24/7 Customer support here

Aristotle’s System in Contemporary Times

   Politics as any science without a doubt needs a certain way of classification, in order to make it clear and understandable. Aristotle was one of the greatest thinkers of the ancient world and he managed to create a system of political classification that to this day is viewed as the most efficient one. He was not a democrat; he believed that an individual or a small group could rule good government. Aristotle viewed democracy as system of rule by the masses at the expense of wisdom and property. He aimed to answer two questions: who rules? And, who benefits from the rules? In each case, government could be conducted either in the selfish interests of the rulers or for the benefit of the whole community. From his studies into this area, Aristotle classified six forms of political constitution: tyranny, monarchy, oligarchy, aristocracy, democracy and finally, polity. This system of classification was adapted from his teacher, Plato’s Republic, Statesman, and Laws.

   Aristotle aimed to evaluate formative governments on normative grounds in the hope of identifying the ‘ideal’ constitution. In his view, tyranny, oligarchy and democracy were all perverted forms of rule in which a single person, a small group and the masses, respectively, governed in their own interests and therefore at the expense of others. In contrast, monarchy, aristocracy and polity were to be preferred, because in these forms of government the individual, small group and the masses, respectively, governed in the interests of all.

   Through Aristotle’s definitions, oligarchy and democracy are similar, contrasting only by oligarchy being “men ruling by reason of their wealth, whether they be few or many,” (Jowett, 1885: 81) and democracy being “where the poor rule.” (Jowett, 1885: 81) He saw oligarchy as a perversion of aristocracy. He believes that what makes an oligarchy is not so much the fact that a few men rule for their own advantage, but rather the fact that a wealthy class rules, therefore saying that oligarchy is really plutocracy, meaning that it creates a state where all power belongs to the rich, wealthy class.

   Aristotle was not, as previously stated, a democrat. However, his idea of democracy varied from what is accepted today as democracy. Today, democracy implies “both popular participation and government in the public interest” (Heywood, 2002: 422) Where as Aristotle considered democracy to have several varieties. The first variety being one that is said to follow the principle equality closest, where the law declares equality to mean that the poor are to count no more than the rich, both are to be on a level. A second variety of democracy is that in which offices are assigned on the basis of a property qualification, those who attain it have to be admitted to a share in office, and those who lose it are excluded. The third variety is one in which every citizen of “unimpeachable descent” (Barker, 1952: 168) can share in office but the law is still sovereign. A fourth variety is that every person, provided they are a citizen, regardless of descent can share in office but the law is still sovereign. The fifth and final variety of democracy as suggested by Aristotle is like the fourth in admitting to office every person who has the status of citizenship, but here the people, and not the law, is the final sovereign. In the modern world, such varieties of democracy fail to exist. Aristotle stated that “men think that what is just is equal; and that equality is the supremacy of the popular will; and that freedom means doing what one likes. In such democracies every one lives as he pleases … but it is all wrong; men should not think it slavery to live according to the rule of the constitution, for it is their salvation.” (Everson, 1988: 129) In the countries that do boast democracy, it is likely that there will be only one variety, usually the third variety suggested by Aristotle. Therefore, in the modern world such a system of classification as Aristotle’s shows little relevance.

   Aristotle declared that tyranny was the worst of all possible constitutions as citizens were reduced to the status of slaves. Tyranny can be defined as a government by a single person aimed at the interest of that person. Aristotle believed that there were two forms of tyranny: the elective monarchs, with absolute power, and the monarchs of the same type, termed aisumnetai, or dictators, who once existed amongst the early Greeks. There is also a third form of tyranny, which is most commonly understood by the term. This is the “converse of absolute kingship, or pambasileia.” (Barker, 1952: 179) Aristotle believes that this form is bound to exist where a single person governs men, with a view to his own advantage rather than to his subjects. This aspect of Aristotle’s political classification can be seen as relevant in the modern world when countries such as Russia under Stalin are studied. It becomes apparent that Aristotle’s research into this area of tyranny indicates that a dictator, such as Stalin, would not lead good government as he led his government in his own interest and at the expense of the Russian people.

