20. POWER AND THE BOUNDARY OF POLITICS





    In this third part of this course we have been learning that

philosophy deals not only with abstract theoretical issues relating to

metaphysics, epistemology, logic, and language usage, but also with more

concrete practical issues, such as those relating to science and morality.

The philosophy of science and moral philosophy are both major branches of

philosophy:  they provide the basis for applying philosophy to more

practical issues relating to specific sciences or specific ethical

situations.  In this and the following lecture I want us to consider one

further branch of the tree of philosophy, political philosophy.  There are

actually a number of other fields of philosophical inquiry which, if we

had time, might be included here in Part Three, such as philosophy of

religion or philosophy of history.  But for our purposes a discussion of

political philosophy can serve as an adequate way of completing our study

of how to apply philosophical thinking in our search for wisdom.



    Many of the philosophers we have already studied had much to say about

political philosophy. For example, the main point of Plato's longest and

most systematic book, called Republic, is to set out a rational plan for

the ideal political system.  Many aspects of his system, however, appear

to modern readers to be too unrealistic and/or outdated to be considered

very seriously. The suggestion that philosophers ought to be trained to

serve as kings, for instance, is an idea which has rarely, if ever, been

been put into practice. One of the reasons Plato's political philosophy

seems so distant from our own ways of thinking about politics is that

modern political thought is rooted to a large extent in the quite

different ideas put forward by his star student. Aristotle's book,

Politics, also contains some examples whose relevance is limited to the

ancient Greek city-states (whose political systems were, by the way, the

earliest forerunners of modern democracies); yet the main issues it raises

are of timeless interest, transcending their original historical context

in their applicability.  Hence, we shall use today's lecture to take a

close look at this classic text in political philosophy.



    Aristotle regarded politics not merely as an optional field of

philosophical inquiry, but as an essential task for any philosopher,

because one of the distinguishing characteristics of the human species is

that "man is by nature a political animal" (Politics, p.1253a(37)).  In

Politics Aristotle attempted to determine what constitutes the "best"

city.  (The Greek word for "city", incidentally, is polis, from which we

derive the word "politics".) This required him not only to discuss what

its particular characteristics would be, but also to analyze the general

nature of a city and the different political systems ("politeiai") which

can be used to govern a city.  But politeiai include not only specific

governmental structures, but also "the way of life of a city" in general

(1295a (133)).  Although his analysis is by no means the last word on the

subject, an examination of Aristotle's ideas can provide us with a good

sampling of the various ways of drawing the boundary lines which define

possible political systems.



    Aristotle began his study of politics by claiming that "every city is

some form of partnership ... for the sake of some good", and that the

political philosopher's task is that of "investigating what the city is

composed of" (Politics, p.1252a(35)).  He then pointed out that families

and business relations are also examples of partnerships which exhibit

something like politics on a lower level.  A partnership between several

families gives rise to a village, and a partnership between several

villages gives rise to a city. The partnership that makes up a city

therefore requires certain agreements between "similar persons, for the

sake of a life that is the best possible" (1328a(209)).  Aristotle never

suggested that such partners must be similar in every respect, but that

both unity and diversity must exist between the partners in different

respects:  "a city tends to come into being at the point when the

partnership formed by a multitude is self-sufficient" (1261a-b(55- 57)).

The purpose of a city, therefore is



not [to be] a partnership in a location and for the sake of not committing

injustice against each other and of transacting business.  These things

must necessarily be present if there is to be a city, but not even when

all of them are present is it yet a city, but [the city is] the

partnership in living well both of households and families for the sake of

a complete and self-sufficient life.  (1280b(99))



    Anyone who can participate actively in the political partnership that

makes up a city is qualified to be a "citizen".  Thus Aristotle defined a

citizen as anyone who can hold an office:  "Whoever is entitled to

participate in an office involving deliberation or decision is ... a

citizen in this city; and the city is the multitude of such persons that

is adequate with a view to a self-sufficient life"  (Politics,

p.1275a-b(87)).  Sharing in the political partnership of the city requires

the citizen not only to be a capable decision- maker, but also to be a

person who is willing to abide by decisions made by others.  For

Aristotle's Politics (p.1277b(92)) stresses that "the good citizen should

know and have the capacity both to be ruled and to rule, and this very

thing is the virtue of a citizen--knowledge of rule over free persons from

both [points of view]."



    In monarchies, where only one person rules, there are in this sense no

citizens; in fact, there is technically no city and no politics either,

inasmuch as there is no partnership between equals for the purpose of

ruling and being ruled.  This is why Aristotle sometimes contrasted

monarchies with what we would call "republican" (i.e., non-monarchical)

political systems: only the latter are politeiai in the strict sense of

the word (though he sometimes used this term loosely to refer to

monarchies as well), so republican systems occupied his primary attention

in Politics.



