Machiavelli's Prince: who is the good man?

Machiavelli had offered advice to leaders through his book The Prince, most of which is quite troubling to the conscientious. He is adamant on emphasising that the goodness of some men will often cause them to become unsuccessful statesmen as only the ones willing to commit evil deeds will achieve their goals. Although Machiavelli had criticised Greek classical thought by commenting that a man who is too busy imagining republics instead of focusing on "what is done" (Abramson, 2009) will lead himself and his country to ruin, he does not stray far from the traditional thought that sacrificing for the common good is the highest type of ethics a man can reach. In this light, many murderous and bloody actions by leaders are considered necessary. Such example is the massacre of 1811 by Muhammad Ali Pasha, who had annihilated almost all the Mamelukes in Egypt. A justification provided is that their constant struggle for power was hindering the Pasha's own ambitions, which included gaining Egypt's independence from the Ottoman Empire and rejuvenating Egyptian economy. However, in counter to this idea, there were leaders who did not sacrifice their sense of morality and remained good statesmen, such as Nelson Mandela. Thus, this paper aims to argue that a good man cannot be a good prince, because the sustainability of the country's glory is dependent on the ruler's willingness to commit unlawful deeds; if he is unprepared to get blood on his hands: the republic will not prevail. Such is the case of Muhammad Ali Pasha. Therefore, the paper will instigate by discussing Muhammad Ali Pasha's rise to power in Egypt, how he dealt with his opposition and the people who helped him become Wali. It will then talk about his military ambitions and his army. Then, the paper will analyse Machiavelli's insights and test their lawfulness through the historical examination of Muhammad Ali Pasha. As a way of conclusion, the paper will provide a miniscule counter argument of how leaders did not abide by Machiavellian ideas, but rather their entire opposite, and maintained successful states.