Learning aims:
Understanding classical texts and explaining them in your own words. Deconstructing and comparing argumentation and taking a position in relation to this argumentation. Writing a short academic paper in which an academic writing style, a clear basic structure and correct references are present.
What constitutes the good citizen? What is the role the citizen is supposed to play in the state? What are his(/her) rights and duties? This issue has popped up many times during the History of Political Thought lectures. Different historical political theorists have developed our thinking on this topic. For this paper, you have to contrast Niccolo Machiavelli and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Your paper should consist of the following elements:
• Introduction
o A precise description of the central question, on the basis of which both authors are interpreted and compared.
o Why this question is relevant? Give for example a current example of why this question is still relevant.
o Why you have selected the authors that you have selected.
• Interpretation and comparison of both positions
o Compare the positions and claims of the authors and give the reasons they use to sustain these positions.
• Discussion
o Give your own position with regard to the central question.
o Give reasons for your own position by discussing the position and reasons of both authors. Make explicit as possible why you regard the arguments of the one as more convincing than those of the other.
• Conclusion
Number of words:
• 1,400 words (10% margin)

Resources to use:
“The Prince” By Machiavelli

I linked some of the resources you can use for content, such as a summary where you can find stuff on Rousseau and a book on political history

Comparing political thinking on Citizenship