Page 60 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Western Political Thought

Notes Aristotle analyzed and compared 158 constitutions, thereby uniting the empirical and speculative
modes of enquiry. He built on Plato’s classification of constitutions in the Statesman by taking into
account the ends of a constitution and the number who wielded political power. Constitutions
promoting general well-being of the governed were true or good, whereas those that fettered the
interests of the ruler were bad or perverted. A government ruled by one, few or many in the
general interest of the community was monarchy, aristocracy and polity respectively. Conversely,
a government ruled by one, few or many in the self-interest of the ruler was tyranny, oligarchy
and democracy respectively. In each of these true and perverted constitutions, merit within the
system of distributive justice was defined in a particular way befitting the constitution.
Aristotle regarded monarchy as a true form of government, for it was possible to have a virtuous
person as a ruler who would be able to stand outside the law and be its single guardian. However,
he pointed out, historically, public interest even in a monarchy was best secured through a system
of rules framed by a legislator who would also be the founder of the city. He was generally
skeptical of finding a virtuous person who could be a monarch. He distinguished five types of
kingship. The first was the Spartan model where the kings were responsible for military and
religious matters. The second was a mixture of kingship and tyranny, to be found among the
barbarians. The third was dictatorship, which existed in the early part of Greek history. The fourth
kind, associated with the heroic age, was kingship which was hereditary and ruled by law. Initially,
they wielded unlimited powers, with the king being a judge with powers to control religion, but
eventually their powers got circumscribed. The fifth one was absolute kingship, or rule by one
person who controlled everything.
For Aristotle, a monarchy developed into an aristocracy, which was a true form of rule by a few.
There were three kinds of aristocracy, all of which were mixed constitutions employing, besides
virtue, other principles. The first kind, as seen in Carthage, combined virtue with wealth and
number. The second, as in Sparta, combined virtue with the democratic principle of freedom. The
third combined wealth with freedom, and was more oligarchic. The third form of true government
was polity, a kind of mixed rule in which the claims of the many and the propertied were held in
check by law.
As far as perverted forms of government were concerned, tyranny— defined as the arbitrary
power of an individual responsible to none, governing all alike, whether equals or better, for its
own advantage, not that of its subjects, and therefore against their will—was a perfect counterpart
of monarchy. Tyranny degenerated into an oligarchy with the interest of the few, the rich being
the sole concern. Aristotle described four types of oligarchy. The first was a moderate one, close to
a polity, where the rulers ruled in accordance with law. Access to office was based on property,
which was not restrictive. For higher offices, Aristotle recommended a large share, and a smaller
one, for low but essential offices. The second one was more exclusive. It was the rich and the few
who enjoyed few benefits. The third one was still more restrictive and narrow, with the hereditary
governing elite. The fourth one was a small rich coterie which ruled without laws.
The third and the “least bad” of perverted forms of government was democracy, the rule by the
poor and the majority. This was because the many, “when they meet together may very likely be
better than the few good, if regarded not individually but collectively, just as a feast to do which
many contribute is better than a dinner provided out of a single purse”.
The many contrary to one, or the expert, was a better judge of policies including music and poetry.
Tyranny was the worst of the perverted forms.
Aristotle contended that there was a difference between democracy and polity, between rule by
the best (aristocracy) and rule by the richest (oligarchy). The difference between a monarchy and
a tyranny was an ethical one. Monarchy was better than an aristocracy, which in turn was better
than a polity. Tyranny was worse than an oligarchy, which in turn was worse than a democracy.
Aristotle thereby provided qualified support for democracy.

54 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY