This book is suppose to be one of the most influential tactical, management and political book been written. The words had influence leaders especially in the West. But unfortunately, it got the impression that it is a book for evil leaders. There are even article and studied or even popular view that leaders that embrace or practice the Prince will be an evil leader. Is this true?
In book (for instance) it was written;
"...In taking a state the conqueror must must arrange to commit am his cruelties at once, so as not to have to recur to them every day... benefit should be granted little by little, so that they may be better enjoy."
"... the Prince need to be loved and fear, but need to choose one over another, fear is better effective."
"... The Prince at any point of time need to have the ability to do things that are not popular."
Thus does this make The Prince is an evil book for leaders? I personally don't think so. The Prince is a book of practical guidance. It does not sugar coat. It appointed direct advice for actual possible condition. The guide may be obscure & cruel but it is most effective and fast result oriented. But those it not promote love and harmony? Yes it does. One can't simply took portion of the book and make claim or label the book. If one read it carefully with context, one will find that "A Prince is to promote harmony and stability above all". But in order to do that discipline, law and order need to be in place. However, Machiavelli did state (as per I can recall) that ".. all people are evil by nature...".
Anyway, the principle on the Prince from my point of view is also quite similar to The Art Of Wars. Only the The Prince is bold rather than indirect.
Note: The book was written by Niccolo Machiavelli. The writings and the philosophy of the Prince is been named as Machiavellian.