Aristotelian Political Theory
Aristotle’s (384B.C.-322B.C.) Πολιτικά, Politiká; [in English] Politics; was written in 350B.C., and serves as the fundamental blueprint for practical government; his writings stand mirrored by institutions of contemporary polity. Aristotle advocated for a mixed government, laying the foundation for federalism, anti-federalism constitutionality, republicanism, and mapped the strategy to ensure a powerful, but limited government. Aristotle’s book remains relevant in the modern age of politics – especially in the concerning state of America, and its willingness to adopt the values of one regime.
Aristotle’s Politics provides the reader a disclaimer in the study of political regimes, aptly writing; “[f]or one investigating the regime—what each sort is and what its quality—virtually the first investigation concerns the city, to see what the city actually is… it is clear that the first thing that must be sought is the citizen; for the city is a certain multitude of citizens” (Aristotle; Lord, C., p.117). Aristotle defined the citizen as one who partakes in both political decision and office, writing; “[w]e see that regimes differ from one another in kind, and that some are prior and some posterior; for those that are errant and deviant must necessarily be posterior to those that are without error, (Aristotle; Lord, C., p. 118). Aristotle’s Politics instantly provoked political theorists to dive into inquiry, in a comprehensive study called political philosophy; spanning from Ancient Athens into contemporary polity. What exactly defines a regime, and how it can best be purposed in a plurality; and the requirements of citizenry, continue to beget a diverse of responses and viewpoints on the ingredients to achieve contemporary polis. As Aristotle divulged; “[b]ut equality in what sort of things and inequality in what sort of things—this should not be overlooked. For this involves a question, and political philosophy,” (Aristotle; Lord, C., p. 140).
Leo Strauss (1899-1973) wrote that “[i]t is more proper to speak of the good and inferior regimes than of the good and inferior cities (observe the transition from ‘cities’ to ‘regimes’ in 543d–544a),” (Strauss, L., p. 100). Strauss added that the term regime “is our translation of the Greek politeia. The book which we call Republic is in Greek entitled Politeia. Politeia is commonly translated by ‘constitution,’ (Strauss, L, p. 100). Strauss concludes that “[t]he term [regime] designates the form of government understood as the form of the city,” (Strauss, L., p. 100). Moreover, Leo Strauss gives concise clarity on the effects of Ancient Athenian regimes; citing character, force of pursuit, and the declaration of a common goal; id est the attainment of common happiness, (Strauss, L., p. 100). Carnes Lord adds that “Aristotle is satisfied that there is in fact a large measure of agreement as to the nature of happiness, and that the disagreements regarding it are non-arbitrary reflections of fundamental aspects of the human condition. For Aristotle, there are essentially three ways of life available to human beings: the life of pleasure, the political life, and the theoretical or philosophical life,” (Lord, C., Strauss, L., p. 186).
Contemporary definitions of regime have remained correlative to the origin of Aristotle’s depiction. The Eleventh Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary defines regime as, “[a] particular system of rules, regulations, or government; a particular administration of government, esp. an authoritarian one,” (Garner, B.; Black, H., p. 1535). The Oxford Dictionary of Politics submits that “[a] system of government or administration, while any government may be termed a regime, be it monarchical, aristocratic, republican, or tyrannical, the term unavoidably conjures up memories of tanks in the streets in Latin American capitals, (McLean, I., p 423, 424).
Aristotelian Regimes
Aristotle acknowledged various forms of government, denoting their strengths and weaknesses with examples. Historian Alan Ryan writes that “[t]he three virtuous forms of government are kingship, aristocracy, and politeia, in which one, a few, or many persons possess ultimate power, and employ it to govern for the sake of the common good;” Ryan adds Aritstole’s corrupt regimes are “tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy, in which one man, a few men, or the poor many govern in their own narrow interests,” (Ryan, A., pp. 79, 80). Aristotle found little difference between absolute regimes, noting “by considering the common definitions of oligarchy and democracy…they are bad judges in their own affairs; and secondly, because both the parties to the argument are speaking of a limited and partial justice, but imagine themselves to be speaking of absolute justice,” (Aristotle; Jowett, B., p. 55).
Aristotle’s avocation for a mixed constitution influenced the Founders of America, whereby Ancient Athenian’s advocation of Republicanism proved successful as Aristotle’s political theory led to the exceptional nation that exists today. Had Aristotle advocated one specific form of absolute government, he would lose relevance in the modern age; instead, Aristotle relied on the existence of absolute regimes to implicitly act as an inherent system of checks and balances. Aristotle knew of no difference between constitution and government, noting its value only by its posterity. Of citizens, Aristotle declared, “[f][or the members of a state, if they are truly citizens, ought to participate in its advantages;” Aristotle spoke of particulars within each regime, stating; “[o]f forms of government in which one rules, we call that which regards the common interests, kingship or royalty; that in which more than one, but not many, rule, aristocracy; and it is so called, either because the rulers are the best men, or because they have at heart the best interests of the state and of the citizens,” (Aristotle; Jowett, B., p. 53). It was common interests that bound together the citizens and the rulers providing lasting prosperity; conversely, the pursuit of private interests by the ruling class ultimately led to tragedy; “[f]or the habit of lightly changing the laws is an evil, and, when the advantage is small, some errors both of lawgivers and rulers had better be left; the citizen will not gain so much by making the change as he will lose by the habit of disobedience,” (Aristotle, Jowett, B., p. 34).
