.

 

Machiavelli is most well-known for his solid and whole-hearted belief that it is better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both. His novel, 'The Prince', written in 1513, clearly highlighted his views on the 'ideal leader'. He believed that to become a successful leader, fear rather than love should be inflicted upon people, and corrupt measures and methods are to be used to maintain unstoppable power and have a successful reign.

 

The characters that Golding creates both intriguingly challenge and support Machiavelli's methods. The two most important characters in terms of leadership are Jack and Ralph. At the novel's beginning, Ralph is proclaimed the island's leader due to his high-class status and overall likeable nature. In the book, Ralph is seen as a leader who is loved; he is valued by the boys' and has diplomatic solutions to problems. Despite his good intentions, by the end of the novel, Ralph is left being hunted, with no power and no followers. He has lost his leadership because he has failed to remain in a position of authority due to his lack of aggressiveness and ability to instil fear in others. Jack usurps Ralph due to his lack of Machiavellianism. Jack is a character and leader who has been immersed in a pool of Machiavellianism. Although he is a sadistic and twisted leader with the 'necessary harshness' that Machiavelli says is required to be successful, he lacks any sense of virtues and respect, leading to his downfall.

 

The rigid dichotomy between the two characters poses a question: to what extent is Machiavelli right?

 

If we look outside the borders of 'Lord of the Flies,' there are many contradicting examples of leaders who have both employed Machiavellian methods and ignored them. For example, Joseph Stalin, although a dictator and often described as oppressive, subjectively had a 'successful' reign, arguably due to his Machiavellian behaviour.

 

Overall, the answer to the question is undetermined; Golding thoroughly explores both sides of the argument throughout the book. By utilising Ralph's loss of power and respect, he proves that, although corrupt and evil, it is necessary to be Machiavellian to a certain extent.