carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (01/31/86)
>One of the oldest classifications was the one of Aristotle. >He differentiated three kinds of government, each in good and >bad version: > good bad > rule of one monarchy tyranny > rule of many aristocracy oligarchy > rule of majority democracy ochlocracy (rule of mob) [Piotr Berman] Not quite right. Aristotle's classification of constitutions in the *Politics* is as follows: Right Wrong (Perverted) Rule of one kingship tyranny Rule of few (or the aristocracy oligarchy (literal meaning is rich; see below) "rule of few") Rule of many (or the "polity" democracy poor) Aristotle's views merit respectful consideration in this as in every other subject. Ayn Rand herself claimed to have found something of value in Aristotle; a distinction shared, so far as I know, by no other philosopher. At any rate, the following is a summary, taken from Ernest Barker's translation, of the discussion of constitutions and their classification in Book III of the *Politics*. (Chapter 6) The definition of a constitution ["the organization of a polis, in respect of its offices generally, but especially in respect of that particular office which is sovereign in all issues"]. The classification of constitutions depends on (1) the ends pursued by states, and (2) the kind of authority exercised by their governments. The true end of a state is a good life, and this is the common interest: the right kind of authority is authority exercised in the common interest. We may thus distinguish "right" constitutions, which are directed to the common interest, and "wrong" or "perverted" constitutions directed to the selfish interest of the ruling authority. (Chapter 7) These two types of constitution each fall into three subdivisions on the basis of number, i.e. according as the One, or the Few, or the Many, are the ruling authority in each type. We have thus, as the three subdivisions of the "right" type, Kingship, Aristocracy, and "Polity" [see below for an explanation of this term]: as the three subdivisions of the "wrong" type, Tyranny, Oligarchy, and Democracy. (Chapter 8) The basis of number is not, however, adequate. The real basis, at any rate so far as oligarchy and democracy are concerned, is social class: what makes an oligarchy is the rule of the rich (rather than the few), and what makes a democracy is the rule of the poor (rather than the many). Number is an accidental, and not an essential attribute; but the accidental generally accompanies the essential. (Chapter 9) The principle of a constitution is its conception of justice; and this is the fundamental ground of difference between oligarchy and democracy. Democrats hold that if men are equal by birth, they should in justice have equal rights: oligarchs hold that if they are unequal in wealth, they should in justice have unequal rights. True justice means that those who have contributed to the end of the state should have rights in proportion to their contribution to that end. The end of the state is not mere life, nor an alliance for mutual defense; it is the common promotion of a good quality of life. We must distinguish between the necessary conditions of the state's existence (contiguity, consanguinity, and economic cooperation) and its operative aim. The operative aim is always the promotion of a good quality of life; and those who contribute most to the realization of that aim should in justice have most rights. "Polity" (*politeia*) is the generic term used by Aristotle for "constitution", but in this context also used in a technical sense as the name for a constitution in which the masses govern the state with a view to the common interest. He discusses these various forms at length in the remaining books of the *Politics*. Here is the summary of another interesting chapter: (Book IV, Chapter 4) Democracy does not mean only the rule of number: it also means the rule of a social class. Both criteria must be used to define democracy, as both number and social class must also be used to define oligarchy. On this basis we may now study the different varieties of democracy and oligarchy, which (as stated in the previous chapter) will depend on the varieties to be found in the "parts" of different states -- i.e. on the different natures of their social composition.... We must also take note of the different forms assumed by the *demos*, or populace -- and also by the upper class -- according as one or another part predominates in its make-up. This enables us to distinguish five varieties of democracy, in a descending scale which ends in "extreme democracy" -- a variety of democracy, analogous to tyranny, where law has ceased to be sovereign and the notion of a constitution has practically disappeared. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (02/04/86)
Aristotle, as qouted by Carnes: > ............ This enables us to distinguish five varieties of > democracy, in a descending scale which ends in "extreme democracy" -- > a variety of democracy, analogous to tyranny, where law has ceased to > be sovereign and the notion of a constitution has practically > disappeared. Now, at last, we understand "Democratic Republic of Vietnam". Those folks were read in Aristotle as well!