As contemporary interpretation and modern understanding holds, Aristotle asserted that “[t]he words constitution and government have the same meaning, and the government, which is the supreme authority in states, must be in the hands of one, or of a few, or of the many,” (Aristotle; Jowett, B., p. 53). No matter the government Aristotle believed that “when the citizens at large administer the state for the common interest, the government is called by the generic name—a constitution,” (Aristotle; Jowett, B., p. 53). No matter the regime, Aristotle preserved a reminder for posterity; warning that, “[t]he true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest; but governments which rule with a view to the private interest, whether of the one or of the few, or of the many, are perversions,” (Aristotle; Jowett, B., p. 53).
Aristotle wrote on the judgment of regimes; the determination to produce an accurate judgment of any political regime’s agenda to observe its purpose. Aristotle contended that “political society exists for the sake of noble actions, and not of mere companionship,” (Aristotle; Jowett, B., p. 56). Aristotle depicted various types of regimes, offering insight into various concentrations of ideology; Aristotle provides each form of government with the deterioration of each regime when afflicted with a maleficent ruler. Aristotle referred to these as perversions, writing; “the perversions are as follows: of royalty, tyranny; of aristocracy, oligarchy; of constitutional government, democracy. For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all,” (Aristotle; Jowett, B., pp. 53, 54). Aristotle recognized that diversity was inherent to man, thereby requiring mixed government to ensure just governance; writing that, “[s]ince there are several regimes, there must necessarily be several kinds of citizen, and particularly of the citizen who is ruled,” (Aristotle, p. 126).
Aristotle on Contemporary Government
Aristotle, given a brief view of America, would declare it a plurality. Aristotle affirmed that “the legislator could not form a state at all without distributing and dividing its constituents into associations for common meals, and into phratries and tribes.” After Aristotle’s initial first-impression; upon physically experiencing America, would likely profess it to be an oligarchic timocracy. Timocratic rule, also known as a plutocracy is a government formed by wealth, establishing the ruling class. Like the Lacedaemonian constitution, Aristotle may conclude that “the whole [U.S.] constitution has deteriorated, and from being an aristocracy has turned into a democracy,” (Aristotle, p. 36). Aristotle then would likely reassert that “the real difference between democracy and oligarchy is poverty and wealth,” as he witnessed the homeless crises plaguing our streets; a modern problem the persists to the limits of our national borders, (Aristotle; Jowett, B., p. 54). Carnes Lord writes of Aristotle, “[o]n the one occasion when he uses the term ‘political philosophy,’ Aristotle does so in a way that suggests that it is foreign to the inquiry he undertakes in the existing ethical and political writings… The good, or the good life, for men individually and for the political community is the overarching theme of Aristotelian political science,” (Lord, C.; Strauss, L., pp. 183, 185). Historian Alan Ryan gives insight on Aristotelian political theory; writing, “Aristotle advises other regimes to look to their strengths and avoid their weaknesses. Democracies are in danger of provoking revolution if they add to the distress caused to the traditional ruling elite when it was forced to yield power to the poor; so attempts to create an equality of wealth as well as an equality of power should be eschewed,” (Ryan, A., pp. 87, 88).
On Congress, Aristotle believed that “the legislator ought to have his eye directed to two points—the people and the country,” (Aristotle; Jowett, B., p. 26). Aristotle would be appalled to observe the contemporary government of the United States of America and their appointed bureaucracy fully abandoning both the people and the country; favoring instead personal advancement deeper into the global cabal, including an accruing ambiguous income based on narrative compliance. On the Supreme Court and the U.S. Justice System, Aristotle would likely note of the judicial activism currently underway that has taken America’s legal system by storm. Judges and Justices decree laws through personal biased interpretation, in accordance with society’s temporal culture; in many instances, this includes judges routinely choosing to rule directly against both evidence and the Jury’s decision, defying the Supremacy of the U.S. Constitution. A nation that fails to implement objective laws judiciously to ensure and maintain some form of public morality is by definition tyrannical. Aristotle would discern this occurrence; in esse, the deposing justice in courtrooms across the nation – as an oligarchy. Aristotle rejected the council of elders, who held office for life; Aristotle iterated this point, affirming “that judges of important causes should hold office for life is a disputable thing, for the mind grows old as well as the body,” (Aristotle; Jowett, B., p. 37). It was Aristotle who proclaimed that “a readiness to change from old to new laws enfeebles the power of the law. Even if we admit that the laws are to be changed, are they all to be changed, and in every state? And are they to be changed by anybody who likes, or only by certain persons?” (Aristotle; Jowett, B., p. 34).
