Aristotle Polity

Plato’s impression of democracy which was intellectualized around 384 B.C.E is rather different from the present day understanding of democracy and the power of wealth. As an aristocrat himself, according to Plato “When the poor win, the result is a democracy.” (Plato, p.58). In other words, Plato believed that only kings were authorized to rule its society, whereas regular everyday people were perceived as ferocious and unable to govern. Plato’s awareness of democracy was established when he realized ordinary people were not born to lead, that only the elite people had the utmost respect, and right to rule over the lower class. Furthermore, the concept of power and wealth continues to be a crucial stand point in society’s then, and now since the exercise of democracy is known to be a political affair.

Democracy and Oligarcy as forms of government have been in existence for a long period of time, both terms first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought. Both forms of government exist in the modern world, but which form of government is more better, there is a question. So, in my essay I will compare Democratic and Oligarchy Governments to understand which form of them is the best.

What is of greater underlying significance for Aristotle, however, is not so much the size of the citizen-body as the stark contrast between the respective ideas that “those constitutions which aim at the common good are right, as being in accord with absolute justice” and “those which aim only at the common good of the rulers are wrong” (The Politics, 3:6, 1279a16, p. 189). In practice, Aristotle’s juxtaposition is implicitly suggestive that if one is ruling in their own self-interest, regardless of the size of the group, and be that for themselves or the minority to which they belong, then they are in essence missing the point of what it is that they are supposed to be doing. Thus, the key point Aristotle is trying to make is this: the ruler of a polis or state; be that one person, a few people, or many people; should govern in accordance with the interests of the polis or state as a whole at heart rather than with the interests of a select few.

After carefully studying both writers works, it is very difficult to argue that one type of government is ideal or more preferable than the other, due to the fact that both Aristotle and Locke provide very compelling arguments as to why their style of government is better. Although both styles of government work for the betterment of the citizens of the city-state, the means by which they do so are how Locke and Aristotle differ in their opinions. Aristotle believes that as long as the citizens of the city-state are able to carry out a life of virtue, then the process by which the government achieves its goals is irrelevant. This concept that Aristotle suggests is very compelling to agree with because living a life of virtue is something that the majority of humans want, they want to live their lives happily, and Aristotle’s ideal government would allow humans to do that. The problem with Aristotle’s government is that it has no checks and balances. Aristotle is flawed in that he believes that all humans desire a life where they are able to debate and discuss issues like the meaning of justice, when in reality humans have other ambitions in life. His government system would have free reign to run the city-state however it deemed best, regardless of how the citizens felt, as long as it provided them the security to live

Swiss-French writer Benjamin Constant and ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle offer conflicting viewpoints concerning the merits and possibilities of ancient Greek democracy. Aristotle’s political theory attempts to justify his city-state’s political structure by providing a model of the common good, or Chief Aim, his end goal for Athenian democracy. He believed Athenians could reach the Chief Aim as a society by individually learning to be virtuous and then instilling laws and morals based on these ideals. In his lecture, The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns, Constant highlights that the individual liberties protected in a modern representative democracy are much more important than the political liberties that one was given in antiquity. Constant illustrates that while some ideas of ancient Greek democracy are precious, Aristotle’s political theory is not an obtainable reality and it was beneficial that modern democracies transitioned to a system that protects individual liberty.

Even with established laws, men would pursue their self-interest at all costs. Aristotle explains this, “man by nature is a political animal… though man is born with weapons which he can use in the service of practical wisdom and virtue, it is all too easy for him to use them for the opposite purposes”(Aristotle, 60). To clarify, Aristotle believes that men will pursue their own prerogatives in the political arena of government. And while some may use their power for good, many will use it for their own-self interests, which Aristotle defines as a deviation from the idea of common

Aristotle says that justice is thought of as equality among all, there is a disregard to merit (p.172). In a society, there is usually more poor people and because there is this demand of equality then the majority rule (p.174). Mob rule is then authoritative. All governments have their forms, which are good and are bad. Democracy to Aristotle is not the best regime because it is ruled by the poor or the ones that need from the government. Government is not chosen by those who pursue virtue, but instead pursue wealth. The democratic principle is that of freedom, wealth, and birth. Not virtue. He believes the best regime would not be exactly a democracy but a polity that would be a combination of freedom, wealth, birth and virtue. The best regime has ideal conditions in which it becomes a predictable regime and consists of values, choices, the inanimate, elements of the class of workers, and the education of rulers. Democracy has a big defect in that it does not have intelligence or wisdom. It is the rule of many. It is based on the idea of happiness by following pleasures (p.48). Democracy comes into play when the majority revolt against the oligarchy because of the ideas of freedom. The problem with it is that people are pursuing their pleasures, not thinking of the state as a whole. There is unity based on pleasure. Before long, everyone is pursuing their own pleasures and there is an undermining of authority

