Aristotle

Aristotle (384 -322 BC) : In the history of political philosophy no one has surpassed Aristotle in encyclopedic interest and accomplishment. He is regarded as the father of political science as he was the first to analyse, critically and systematically the then existing constitutions and classify them. His classification of constitutions is still used in understanding constitutions comparatively. He regarded political science as the master science, for it studied human beings in a political society implying that a human being can lead a meaningful life only as a member of a state.

Unlike Plato, Aristotle was not an Athenian by birth. He was born in Stagira, then a small Greek colony close to the borders of the Macedonian Kingdome. He was a disciple of Plato and subsequently taught Alexander and then established his own school, the Lyceum. Aristotle’s relationship of Plato was similar to J.S.Mills’ relationship with Jeremy Bentham as both Aristotle and J S Mill repudiated major portions of the teachings of their master- Plato and Bentham respectively. The difference between Plato and Aristotle is the difference between philosophy and science. Plato was the father of political philosophy, Aristotle, the father of political science, the former is a philosopher the later is a scientist, former follows deductive methodology, the latter, an inductive one.

Although not an Athenian, Aristotle lived in Athens for more than half of his life, first as a student at Plato’s Academy for nearly twenty years and later as the master of his own institution, the Lyceum, for about 12 years. From 335 BC till his death (322 BC) he devoted himself to research, teaching and administrative duties in Lyceum. Lyceum was a public leisure centre, where Aristotle lectured to his chosen students in the mornings and to the general public in the evenings.

Aristotle is said to have written about 150 philosophic treaties. His works can be classified under three heading:

1. Dialogues and other works of a popular character;

2. Collection of facts and materials from scientific treatment,

3. Systematic works. Among his writings of a popular nature. On the polity of the Athenians is the interesting one. The works on the second group include 200 titles, most in fragments. The systematic treatises of the third, group are marked by a plainness of style. Aristotle’s political theory is found mainly in the politics although there are references of his political thought in the

Nichomachean Ethics. In the words of Prof. William Ebenstiein, the “politics lacks the fire and poetic imagery of the Republic, but it is more systematic and analytical and after twenty three hundred years it is still an introductory text book to the entire fields of political science.’ In his writings Aristotle showed much regard for popular opinions and current practices, for he was essentially a realist philosopher. His works are really on justification of existing institutions like family, state and slavery or is calculated to suggest remedies for the ills of the body politics of the city states.

Theory of state

Aristotle believes that man is, by nature and necessity, a social animal and he who is unable to live in society must be either a god or beast. He finds the origin of the state in the innate desire of an individual to satisfy his economic needs and racial instincts. For the realisation of this desire the male and female on the one hand and the master and slave on the other, come together, live together and form a family, i.e., a household which has its moral and social use. It is in 15the household that the three elements originate and develop which are essential to the building of a state, namely fellowship, political organisation and justice.

Aristotle opens the politics with two important ideas: the state is a community and that it is the highest of all communities, ‘which embraces all the rest, aims at good in greater degree than any other, and at the highest good’ the first thesis came naturally to a Greek of the classical period: his polis was city state with a small area and population. Aristotle may not have been the first to consider the state a community, but he was the first to define it clearly as such, and thus he laid the foundation for the organic conception of the state, one of the two major types into which all political theories of the state may roughly be divided.

According to Aristotle, sate is a natural community, an organism with all the attributes of a living being. Aristotle conceives of the state as natural in two ways. First, he briefly delineates the evolution of social institutions from the family through the village to the city state; in the historical sense, the state is the natural and final stage in the growth of human relations. However, the state is also considered by Aristotle to be actual in a logical and philosophical sense: “The state is by nature clearly prior to the family and the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part”.

Aristotle maintains that the state is not only a community but it is the highest community aiming at the highest good. The family is the first form of association, lowest in the chain of social evolution and lowest on the rung of values, because it is established by nature for the supply of men’s every day wants. The village is the second form of association, genetically more complex than the family, and aiming at something more than, the supply of daily needs. The third and highest in terms of value and purpose: whereas family and village exist essentially for the preservation of life and comforts of companionship, the state exists for the sake of a good life, and not for the sake of life only, and political society exists for the sake of noble actions, and not of mere companionship It is clear from the above observations that the state is the highest form of association, not only in terms of the social and institutional value, but interns of man’s own nature.

Aristotle believed that man was essentially good and the function of the state was to develop his good faculties into a habit of good action. Aristotle saw a good deal of identity between the individual and the state. Like the individual, the state must show the virtues of courage, self-control and justice. The function of the state was the promotion of good life among its citizens and, therefore, the state was the spiritual association into a moral life As Prof. William Ebenstein has rightly pointed out his (Aristotle’s ) “is a conception of moral sovereignty rather than of legal sovereignty”.

SLAVERY

The institution of slavery has been criticised by many and defended by few Aristotle was one of its strong defenders. Aristotle justifies slavery, which in fact was the order of the day. He wrote in the Politics thus: “For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, same are marked out for subjection other for rule”. In fact Aristotle justifies slavery on grounds of expediency.

While discussing the origin of the state and family, Aristotle mentions the institution of slavery. He finds slavery essential to a household and defends it as natural and, therefore, moral.

A slave is a living possession of his master and is an instrument of a action. A man cannot lead a good life without slaves any more than he can produce good music without instruments. Men differ from each other in their physical and intellectual fitness. Aristotle justifies slavery on the grounds that there is a natural inequality between men.

Aristotle assumes that nature is universally ruled by the contrast of the superior and inferior: man is superior to the animals, the male to the female, the soul to the body, reason to passion. In all these divisions it is just that the superior rule over the inferior, and such a rule is to the advantage of both. Among men, there are those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better’ and they are by nature slaves. Slavery is not only natural it is necessary as well. If the masters do not tyrannise over the slave, slavery is advantageous to both the master and the slave. Slavery is essential for the master of the household because, without slaves he has to do manual work which incapacitates him for civic duties.

Aristotle was realistic enough to see that many were slaves by law rather than nature, particularly those who were reduced to slavery by conquest a custom widely practiced in the in the wars of antiquity. He concedes to slaves the mental ability of apprehending the rational actions and orders of their master but denies them the ability of acting rationally on their own initiative.

CRITICISMS

Aristotle’s defence of slavery sounds very unconvincing and unnatural. He does not give reliable and fixed criteria for the determination of who is and who is not a natural law. Aristotle’s assertion that some women are born to rule and others born to obey would reduce the society into two parts arbitrarily. Thus Aristotle’s definition of slaves would reduce domestic servants and women in backward countries to the position of slaves. Karl Popper in his work “Open Society and its Enemies has criticized Aristotliean an doctrine of slavery when he wrote thus:” ‘Aristotle’s views were indeed reactionary as can be best seen from the fact that he repeatedly finds it necessary to defend them against the doctrine that no one is a slave by nature, and further from his own testimony to the anti slavery tendencies of the Athenian democracy”.

CITIZENSHIP

Aristotle’s conservative viewpoint is clearly expressed in his conception of citizenship. Aristotle defined a state as a collective body of citizens. Citizenship was not to be determined by residence since the resident aliens and slaves also shared a common residence with citizens but were not citizens. He defines citizen as a person who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any sate. Representative government was unknown to Aristotle because the Greek city- state was governed directly by its citizens. A citizen also enjoyed constitutional rights under the system of public law.

For Aristotle a citizen was one who shared power in polis, and unlike Plato, did not distinguish between “an active ruling group and a politically passive community”. Aristotle stipulated that the young and the old could not be citizens, for one was immature and the other infirm. He did not regard women as citizens, for they lacked the deliberative faculty and the leisure to understand the working of politics. A good citizen would have the intelligence and the ability to rule and be ruled.

Aristotle prescribed a good citizen as someone who could live in harmony with the constitution and had sufficient leisure time to devote himself to the tasks and responsibilities of citizenship. A good citizen would possess virtue or moral goodness that would help in realising a selfless and cooperative civic life. In the words of William Ebenstein, “Aristotle’s idea of citizenship is that of the economically independent gentleman who has enough experience, education and leisure to devote him to active citizenship, for citizen must not lead the life of mechanics or tradesmen, for such life is inimical to virtue. Thus he regarded citizenship as a bond forged by the intimacy of participation in public affairs.

Aristotle makes an important distinction between the ‘parts’ of the state and its “necessary conditions”. Only those who actively share or have the means and leisure to share in the government of the state are its components or integral part. All the others are merely the necessary conditions who provide the material environment within which the active citizens freed from menial tasks, can function .

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

Like Plato, Aristotle believed that justice is the very essence of the state and that no polity can endure for a long time unless it is founded on a right scheme of justice. According to him, justice is virtue, complete virtue, and the embodiment of all goodness. It is not the same thing as virtue, but it is virtue and virtue in action. Thus Aristotle makes it clear that ‘the goodness in the sphere of politics is justice, and justice contains what tends to promote the common interest.”

Aristotle believes that justice saves the states from destruction; it makes the states and political life pure and healthy. For Aristotle, justice is either general or particular. According to Aristotle, general justice is complete goodness It is complete in the fullest sense, because it is the exercise of complete goodness not only in himself but also towards his neighbours. Particular justice is a part of complete or general justice.

Particular justice has two sub varieties, namely, distributive and corrective justice. Corrective justice is mainly concerned with voluntary commercial transactions like sale, hire, furnishing of security, etc: and other things like aggression on property and life, honor and freedom. Distributive justice consists in proper allocation to each person according to his worth. This type of justice relates primarily but not exclusively to political privileges.

From the point of view of distributive justice, each type of political organisation, its own standard of worth and , therefore, of distributive justice. Distributive justice assigns to every man his due according to his contributions to the society. Distributive justice is identifiable with proportionate equality.

Aristotle’s concept of distributive Justice does not apply to modern conditions. Based on the notion of award of officers and honors in proportion to a man’s’ contribution to society, it could apply to a small city states and is not applicable to modern sovereign states with huge population. Thus his theory distributive justice is far away from the reality of the modern world.

EDUCATION

Like his master Plato, Aristotle was very keen on education. The end of the state, according to him, is good life of the individuals for which education is the best instrument. Education was meant to prepare the individual for membership of the state and as such had a political as well as intellectual aim.

According to Aristotle, education must be adapted to the constitution of the state and should be calculated to train man in a certain type of character suitable to the state. To him, the building of a particular type of character was more important than the imparting of knowledge and therefore proper educational authority was the states and not the private individuals. Aristotle was in favour of setting of state controlled educational institutions. However, Aristotle’s view on education was less comprehensive and systematic compared to his master, Plato.

Classification of government

On the basis of his study of 158 constitutions, Aristotle has given a classification which became a guide for all the subsequent philosophers who tried to classify government. He classified governments on a twofold basis namely,

1. The end of the state and

2. The number of persons who hold or share sovereign power. This basis enables us to distinguish between the pure and corrupt forms of government. This because the true end of the state is the perfection of its members and the degree of devotion to this end is the criterion to judge whether a government is pure or corrupt.

The classification of government is as under: Pure Form and Corrupt Form

Monarchy-  with  supreme  virtue  as its guiding principle.

Aristocracy-  representing a mixture  of virtue and wealth.

Polity-representing martial and medium virtues, power resting with the middle class people

Tyranny  – representing force, selfishness

Oligarchy –representing the greed of wealth

Democracy–representing the principle of equality with power  in the hands of the poor

In the table given above, monarchy represents the rule of a monarch for common good with tyranny as its perversion. According to Aristotle, monarchy is the pure form of government when the monarch rules for the benefits of the people without any discrimination. Of the three true forms Aristotles holds monarchy to be the most ideal kind of govt. Aristotle’s deep sympathy for monarchy is to be understood in the light of his relations with the rising Macedonian monarchy.

Aristocracy is no where described in the Politics systematically, perhaps because the problem of aristocracy and democracy was not of such practical importance as that of monarchy.

Aristotle defines democracy as a government formed of the best men absolutely, and not merely of men who are relatively, that is in relation to changing circumstances and constitutions. The perverted form of aristocracy is oligarchy in which government by wealthy is carried on for their own benefit rather than for that of the whole state. Whereas merit and virtue the distinctive qualities to be considered in selecting the rulers in an aristocracy, wealth is the basis of selection in an oligarchy.

The third true form of state is polity or constitutional government. Aristotle defines polity as the state that the citizens at large administer for the common interest. Constitutional government is a compromise between the two principles of freedom and wealth the attempt to unite the freedom of the poor and the wealth of the rich, without giving either principle exclusive predominance. The degenerate form of constitutional government is democracy and defined it as a system in which the poor rule. It is government by the poor, and for the poor only just as tyranny is government by one for his own benefit and oligarchy government by the wealthy few for their class benefit.

REVOLUTION

The search for stability through polity made Aristotle examine the causes for instability, change and revolution and prescribe remedies against unnecessary and incessant change. In book v of the politics Aristotle discussed one of the most important problems which made it a hand book for all state men for all time to come. The analytical and the empirical mind of Aristotle gives numerous causes of revolution and suggest remedies to overcome them. As Prof. Ebenstein has rightly pointed out Politics of Aristotle is more a book on the art of government than a systematic exposition of political philosophy. In Aristotle analysis the evils that were prevalent in the Geek cities and the defects in the political systems and gives practical suggestions as to the best way to avoid threatening danagers.

Aristotle points out that there are varying degrees of revolution. A revolution many take the form of a change of constitution a state or the revolutionaries may try to grasp political power without changing the constitution. A revolution may be directed against not the entire system of government but a particular institution or set of person in the state. A revolution may be completing armed or peaceful and personal or impersonal.

In order to diagnose a revolution we must consider the temper of the revolutionaries and their motives and the causes and occasions of revolution. Aristotle discussed general causes of revolution and then looked into the reasons why individual constitutions changed. Unlike Plato, Aristotle perceived multiple reasons for revolutions rather than a regime’s prominent deficiency. He placed greater responsibility on the rulers to ensure stability and justice.

Aristotle classifies the causes of revolution under two groups general and particular causes.

The general causes of revolutions were broadly categorised into three.

1. Psychological motives or the state of mind.

2. The objectives in mind;

3. The occasions that gave rise to political upheaval and mutual strife

The psychological factors were the desire for equality in an oligarchy and inequality in a democracy .The objectives in mind included profit, honor , insolence ,fear superiority in some form, contempt disproportionate increase in some part of the state, election intrigues, willful negligence, neglect of insignificant changes, fear of opposites and dissimilarity of component parts of the state. The occasions that give rise to revolutionary changes were insolence, desire for profit and honour, superiority, fear, contempt, and disproportionate increase in one part or element of the state.

The particular causes were analyzed in each constitution. Aristotle states that “poverty is the parent of revolution and crime” and that when there is no middle class and the poor greatly exceed in number, troubles arise, and the state soon comes to an end. In democracy the most important cause of revolution is the unprincipled character of the popular leaders. Demagogues attack the rich, individually or collectively, so as to provide them to forcibly resist and provide the emergence of oligarchy. The causes of overthrow of oligarchies can be internal as when a group within the class in power becomes more influential or external, by the mistreatment of the masses by the governing class. In aristocracies few, people share in honour. When the number of people benefiting become smaller or when disparting between rich and poor becomes wider revolution is caused in a monarchy, sedition was usually due to fear, contempt, desire for fame, insults, hatred and desire by neighboring states to extend their boundaries.

Remedies to prevent revolution

Aristotle has suggested a number of useful and practical remedies for preventing revolutions. The first essential remedy are to inculcate the spirit of obedience to law, especially in small matters and to watch the beginning of change in the constitution. Aristotle suggested that too much power should not be allowed to concentrate in the hands of one man or one class of men and various classes in the state should be treated with consideration. Great political offices in the state should be outside the reach of unkind strangers and aliens, holders of offices should not be able to make private gain. Public administration, particularly financial administration, should be subjected to public scrutiny. Further, offices and honors should be awarded on considerations of distributive justice and no class of citizens should have a monopoly of political power. Again the higher offices in the state should be distributed only on considerations of loyalty to the constitution administrative capacity and integrity of character, but each citizen must have his due.

Democracy

Aristotle believes that democracy is characterised by twin principles of freedom and majority -rule. Aristotle was not opposed to democracy in the same measures as Plato was. According to him democracy is a form of government in which supreme power is in the hands of freemen. He believed that the aggregates virtue and ability of the mass of the people was greater than the virtue and ability of a part of the population. It the mass of the people do not understand the technicalities of a administration, they have the commonsense of appointing right administrators and legislators and of checking any misbehavior on the part of the latter. Aristotle’s democracy means aristo-democracy of the free citizens because the large body of slaves and aliens can have no share in the government of the day. Direct democracy is possible only in a small city state Aristotle condemns only the extreme form of democracy namely mobocracy.

Assessment

Aristotle’s Politics has served as a foundation work for the whole western tradition. His encyclopedic mind encompassed practically all the branches of human knowledge. Unlike Plato’s Republic, Aristotle’s works were measured in thinking and analysis, reflecting the mind of a scientist rather than that of a philosopher. He regarded as the father of political science because he was perhaps the first political thinker to analyse political institutions and behaviour systematically and scientifically. He considered man as a social animal and the state as a natural organisation which exists not only for life but for the sake of good life. He was a great pioneer in political science and no discussion is ever complete without a reference to his brilliant insights and method of analysis.