Conversely, Aristotle believed, like the ruling class of today, that a perfect state was an achievement worth pursuing. Aristotle judged a nation’s government by comparative analysis; to achieve a utopian government, Aristotle proposed that “two points have to be considered: first, whether any particular law is good or bad, when compared with the perfect state; secondly, whether it is or is not consistent with the idea and character which the lawgiver has set before his citizens,” (Aristotle; Jowett, B., p. 34). Aristotle at first glance of the encroaching global governance, would likely orate his typical political rhetoric; that “it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal;” calling the contemporary elite “tribeless, lawless, and hearthless one[s],” p. 54). Aristotle might take note of the conservative push to repopulate the Earth, combatting the United Nation’s global depopulation agenda. While this is a vital an honorable duty to uphold, as reproduction is required for the perpetuation of the human race; Aristotle might compare this to the errors of Sparta’s legislators, whereby “the father of three sons shall be exempt from military service, and he who has four from all burdens of the state,” (Aristotle; Jowett, B., p. 36). Aristotle declares it “obvious” this was erroneous; the result was many of the now overpopulated Spartans began to fall into poverty, (Aristotle; Jowett, B., p. 36).
Aristotle might take equal note of the liberal politicians, like “the Ephors who were bribed [and as a result] did their best to ruin the state,” (Aristotle; Jowett, B., p. 36). Aristotle might warn of the detrimental policy enacted across the nation, and compare it to the previous errors of former governments. Aristotle’s testimony in Politics gives evidence that historically, empires have borne a similar characteristic; an omission to acknowledge the fact that their regime is not guaranteed, thus negating the common goals of the citizens, thereby deposing the citizen to subject; exalting the ruling class to tyrannical overlords, causing a weakness in the strength of the body. This leaves the regime open to attack both externally and internally, whereby the aggrieved subjects overthrow the despotic regime, resetting the cycle through revolution. Alternatively, the incumbent regime can be abdicated by an external regime whose polis pursues a common goal and exudes inherent strength, thereby attaining the ability to eliminate the weakened incumbent regime, whose subjects have voided loyalty. The subjects are then reclassified as citizens, resetting the cycle without internal revolution, whereby the citizenry adapts to the tradition, legislation, and cultures of the invading regime. Lastly, Aristotle would likely remind incumbent pol to re-read his book Politics, before considering running for re-election; advocating that numerous English translations of his work have since been published.
Conclusion
Aristotle described “a constitutional rule, which the ruler must learn by obeying, as he would learn the duties of a general of cavalry by being under the orders of a general of cavalry,” (Aristotle, Jowett, B., p. 50). No matter the interpretation of this text, three and a half centuries later Jesus would be crucified on Calvary; giving citizens a personal, provisional, and eternal “general of calvary.” Government cannot exist to serve as a persistent illusory utopia, whereby no citizens are capable of achieving happiness; rather it should act as a placeholder reserved for the inherence we received as Christ gave His life as a sacrifice. Aristotle’s Politics unknowingly laid the foundational theory for just governance centuries before the New Testament invoked its objective authority invoking a civic duty; whereby Jesus revealed the political obligations of His disciples. God’s Kingdom is polis; as John scribed of the end of times from exile on the Isle of Patmos, (Rev 1:9); he heard a loud voice come from the throne Who spake; “’Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.’ He who was seated on the throne said, ‘I am making everything new!’ Then he said, ‘Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true,’ (Revelation 21:3b-5; NIV). Aristotle believed in the Constitution before we were given these orders by God, thereby redirecting and reinforcing the accuracy of government action, that stands disputed today.
In contemporary polity, Aristotle may wonder where the common pursuit of happiness has gone; as Carnes Lord described “[h]appiness or the human good can be defined, then, as activity of the soul in accordance with excellence or virtue (aretē) and, if there are several virtues, in accordance with the best and most perfect (NE 1.6.1097b22–98a 18),” (Lord, C.; Strauss, L., p. 187). Aristotle submitted that “we all see that men cling to life even at the cost of enduring great misfortune, seeming to find in life a natural sweetness and happiness,” (Aristotle; Jowett, B., p. 52). Aristotle would be dismayed to find that the great nation of America has lost its common goal of achieving happiness, at the expense of exhausting the legislature to conform to temporal culture. Aristotle may warn of America’s transition from a Constitutional Republic to a democracy, whereby he would likely assert “the happy state may be shown to be that which is best and which acts rightly; and rightly it cannot act without doing right actions, and neither individual nor state can do right actions without virtue and wisdom,” (Aristotle; Jowett, B., p. 138).
Bibliography
Jowett, B. (1943). The Politics of Aristotle; Introduction by Max Lerner. “Aristotle’s classic work on the science and art of government, in the complete and unabridged Jowett translation. With an introduction by Max Lerner.” Modern Library 228. The Modern Library: Clothbound in New York, NY.
Aristotle. Politics (Translated by Benjamin Jowett). Digireads.com Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Aristotle. Aristotle's Politics: Second Edition. (Translated by Carnes Lord). The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
Ryan, Alan. On Aristotle: Saving Politics from Philosophy. (Liveright Classics). Liveright. Kindle Edition.
Strauss, L. et al., (1963, 1972, 1987). History of Political Philosophy. The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
McLean, I., (1996).The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Oxford University Press, New York City.