These views were evident, and perhaps promoted, due to the continual control of government by aristocrats. These rulers sought to improve their own interests over those of the poleis, and promoted their own values and ideas. Aristotle believed that the best form of governing should be decided by those governed and, although he believed democracy to be the best of the examples of government, believed that voting would both satisfy the citizens’ desire for equality and avoid revolutions such as those that result from the tyrannies that had come before.

In Aristotle's Politics, he focuses much on the regimes of an oligarchy and of a democracy. Democracies exists when the free and poor, being a majority, have authority to rule, and have an equal share in the city. Oligarchies exists when the few wealthy and better born have authority and grant benefits in proportion to a person's wealth (1280a:10-30;1290a:5-10).

The subject which the question focuses on is the view of Aristotle’s ideal state. The distinction between hierarchy and equality is at the heart of the understanding of Aristotle’s ideal state. He claims that an ideal state ought to be arranged to maximise the happiness of its citizens. So happiness together with political action is the telos of human life. This end can be reached by living a better ethical life. However, he endorses hierarchy over equality. On one hand we have the equality which benefits everyone; on the other hand we have the distinction of classes meant in terms of diversities and differences where the middle one appears to be the means through which the state is balanced. Furthermore what is clear for Aristotle is that

In "The Politics", Aristotle would have us believe that man by nature is a political animal. In other words, Aristotle seems to feel that the most natural thing for men to do is to come together in some form of political association. He then contends that this political association is essential to the pursuit of the good life. Finally he attempts to distinguish what forms of political association are most suitable to the pursuit of this good life. In formulating a critique of "The Politics", we shall first examine his claims as to what is natural to man and whether the criterion of the natural is sufficient to demonstrate virtue. We shall then examine what it is about political association that

For Aristotle the human is "by nature" destined to live in a political association. Yet not all who live in the political association are citizens, and not all citizens are given equal share in the power of association. The idea of Polity is that all citizens should take short turns at ruling (VII, 1332 b17-27). It is an inclusive form of government: everyone has a share of political power. Aristotle argues that citizen are those who are able to participate in the deliberative and judicial areas of government (III, 1279a32-34). However, not all who live in a political association are citizens. Women, children, slaves, and alien residents are not citizens. Some groups; the rich, the poor, those who

Democracy is often referred to as the rule of the many, but Aristotle called this definition incomplete. In his book “Politics”, he explained that in a city if the majorities are aristocrats and if they have political authority, then it is an aristocracy not a democracy. He therefore defined democracy as when “free people have authority and Oligarchy as when the wealthy have it” (1290b). Plato viewed Democracy as a flawed system with too much inefficiency that would make any implementation of a true democracy not worth it. While Aristotle viewed democracy as a system that could work if it is limited to certain restrictions and if it is the regime that best fits the culture of the people to be governed. In this essay it will be argued that Plato’s view on democracy as a flawed system is more prevalent or more compelling if the current political arena around the world is observed.

Democratic Government – this is the government for the poor and needy and not a government for common good. This to Aristotle is the best form of government but it can degenerate into demagogue and anarchy

During the 4th Century B.C, Aristotle rose as a critic of direct democracy based on two grounds: are all individuals qualified to govern? Should we select a few individuals who are fit for leadership? Bernard Crick writes, “ while democracy was for him a necessary condition for good government, it was far from a sufficient condition”(Crick 1). Aristotle had a negative outlook on human nature. This led to his belief on how a government system should rule and the dismissal of a direct democracy. Similarly to Ancients, Aristotle believed that a ‘direct democracy’ would only crumble. For this reason, he introduced ‘Checks and balances’. Checks and balances gave limited power to each branch of power and to the people. He identified his a polity by representative government, balanced government, and a mixed government. Representative government is one ruled by a ‘leader’. And yet, he questioned the idea of placing trust in the hands of the uneducated, incompetent. More importantly, he believed that in order to be a leader, one must meet the five characteristics to be considered a ‘leader’. The characteristics required: intelligence, knowledge, experience, wisdom, and virtue. It was especially important for one to attain wisdom because that is the end result of knowledge