    One of the most interesting aspects of Aristotle's political

philosophy is that, in the course of his discussion, he developed a

systematic framework consisting of six possible types of political system.

They are distinguished by the different source of authority and power

which characterizes each.  After asserting that "the authoritative

element" in a political system must "be either one or a few or the many",

he explains the difference between "correct" political systems and their

"deviations" (Politics, p.1279a (96):  "when the one or the few or the

many rule with a view to the common advantage, these political systems are

necessarily correct, while those with a view to the private advantage of

the one or the few or the multitude are deviations."



    The names Aristotle assigned each of these six systems are as follows.

The correct form of "monarchy" is called a "kingship".  (In ancient Greek

monos means "alone" or "single"; archos means "ruler".  The suffix

"-cracy" comes from kratos, which means "power".)  Aristotle's term for

the correct form of "rule by the few" is "aristocracy", which means the

power is held by the best (aristos) people.  And "polity" is his term for

the correct form of majority rule, though he also used this term to refer

in a general way to all political systems.  Since he sometimes contrasted

politeiai with monarchy, Aristotle in this context probably intended

politeiai to be interpreted in this narrow sense, in which case his claim

is that all non-monarchical systems (i.e., all republics) can be called

polities.  Interestingly, in Nicomachean Ethics (p.1160a), he avoided the

equivocal use of "polity" by referring to this third correct political

system as "timocracy" (power held by those who own a certain amount of

property (timema)).  In fact, he explicitly stated that this term is to be

preferred to the term "polity", even though the latter is the more common

of the two terms.  However, this brief account of timocracy is difficult

to distinguish from oligarchy (see below); so I shall adopt the usage

given in Politics in spite of its possible ambiguity.



    Aristotle also described three deviations from the three basically

positive forms of political system:



Deviations from those mentioned are tyranny from kingship, oligarchy from

aristocracy, democracy from polity.  Tyranny is monarchy with a view to

the advantage of the monarch, oligarchy [rule] with a view to the

advantage of the well off, democracy [rule] with a view to the advantage

of those who are poor; none of them is with a view to the common gain.

(Politics, p.1279b(96))



Let's now examine each of these six political systems in a bit more

detail.



    In his discussion of kingship, Aristotle was careful to point out that

there are several different kinds of kings.  The main distinction is

between those whose authority transcends the law and those who must

themselves obey the law.  A political system in which the "so-called king"

rules "according to law" is not a true kingship; such a king is more like

a "permanent general" (Politics, p.1287a(113)).  A kingship in the true

sense of the word is an "absolute kingship", in which "one person has

authority over all matters ..., with an arrangement that resembles

household management" (1285b(110-111)).  In a kingship, "the best

political system is not one based on written (rules) and laws", because a

good king will be able to judge fairly according to the circumstances of

each specific situation, being guided by the general principles of the

law, even though his judgment need not be determined by them (1286a(111)).

As Aristotle put it in Politics, p.1284a(106-107):  "If there is one

person so outstanding by his excess of virtue--or a number of persons

...-- .. such persons can no longer be regarded as a part of the city....

[For] they themselves are law."  He then pointed out that "ostracism" is

the inevitable fate for such persons "in the deviant political systems"

(1284b(108)), even though in "the best political systems ... persons of

this sort will be permanent kings in their cities."



    Although kingship would be the best political system, Aristotle

preferred aristocracy for several reasons.  There is always a danger that

the one man holding all the power will turn bad, so that the best system

would degenerate into the worst (i.e., tyranny).  The only protection

against such a man being overcome by his own selfish desires is for him to

accept the rule of law; thus "it is laws--correctly enacted--that should

be authoritative", not persons (Politics, pp.1282a-b(103)).  The nature of

law is such that it protects people against the ever-present danger of

being corrupted by their own appetite, for as Aristotle explained

(1287a(114)):  "One who asks law to rule ... is held to be asking god and

intellect alone to rule, while one who asks man adds the beast.  Desire is

a thing of this sort; and spiritedness perverts rulers and the best men.

Hence law is intellect without appetite."



    Another problem with kingship in Aristotle's mind is that there is

likely to be more than just one good man in most cities, so the good men

who are not allowed to rule will not be satisfied with the inequality

between themselves and the king.  Such an unjust situation is almost

inevitably resolved by replacing the king with an aristocracy, in which

all the rulers are good men (Politics, p.1286b(112)).  (They cannot be

good women because, according to Aristotle, women are not even be allowed

to become citizens.) Hence, Aristotle suggested that the less power a king

has (i.e., the less he is like a true king), the longer he will be able to

preserve his rule (1313a(173)).



    An "aristocracy ... is in some sense an oligarchy" (oligos means

"few"), since in both types of political systems "the rulers are few"

(Politics, p.1306b(159)).  The difference is that, unlike a typical (i.e.,

deviant) oligarchy, in which the rulers are chosen merely "on the basis of

wealth", the rulers in an aristocracy are chosen "in accordance with

virtue" (1273a(82)). (When property ownership is the type of wealth used

as one of the main qualifications for choosing who is given the power and

authority to rule in an oligarchy (see e.g., pp.1279b(96)), the system

could also be called a timocracy.  One way of accounting for the potential

ambiguity between the terms "oligarchy" and "timocracy" would be to note

that a timocracy would be a polity if the amount of property required to

be a citizen is very low, whereas it would be an oligarchy if the amount

is high, since only a few people would then be wealthy enough to be

citizens.)  Oligarchy is usually bad for a city, because there is no

guarantee that the rulers will be virtuous (e.g., by looking after the

welfare of the poor) just because they are rich.  An aristocracy, by

contrast, is by definition (in Aristotle's sense of the word) a political

system in which the few men who are given the power and authority to rule

will, being virtuous, look after those who are not members of the ruling

class.



    The distinction to which Aristotle devoted the most attention in

Politics is that between the two extreme forms of non-monarchical

government, oligarchy and democracy.  This is probably because these two

systems are the ones found most frequently in real historical cities (both

in ancient Greece and in modern times).  For example, he said "law may be

oligarchic or democratic" (Politics, p.1281a (100)), in the sense that "in

democratic political systems the people have authority, while by contrast

it is the few in oligarchies" (1278b(94)). In Politics,

pp.1279b(96)-1280a(97), he continued:



oligarchy is when those with property have authority in the political

system; and democracy is the opposite, when those have authority who do

not possess a [significant] amount of property but are poor ...  What

makes democracy and oligarchy differ is poverty and wealth:  wherever some

rule on account of wealth, whether a minority or a majority, this is

necessarily an oligarchy, and wherever those who are poor, a democracy.

But it turns out ... that the former are few and the latter many ...



Whereas "the defining principle of aristocracy is virtue" and "that of

oligarchy is wealth", the defining principle of democracy is "the majority

[i.e., the poor] having authority" (1310a(167)).



    Democracy is the political system in which a partnership between the

"common people" (demos) determines how power and authority are distributed

in the city.  It is therefore characterized by a type of "freedom" that

involves "being ruled and ruling in turn" (Politics, p.1317a-b(183)). Such

an arrangement of reciprocal ruling among equals "is law" (1287a(113)).

As with most of the other political systems, Aristotle discussed several

varieties of democracy, including the type in which "the people become a

monarch", in the sense that "the many have authority [over the law,

though] not as individuals but all together" (1292a(125-6)). In the narrow

sense of a political system (i.e., as excluding monarchies), "a democracy

of this sort is not a political system.  For where the laws do not rule

there is no political system."



    Aristotle warned that the best political system for a given city

cannot be determined in advance:  any of the systems (except tyranny) may

end up being the most appropriate, once the specific situation is taken

into consideration. Thus, for example, he admitted that sometimes a

kingship will be the best system for a city, even though in general "to

have law rule is to be chosen in preference to having one of the citizens

do so" (Politics, p.1288a(115-116)). The political system Aristotle

thought is most often to be preferred, which he called "polity", is midway

between aristocracy and democracy.  Yet even in the case of polity, he

granted that "there is nothing to prevent another political system being

more advantageous for certain [cities]" (1296b(136)).



    Polity is a political system based on Aristotle's famous principle of

the "golden mean" (see e.g., Ethics, pp.1106a(65)-1109b(75)), which tells

us always to avoid extremes, or in this case tells us that "the middling

sort of life is best" for both the city and the individual (Politics,

p.1295a(133)). In other words, polity is a political system in which what

we would call the "middle class" forms a majority of people who have the

power and authority to rule in a way that mixes elements of the other

three republican systems.  The mixture Aristotle had in mind involves a

combination of democracy and oligarchy (the two extremes) in such a way

that their extreme elements will cancel each other out:  a polity requires

"a mixture of ... the well off and the poor" (1293b(129)-1294b(132)).  But

it might also mix elements of aristocracy and oligarchy, as when a polity

requires "a law distributing offices on the basis of merit [as in

aristocracy] to those who are well off [as in oligarchy]" (1288a(116)).

When we read Aristotle saying that the best sort of oligarchy "is very

close to so-called polity" (1320b(190)), we must assume this good

oligarchy is actually an aristocracy.  For aristocracy and polity are the

"means" between the "extremes" of oligarchy and democracy.



    With this in mind, we can now map the relations between the four

republican (non-monarchical) political systems, by using either a simple

flow chart (as in Figure 20.1a), or a 2LAR cross (as in Figure 20.1b), in

which the two underlying questions are (1) Are there only a few rulers?

and (2) Is the system good (i.e., "correct")?



