It is naïve to believe that history advances only in a single direction. If that was the case, people wouldn’t repeat mistakes made in the past. If that was the case, knowledge would grow with each generations and lessons would never be forgotten.
Unfortunately, historical and philosophical lessons are often forgotten. Aristotle came up with the two key ideas of balanced governance, but history has done everything possible to wipe them out from people’s memory.
Aristotle’s first principle of governance is that rulers should work for the common good. He didn’t exclude any government form (monarchy, aristocracy, polity) as long as the ruler (one, a few, every citizen) keeps the common good as top priority.
This lesson seems easy and self-evident enough, so that it is never forgotten, right? You could not counter Aristotle’s advice credibly, right? Actually not. In the mid-eighteenth century, the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) created a vast confusion about the purpose of governance.
Aristotle’s views on politics and governance compared to Rousseau’s
Rousseau expressed his views on politics and government in his two works “The Social Contract” and “Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men.”
Like other eighteenth-century thinkers, Rousseau justified governance by means of a fictional social contract. According to this doctrine, humans had been inherently good when living in a state of nature, but then grew corrupted by civilization and society.
Rousseau argued that the legitimacy of government should rest on a social contract that reconciles individual freedoms with the needs of the collective. In this way, Rousseau focused on the mechanics of governance and completely forgot about Aristotle’s requirement of the common good
The main concept in Rousseau’s political philosophy is the “general will” (“volonte generale” in French) as supreme guide of governmental decisions. In contrast to Aristotle, Rousseau is assuming that decisions taken by the majority will necessarily be good decisions. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Rousseau assumed that, as long as the laws reflect the will of the collective, they’ll be virtuous and fair. In this sense, his concept of the general will is providing a poor excuse for all sorts of abuses and tyranny.
Aristotle knew better because he had a better understanding of human nature. He underlined that the goal of governance is to achieve the common good, not to provide sorry excuses for dictators.
Against all evidence, Rousseau believed that the general will automatically represent the common good. For this reason, he insisted that the common good should supersede individual interests. He was willing to accept any kind of dictatorial abuse from rulers as long those abuses adhere to the general will.
The enormous popularity of Rousseau’s doctrines must have made Aristotle turn in his grave. Aristotle’s warning against the confusion of goals and means had been forgotten; sadly, people had stopped talking about the purpose of governance and now only cared about the mechanics of politics.
Ignoring Aristotle’s warning against demagogues, Rousseau favoured a direct form of democracy, where citizens engage in decision-making. He naively believed that direct democracy is the best way to achieve the general will and prevent abuses.
The common good in Aristotle’s views on politics and governance
Aristotle had focused on the common good but leaving each person free to pursue his dreams of success, wealth, happiness, and health. He knew by experience that humans differ widely in skills and motivation, and that one shouldn’t misuse politics to homogenize society and eliminate freedom.
Oblivious to the lessons of history, Rousseau proposed the opposite. Instead of protecting individual liberty, he criticized inequalities. His ideal society requires individuals to give up a large part of their freedoms to submit themselves to the general will.
More than twenty centuries earlier, Aristotle had foreseen that Rousseau’s ideas would lead to vast bloodshed and misery. Unfortunately, some lessons need to be relearned over and over again.
The second key principle in Aristotle’s views on politics and government is the split of power to prevent corruption. Unless power is divided amongst the monarch, the aristocracy and the citizens, it is practically impossible to prevent abuses.
Corruption and power abuse render it impossible to achieve the common good. This is why it is necessary to split power. Depending on the number of rulers, Aristotle named abusive regimes, tyranny (one ruler), oligarchy (a few) and democracy (the population as a whole).
Aristotle’s second principle of good government has been violated countless times in history. It is hard to tell which form of governance has been the most tyrannical in history, but on a philosophical level, one can view Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) as Aristotle’s direct opponent.
Aristotle’s views on politics and governance compared to Lenin’s
Lenin built upon the theories of Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895). He advocated the establishment of a centralized state that operates under the guidance of a vanguard party.
Ignoring Aristotle’s warning against power concentration in the hands of one or few persons, Lenin favoured the creation of a disciplined, centralized political party.
Lenin believed that the working class needs dedicated party members to guide them into the ideal society. Once in power, Lenin gave the party dictatorial powers on the economy and on any other aspect of society.
He maintained that the party’s dictatorial powers were to be transitional until the ideal society had been created. In practice, it all happened as Aristotle had predicted. Power concentration inevitably leads to abuses. Lenin should have realized from the start that he was operating against human nature.
While Aristotle’s “Politics” emphasised the protection of the rights of individuals, Lenin favoured a completely centralized state. He believed that power centralization was indispensable to attaining rapid social progress, but his definition of progress clashed with Aristotle’s conception of happiness.
In order to achieve happiness (“eudaimonia” in Greek), the individual needs freedom. Personal self-actualization cannot be attained in a society where power is strongly centralized. The definition of progress adopted by Lenin conflicts with human nature.
Today more than ever, it’s essential to restate Aristotle’s two key principles of politics and governance. Those two principles pave the way to happiness at individual and societal level.
If you are interested in applying Aristotelian ideas to daily life, I recommend you my book “Thriving in difficult times.”
Related articles
Critique of Aristotle’s theory of justice
Impact of Aristotle’s theory of justice
Critics of Aristotle’s views on politics and governance