   Aristotle believed, on the other hand, that the monarchy and aristocracy were impractical forms of constitution because they were based on a God-like willingness to place the good of the community before the leader’s own interests, as there are no political systems ruled solely by the monarchy in the modern world, it would appear that Aristotle’s classification does show relevance still. Aristocracy, according to Aristotle, means government of the best, with magistrates being chosen according to both their wealth and to their merit. Aristotle suggests four forms of aristocracy: the first, and supposedly best form, is where regard is paid only to the goodness; the second is the Carthaginian form, where regard is paid to wealth and numbers as well; the Spartan form is where regard is paid to numbers as well as to goodness; the fourth and final form is presented by those mixed constitutions, or polities, which pay less regard to numbers than the Spartan constitution does, and thus inclines more towards oligarchy. In the modern world it is common for aristocracy to form government and, as Aristotle suggests, this is preferred to oligarchy.

   Polity, meaning ruled by the many in the interest of all was seen as the most practical of all of the constitutions by Aristotle. Generally polity is “a mixture of democracy and oligarchy” (Barker, 1952: 174) but in common usage the term is reserved for mixtures that incline more towards democracy and the mixtures that incline more towards oligarchy are called aristocracies. Nevertheless, in a “tradition that endured through to the twentieth century, Aristotle criticized popular rule on the grounds that the masses would resent the wealth of the few, and too easily fall under the sway of the demagogue.” (Heywood, 2002: 28) He therefore suggested a ‘mixed’ constitution that combined elements of both democracy and aristocracy, and left the government in the hands of the ‘middle classes’, those who were neither rich nor poor. This shows little relevance today, however, because it is uncommon for ‘middle classes’ to govern, this appears to be more of an idealistic view rather than a practical view in the modern world.

   Aristotle believed that the best government was that in which the most virtuous rule. However, he saw that in real life, virtuous rulers do not always stay virtuous, “the state of the virtuous magistrate or king is impermanent.” (Apter, 1977: 68) He therefore believed that stability in government occurs when all of the different classes of people are able to participate in politics, however bearing in mind his belief that absolute democracy, Aristotle’s fourth variety of democracy, results in anarchy. Again the most suitable conclusion is to make a compromise and have the state reflect the power of the middle class.

   Aristotle, along with Plato, remains a model figure for political inquiry of the sort that considers the ethical and purposeful basis of society as the rationale for politics. He identified that tyranny was a perversion of monarchy, oligarchy was a perversion of aristocracy and that democracy was a perversion of polity. Through this system of classification, governments in the modern world were able to identify desired forms of government in order to benefit all and prevent anarchy, Aristotle’s system therefore shows indications of relevance in the modern world. However, in countries such as Britain, Aristotle’s theory has little relevance today as such a system of political classification is considered to be too simplistic. Classical classifications such as this one suggested by Aristotle have grown increasingly redundant and so therefore show little relevance in the modern world. This is mainly due to the development of modern constitutional systems from the late eighteenth century onwards. The constitutional republicanism established in the United States of America following the American War of Independence, the democratic radicalism unleashed in France following the French Revolution and the form of parliamentary government emerging in the United Kingdom created political realities which were substantially more complex than early thinkers such as Aristotle had envisaged. Such a traditional system of classification is displaced by a growing emphasis on the constitutional and institutional features of political rule, therefore limiting the relevance of Aristotle’s theory to the modern world.

Bibliography

Apter, D.E. (1977) Introduction to Political Analysis (Winthrop Publishers, Inc.)
Barker, E. (1952) The Politics of Aristotle (Oxford at The Clarendon Press)
Everson, S. (1988) Aristotle, The Politics (Cambridge University Press)
Heywood, A. (2002) Politics (Palgrave)
Jowett, M.A. (1885) The Politics of Aristotle (Oxford at The Clarendon Press)
Unknown (2003) http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~hitchckd/Aristotle'sPolitics.html 
Miller, F. (2002) http://www.plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/#supplement2
 

BACK TO CLASSIC