Page 62 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Western Political Thought

Notes power, for the law was sovereign. But law was relative to its constitution. A good state would
have good laws, and conversely a bad state would have bad laws:
Legality itself then is only a relative guarantee of goodness, better than force or personal
power, but quite possibly bad. A good state must be ruled according to law but this is
not the same as saying that a state ruled according to law is good.
Among the ideal types, Aristotle concentrated on monarchy rather than aristocracy. Monarchy
would be the best form if a wise and a virtuous king could be found. Being a god among humans,
the monarch ought to be allowed to make laws. To ostracize and check the monarch would be
unjust. It would be best to allow the monarch to rule, but Aristotle was not sure whether to grant
anybody the absolute right to rule. So much was his belief in equality between citizens in a given
state, that he made no exception even when it came to perfect virtue. The principle of equality
would have to be the ordering principle of both good and perverted governments.
In Book IV, Aristotle identified social class as another criterion while defining constitutions. By
social classes he meant the rich, poor and occupational groups, such as farmers, artisans and
merchants. He took into account economic factors, seeing them as decisively influencing the political
system. “He long ago pointed out that the constitution of a state had its roots in what the moderns
term as its social system”.
In considering actual states, Aristotle clearly distinguished the ethical from the political and placed
great importance on the constitution as an arrangement of offices. Subsequently, he distinguished
law from the political structure of an organized government. He separated the political from the
economic and social structure, thereby explicitly stating the separation of state from society:
He was able to use the distinction in a highly realistic fashion when he shrewdly
remarked that a political constitution is one thing and the way the constitution actually
works is another. A government democratic in form may govern oligarchically, while
an oligarchy may govern democratically.
Polity
An analysis of the political factors in a democracy and an oligarchy enabled Aristotle to consider
the form of government that would be suitable to a large number of states, assuming that for its
realization no more virtue or political skill was needed than what the states could gather. Though
not an ideal, it was the best practicable state in accordance with his principle of the golden mean,
obviating the extreme tendencies within oligarchic and democratic systems. This was called polity
or constitutional government, a name given to moderate democracy in Book III.
Aristotle distinguished between a democracy and an oligarchy by referring to them as majority
and minority rule. Democracy was a constitution with a majority government which the free-born
and poor controlled. In an oligarchy, government was controlled by a minority, namely the rich
and the better-born. Democracy did not exclude the rich or well-born from holding office or
participating in politics. Oligarchy usually imposed qualifications for voting and holding offices.
Aristotle accepted the presence of a wealthy class and relatively poor citizens as inevitable. But
from the viewpoint of political stability, it was necessary to enlarge a group that was neither rich
nor poor, namely the middle class. The rich enjoyed great benefits and privileges, but were unwilling
to accept discipline. The poor, because of their deprivation, lacked spirit and enthusiasm. Therefore,
the middle class constituted the mean in the social structure, not only balancing the oligarchic and
democratic elements, but also mixing them in the right proportion so as to ensure stability. The
middle class was a countervailing force, neutralizing the centrifugal tendencies generated by
contending forces which, if unchecked, would lead to the demise of the city. The larger the middle
class, the greater the possibility of tranquillity and stability in the state, for it steered a middle path
between the insolence of the rich and the unruly behaviour of the bitterly poor. Aristotle agreed
with Euripides’ description of the middle class states as “save states”, and observed:

56 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY