Aristotle’s views on politics and governance

Aristotle presented his political philosophy in his works “Politics” and “Nicomachean Ethics.” He believed that humans are political by nature. By “political,” he meant that humans prefer living in communities to enhance the enjoyment of life.

In his work “Politics,” Aristotle described different forms of government and compared their advantages and disadvantages. His classification of government forms is based on whether the rule is exercised for the common good or for rulers’ benefit.

Aristotle identified the following six forms of government: monarchy (rule by one person), aristocracy (rule by the few), polity (rule by the citizens), tyranny (corrupt rule by one), oligarchy (corrupt rule by the few), and democracy (corrupt rule by the many). He categorized the last three on the list as undesirable because they did not further the common good.

According to Aristotle, monarchy, aristocracy and polity are preferable because they favour the common good, although he fails to explain how to differentiate in advance between good and corrupt governments. For instance, how will you ascertain in advance that a new king is going to become a tyrant instead of a good monarch?

Consequences of Aristotle’s views on politics and governance

Aristotle described monarchy as a government form where a virtuous ruler is guided by wisdom and benevolence. He uses the same logic to define aristocracy as a from of government where virtuous elites govern for the common good. In his third government form, the polity, the citizens rule themselves with the goal of enhancing their common welfare.

I regard Aristotle’s definitions as equivocal and naïve. There is no way to determine in advance whether the governing elites will govern for the common good or for their own interest. It is equally impossible to predict whether self-ruling citizens will make sound or foolish decisions.

Aristotle condemned the government forms where the rulers primarily aim at furthering their own interests. In a tyranny, the ruler will pursue his self-interest at the expense of the people.

In oligarchies, the rulers will govern for their own interest, taking advantage of the people. In democracies, the rulers will cater to the majority and oppress the minorities.

In “Politics,” Aristotle provides blurry distinctions between government forms. After writing down his definitions, it must have become apparent to him that his distinction between good and corrupt governments is incredibly naïve.

Even if we could differentiate today between a good king and a tyrant, our evaluation might not be valid tomorrow; there is no guarantee against the good king changing his mind and becoming a tyrant tomorrow.

I am convinced that Aristotle knew that his definitions are unsound, but didn’t know any better. In fact, those definitions violate Aristotelian logic because they fail to identify the key differences between similar concepts.

Practicability of Aristotle’s views on politics and governance

A later section of “Politics” shows that Aristotle knew that his definitions don’t work. If the difference between monarchy and tyranny had been clear, then we would not have to worry about the good monarch becoming a tyrant, right? We wouldn’t have to worry about good aristocrats becoming evil oligarchs?

The truth is that people in all centuries have worried about the thin red line separating good monarchs from evil tyrants. I cannot event count the dozens of cases where seemingly good rulers have become evil tyrants over time.

To his credit, Aristotle tried to figure out solutions to render his definitions workable. If a good monarch is elected, how do you prevent him from becoming an evil tyrant? How can you prevent aristocrats from abusing their power?

Aristotle’s preferred solution is the “middle way” or “golden mean,” that is, a mixed constitution that gives some power to a monarch, some to the aristocracy, and some to the people.

According to Aristotle, if the constitution balances out the powers of the monarch, the aristocracy, and the people, it will be almost impossible for any of them to abuse their power and install a corrupt regime.

Unfortunately, history has proven Aristotle wrong. All sorts of mixed constitutions have been tried, but none of them has been able to prevent corruption. Historical experience negates Aristotle’s expectations. Instead of keeping corruption at bay, mixed constitutions have made corruption endemic.

Education and Aristotle’s views on politics and governance

The second solution formulated by Aristotle is even more naïve and unworkable. In order to prevent evil and corruption, he proposed to intensify the education and cultivation of virtue in citizens.

If citizens are well-informed and virtuous, he argued, they will be able to participate in the government and make good decisions. If individuals are educated in academic and ethical subjects, they will become virtuous participants in politics.

Again, Aristotle’s expectations are so deeply unrealistic that I can only categorize them as delusional. Throughout history, immense sums have been expended on educating citizens, but little has been achieved.

The “well-informed, virtuous citizen” expected by Aristotle has not materialized. Instead, most school graduates today read few or no books, are poorly informed, and ethically confused.

Aristotle’s views on politics and governance compared to Plato’s

Aristotle’s teacher, Plato (428-348 BC), had also developed unworkable political theories. For the sake of fairness, I must point out that Aristotle’s political views are less delusional than those of Plato’s. History has proven that none of their doctrines delivers satisfactory results, but overall, Plato’s political ideals have led to more pronounced misery and bloodshed.

Plato had grown disillusioned with Athenian democracy due to the execution of his mentor Socrates (469-399 BC). Since he no longer trusted democracy, he proposed to entrust power to philosopher-kings. He outlined his political ideals in his work “The Republic.”

When Plato proposed that all power should be entrusted to men possessing wisdom and insight, he was of course referring to himself. He viewed himself as the archetype of philosopher-king and was willing to exert dictatorial powers. He allegedly wanted to become a dictator for the common good only, not to profit personally from it.

What qualifications made Plato stand above other citizens? His justification for becoming a dictator was that he possessed special knowledge.

Plato claimed to possess special knowledge of the concepts (he actually called them “forms”) of truth and justice. That was the reason why everybody should obey him.

According to Plato, the ideal society should be structured in three classes. First, the rulers or philosopher-kings. Second, the warriors. Third, the artisans and labourers.

Rulers, Plato explained, should be selected and trained from an early age, so that they develop great intellectual and moral qualities. Plato’s ideal society is meant to pursue the common good, but I fail to see why the philosopher-king and warriors would not take advantage of the situation.

Relative advantages of Aristotle’s views on politics and governance

Plato’s proposal of entrusting all power to philosopher-kings aims at preventing corruption, but does exactly the opposite. In history, every dictator has presented himself as a saviour who only pursues the common good, but dictatorial rule has always ended in bloodshed and tears. Plato’s theory of a perfect world ruled by philosopher-kings is nonsense.

On the one hand, Plato was right in fearing that democracy can be subverted by demagogues. He was right in fearing that citizens can be swayed by emotional rhetoric and forget reason and wisdom.

Nonetheless, he failed to explain why philosopher-kings are any better than democratic rulers. Will philosopher-kings resist the temptation of abusing power? Will they not take advantage of their absolute power? Yes, of course they will.

Plato’s expectations from education are as unrealistic and naïve as Aristotle’s. Plato wanted to establish a strict school system to shape the character and values of individuals from a young age.

He proposed a curriculum including mathematics, language, philosophy, and music, and expected schools to produce large numbers of virtuous, intellectually capable citizens. I think that I do not need to convince you that Plato’s proposal has never work in history and probably never will.

“The Republic” is not a great work of political philosophy, but a delusional proposal that overlooks key facts about human nature. Plato failed to formulate a workable political system. In his works, we only makes proposals for dictatorial regimes that are doomed to fail.

Despite their various flaws, Aristotle’s views on politics and government are vastly superior to Plato’s. You will learn more from studying history than from Plato’s dictatorial delusions.

If you are interested in applying Aristotelian principles to everyday life, I recommend you my book “Rationality is the way to happiness.”

Related articles

Aristotle’s theory of justice

The two keys in Aristotle’s views on politics and governance

Critics of Aristotle’s views on politics and governance

Aristotle’s views on natural philosophy

Aristotle’s view on friendship

Aristotle’s perspective on the purpose of human life


Categories:

,

Tags: