Aristotle’s views on politics and governance can be summed up in a few sentences: depending on the number of rulers (one, a few, everybody), political systems for the common good can be classified into monarchies, aristocracies, and polities.
When rulers abuse their power, those three systems shall be named tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. In order to prevent abuse of power, Aristotle advised to distribute power amongst the monarch, the aristocracy, and the people.
The two paragraphs above summarize the very best Ancient Greek ideas in the area of politics and governance. Those ideas have exerted influence on Western civilization for hundreds of years. Still today, they continue to shape our views on how to govern society.
Aristotle’s ideas have undergone attacks from many fronts, but before presenting those attacks, it is important to mention that Aristotle’s ideas constitute an elaboration of the criticisms against democracy raised by his predecessor Socrates (469-399 BC).
Aristotle’s views on politics and governance compared to Socrates’
Socrates never wrote any treatises, but we know of his ideas on politics and government through the writings of Plato (428-348 BC) and Xenophon (435-354 BC).
Socrates was a sharp critic of Athenian democracy. He expected governance and politics to be guided by knowledge, wisdom, and moral virtue. Reality proved deeply disappointing because Athenian democracy was often guided by foolishness and emotions of all sorts.
He was critical of Athenian democracy because it relied too much on rhetoric. Minorities suffered from the prejudice and mistakes of the majority, and the system did not offer them any possibility of redress.
Socrates was against majority rule (democracy) because it only takes one skilful speaker to manipulate people’s emotions and make citizens vote against the common good.
Instead of democracy, Socrates proposed that power should be in the hands of men of wisdom and expertise. However, he failed to explain the method for selecting those men of wisdom and expertise. I can only infer that Socrates considered himself as one of the elevated spirits that deserve dictatorial powers.
Despite his criticisms against democracy, Socrates did not propose a clear alternative. He favoured a thoughtful, ethical approach to politics, but failed to explain how to guarantee the rulers’ integrity. He talked a lot about moral development, but failed to outline a better political system.
After Aristotle’s death in 322 BC, his ideas maintained their popularity during the Ancient Roman republic and early years of the Roman Empire; afterwards, their influence waned due to the influence of Christian thinkers, in particular, Augustine.
Aristotle’s views on politics and governance compared to Augustine’s
Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) presented his views on politics and government in his work “The City of God.” In this work, Augustine addresses the nature of the state and the link between politics and divine authority. “The City of God” has shaped the Christian perspective on governance.
The fifth century was a period of political turmoil because the Roman Empire was falling apart. Augustine experienced war and destruction first-hand, and strived to explain it in the light of Christian theology.
His main goal was to explain the gap between earthly wars and heavenly peace. How can one make sense of earthly hatred and destruction in the light of Christ’s promises in the Gospels?
Augustine viewed Aristotle’s ideas on politics as insufficient because they don’t help us understand society from a Christian perspective. Aristotle had lived three centuries before Christ and had no knowledge of the Bible.
According to Augustine, earthly governments are inherently flawed because of human sinfulness. His perspective refers to the Christian belief in the fallen nature of humanity.
Augustine distinguished between the City of God (which represents the heavenly kingdom) and earthly politics. The two two realms, he argued, are in constant tension, but the city of God has greater significance. Earthly politics are transitory and imperfect compared to the eternal, perfect kingdom of God.
Aristotle had proposed power sharing between the monarch, the aristocracy, and the people to prevent abuses. In contrast, Augustine considered that the main purpose of the state is to maintain order and prevent chaos.
He acknowledged the necessity of government to preserve peace and stability in a fallen world, but had little confidence in the success of political systems. He regarded as much more important to seek the salvation on one’s soul.
Aristotle had been looking for the best political system. He had failed to find an optimal answer, but at least he had given lots of thought to the matter. In contrast, Augustine gave up on politics altogether.
He considered a waste of time to discuss politics because of the imperfection of all human systems. Political institutions come and go, argued Augustine, and it’s better to concentrate on obeying divine authority and develop one’s spiritual values. Those are eternal and imperishable.
While Aristotle emphasized the human potential, Augustine underlined the human tendency toward sinfulness. In view of the limitations of earthly politics, he looked for salvation only in faith and morality.
Aristotle’s views on politics and governance compared to Hobbes’
In the sixteenth century, the critics against Aristotle’s views on politics and governance became increasingly vocal. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) introduced revolutionary ideas that made people forget the warnings raised by Aristotle against abuse of power.
Hobbes’ most famous work, titled “Leviathan,” was written during a period of political upheaval. Hobbes was concerned with chaos in society and regarded strong authority as the only workable antidote to chaos.
In contrast to Aristotle’s optimism, Hobbes had profoundly pessimistic views of human nature. He favoured strong public authorities to prevent chaos. He feared that chaos would render human life solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and brief.
Hobbes believed that humans are primarily driven by selfish desires that drive them to constant conflicts. A strong central authority, he argued, is the best method to maintain order and prevent chaos.
Aristotle regarded government as a tool to enhance human life because humans are naturally social. For Hobbes, the main purpose of government is to avoid chaos and violence. When he spoke of “government,” he meant an entity with absolute, overwhelming powers.
A strong government is in everyone’s interest, he argued. It’s better for individuals to relinquish their freedom to a sovereign authority that can guarantee security and order. The Leviathan, that is, absolute state power, is the only force that can ensure peace and stability. Without the Leviathan, one can only expect chaos, he believed.
While Aristotle had recommended to split power amongst several groups in society, Hobbes favoured an absolute, unified central state. He dismissed the idea of a limited government, arguing that it would lead to inefficiency and chaos.
Hobbes’ overlooked Aristotle’s recommendations to protect individual liberty against tyrants, oligarchs and demagogues. It did not cross his mind that the damage inflicted by tyrants can be far worse that the insecurity of a free society.
Aristotle’s views on politics and governance compared to Locke’s
Luckily, Aristotle’s ideas made a comeback a few decades later though the works of John Locke (1632-1704), the author of “Two Treatises on Government” and “A Letter Concerning Toleration.”
Like Aristotle, Locke experienced political upheavals first-hand and draw the correct conclusions. Instead of endorsing a centralized totalitarian state (like Hobbes had done), he viewed protecting individual rights and freedoms as the top priority.
Unlike Hobbes, Locke had a quasi-Aristotelian, optimistic view of human nature. He believed that individuals are born as blank slates (in Latin “tabula rasa”), but with the capability to think rationally and live harmoniously.
Locked argued that all individuals have natural rights (life, liberty and property) that no government should infringe upon. Like Aristotle, Locked considered essential to prevent abuses of power.
According to Locke, the main purpose of government is to protect natural rights. People institute governments to protect rights and maintain order; thus, governments remain legitimate only as long as they preserve the consent of the governed.
Like Aristotle, Locked is proposing a limited government in order to prevent the abuse of power. Locke advocated for the division of power in three branches (legislative, executive, and federative) to prevent tyranny. The only way to prevent abuses of authority is to institute a system of checks and balances.
Locke’s ideas of natural rights, social contract and limited government became the bedrock of modern constitutions, but one shouldn’t forget that Locke simply expanded the principles that Aristotle had identified twenty centuries earlier.
Whether you live in a favourable environment or not, you’ll still have to figure out how to make good decisions each day. If you are interested in applying Aristotelian principles to daily life, I recommend you my book “Sequentiality: The amazing power of finding the right sequence of steps.”
Related articles
Impact of Aristotle’s theory of justice
The two keys in Aristotle’s views on politics and governance
Aristotle’s views on politics and governance