Let
me begin by giving a shoutout to ABC Family’s Harry Potter marathon this week.
Firstly because it just improved the overall quality of my life for the past
few days, but also because it helped me remember that J. K. Rowing has provided
us with the greatest example of Machiavelli’s theory about being feared over
being loved. And how it isn’t always true.
I’ve
already written a blog post about why Machiavelli’s theory is totally accurate
in politics; when it comes to a prince, or any ruler of any kind, the only way
to guarantee preferred results is to install fear in your citizens. In The Prince he writes, “Men are less
worried about harming somebody who makes himself loved than someone who makes
himself feared, for love is held by a chain of obligation which, since men are
bad, is broken at every opportunity for personal gain. Fear, on the other hand,
is maintained by a dread of punishment which will never desert you.”
In my last post, I drew upon Andrew
Jackson and how him and Machiavelli were completely on the same page; his
concern was not being loved by his people, but being politically and
economically effective. In an ideal world, any ruler would be feared and loved,
but Machiavelli argues that their coexistence is impossible. In this Harry Potter example,
fear comes from one source and love comes from another, but it’s a true
representation of how love can do things fear cannot.
![]() |
| Original members of the Order of the Phoenix |
![]() |
| Voldy and his crew |
Here’s a brief summary of the
situation for anyone unaware: *SPOILER ALERT* but let’s be honest- the
series has ended and if you cared enough about how it ended you’d already know.
Also don’t read this aloud because bad things happen when you say Voldemort’s
name. So basically we have him and his vicious army of Death Eaters on one
side, and all the good guys, termed the Order of The Phoenix, sided with Harry
Potter. Draco Malfoy, asshole from day one, is part of the bad guys. Shocker.
But he’s been born into it – his parents made the decision to side with
Voldemort before he was born, but by the final movie he’s old enough to fight
himself.
![]() |
| The Malfoy fam |
Now I compare Voldemort to
Machiavelli. I can’t think of any leader in any book, movie, or history both fictional
and non-fictional, who rules more through fear than Voldemort. There are many
instances throughout all the movies in which we see his most dedicated and
loyal followers act solely out of fear that he will kill them if they don’t. They shiver in his presence. I mean for God’s sakes people won’t even say his name
because of how terrifying it is. And their fear is justified; he has no mercy
and kills his death-eaters for questioning him. Machiavelli would say he’s got
it right – the only way to ensure they win is by ruling with fear to the extent
that no one dare challenge him. And it works…to an extent.
The seventh book (eighth movie)
includes the Battle of Hogwarts – the final ending to the series and last
confrontation between Voldemort’s army and the morally sound party we’re
rooting for. We can focus in on the Malfoy family to understand why
Machiavellian thought just isn’t always the way to go. Immediately after
Voldemort “kills” Potter (or so he thinks), he sends Mrs. Malfoy to go check that he’s dead.
This is a monumental moment in the series because here we see her
love trumps fear. She walks over to Harry, kneels down beside him, and instead
of checking to prove he’s dead, she asks instead “Draco – is he alive?” Her
actions deny everything she has previously worked for. She’s been a dedicated
follower of the Dark Lord for her entire life, but in this moment, her fear does
not overcome the love of her son. Her concern does not lie with Voldemort
anymore because she is consumed by the thought of her own son being dead. Fear
can only get you so far, Voldemort. Love, as J. K. Rowling wants us to see it,
trumps all.
The work that Mrs. Malfoy and her
entire family have put into following Voldemort with the ultimate goal of
killing Potter comes down to this moment – and she throws it all away. Her only
concern is that her son is alive, and she sacrifices the goal of her entire
team for news about her beloved child. Harry nods his head so subtly that she
is the only one who can see it, confirming her son is still alive, and in
return she reports to her leader that the deed is done. Harry Potter is dead.
I understand where Machiavelli is
coming from, and I’ve already written about how I agree with him. But here I
contradict myself. “Fear… is maintained by a dread of punishment which will
never desert you,” he writes. There’s
no doubt that if Voldemort knew the truth he would have killed Mrs. Malfoy on
the spot, but her fear of punishment did
desert her, because love got in the
way.




This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLisa,
ReplyDeleteI love your post! For one, because Harry Potter= my childhood. For two, its connection with Machiavelli is compelling.
One thing that we could discuss is how, though Voldy follows much of Machiavelli's ideas on being a tough ruler, he still fails some of Machiavelli's guidelines. Namely, Machiavelli does not say that a ruler must ALWAYS be cruel; indeed, he says that it is possible/important for a ruler to act prudently depending upon situation to determine his actions. Even if he must merely PORTRAY (and not legitimately act upon) good values like having faith, being just, etc, Machiavelli says that these attributes are important for a strong ruler as well. "A Prince should inspire fear in suchwise that if he do not win love he may escape hate," Machiavelli says. Voldy doesn't do such a great job of this, because he alienates his followers- let alone enemies- to such a degree that they are willing to stab him in the back for the sake of something we call "love."
J.K. Rowling's entire discourse of the Potter series might be more than the message that love triumphs all- it is that within power excessiveness is not conducive to a viable end. To quote DD, "It is a curious thing, but perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it. Those who have leadership thrust upon them, and take up the mantle because they must, find to their own surprise that they wear it well.” Voldemort is the opposite of Dumbledore, inspiring hatred and fear of a ruler for whom I believe Machiavelli would predict an untimely death. That is, Voldy was always bound to be overthrown, not because Machiavelli is wrong that fear is a powerful attribute, but because Voldy went above and beyond an accepted level of tyranny.
I was drawn to this blog post originally because I too have been consumed with Harry Potter Weekend on ABC family. Unlike you though, I never really thought of how Voldemort and how his leadership applies to Machiavellian principles. Had Voldemort been trying to justify his evil and murderous behaviors, arguing he was basing his actions on Machiavellian principles would not have worked. Yes, Machiavelli argued it is better to be feared than to be loved by your people if it makes you a more effective leader, but only if it benefits the nation and the people itself. Voldemort's action are in no way for the good of the people. Mass murdering wizards and mortals alike has no benefit on anyone except Voldemort himself, and all it really does is make people be terrified of him. According to Machiavelli, doing these dirty deeds like murdering and stealing and trying to crush anyone who opposes him, do not apply. These dirty deeds can only be done if they are for the good of the people, not one mean wizard.
ReplyDeleteI also liked that you bring up Malfoy's mom choosing love over fear. I think both are natural instincts for humans, but often times fear does get in the way of love. LIke you said, in an ideal world all leaders would be equally feared and loved, but who can say which one is more effective. Voldemort based his rule solely on fear, and died as a result. But, if a leader is too kind and not tough, then their subjects and other nations might not respect them which can also lead to trouble.
Maybe a balance of both is needed to be effective.