 

(a) As a Flow Chart        (b) Mapped onto the Cross



[Figure 20.1:  The Four Forms of Republican Political Systems]



These maps help us to see why Aristotle sometimes virtually equated polity

with aristocracy (e.g., Politics, pp.1286b(112)); for these systems, as

the "means", would be good for most cities, while democracy and oligarchy,

as the "extremes", would be bad.



    The remaining political system in Aristotle's framework is "tyranny",

which is technically the opposite of (i.e., deviation from) kingship.  Yet

Aristotle also called it "the extreme form of democracy", and added that

some forms of oligarchy and democracy are "tyrannies", divided among many

persons (Politics, p.1312b(172)).  He explained the relation between

tyranny and the other two deviant political systems as follows

(1310b(168)-1311a(169)): Kingship accords with aristocracy, while tyranny

is composed of the ultimate sort of oligarchy and of democracy--hence it

is composed of the two bad political systems and involves the deviations

and errors of both of them.... ....  Having wealth as its end comes from

oligarchy ..., as does its distrust of the multitude....  From democracy

comes their war on the notables ..



He then explained why kingship is not worth the risk of tyranny

(1313a(173)):



Kingships no longer arise today; if monarchies do arise, they tend to be

tyrannies. This is because kingship is a voluntary sort of rule ..., but

[nowadays] there are many persons who are similar, with none of them so

outstanding as to match the extent and the claim to merit of the office.



    If we now add the two forms of monarchy to the four forms of

republican political systems, we can put all six systems together in the

form of a circular flow chart, enabling us to see the entire framework at

a single glance.



[Figure 20.2:  Aristotle's Six Forms of Political Systems]



In his discussion of political revolutions, Aristotle argued that,

although each system can change into virtually any other system, they tend

to "undergo revolution more frequently into their opposite than into a

political system of a neighboring sort" (Politics, pp.1316a-b(179-80)).

In other words, a revolution is more likely to be influenced by the

internal logic of the relation between different political systems than by

the empirical factor of what type of system is in effect in a neighboring

city.



    In Politics, p.1286b(112), Aristotle described more fully how the

progression of political systems, as represented by the arrows in Figure

20.2, typically works itself out in real historical situations:  political

systems normally start out as kingships, pass over into aristocracies or

polities, degenerate into oligarchies, fall into the grips of a tyranny,

and are liberated from oppression by a democracy.  Even though moving

"from an aristocracy" to "a democracy" does "harm to the political system"

(1270b(76)), he regarded democracy as the almost inevitable political

system, inasmuch as it serves as the best protection against tyranny.  Yet

Aristotle's own hope was that this historical fact can be overcome by

reason, with the result that the least extreme of the truly good systems,

polity, can become a reality, even though it had rarely existed in the

past.  This progression can also be mapped onto a 6CR triangle (with a few

extra arrows added) by placing the three "good" systems on the

upward-pointing triangle and the three "bad" systems



[Figure 20.3:  Aristotle's Framework as a 6CR]



on the downward-pointing triangle, as in Figure 20.3.  The lines pointing

upward to polity are dashed in order to represent the difficulty of

reaching this ideal system.



    Aristotle's helpful summary of his framework for political systems in

Book VIII, Chapter 10 of Nicomachean Ethics adds several additional points

worth mentioning in conclusion.  Here kingship is treated as the best

option, for any truly good king will always have the best interests of his

subjects in mind. Since he has absolute power and authority over all the

people, no one will be able to prevent the king from putting his good will

into practice.  Even though an aristocracy consists of the "best" men, it

is not as good as kingship, because it is more likely that a few bad men

will infiltrate the aristocracy and corrupt the intentions of the

otherwise good rulers.  And when all property owners are allowed to

influence the way laws are formed and rights are distributed among the

citizens, such corruption becomes even more likely.



    Aristotle compared the relationship between the citizen and the city

in these three good political systems to three types of family

relationships.  In kingship the king is like a father and the citizen is

like a son.  In aristocracy the ruling class is like a husband and the

other citizens are like a wife.  And in timocracy (or polity) the

relationship between property owners is like that between siblings.  But,

just as family relationships are not always harmonious, each of these

political systems can be perverted, thus giving rise to tyranny,

oligarchy, and democracy, respectively.



    Kingship is the most risky option, because "the worst is that which is

the opposite to the best."  When choosing a political system, we must

therefore keep in mind that when we aim at a particular system, we might

end up with its opposite instead.  This is why, as we have seen, Aristotle

elsewhere defended polity (i.e., timocracy) as the safest option:  even if

it slips into democracy, the negative effect on the average citizen is

kept to a minimum, since democracy is "the least bad" of the three bad

political systems.  In a "majority rules" system the will of the majority

is likely to be influenced by the selfish motives of the many bad people

who live in any society, but to some extent this will be balanced by the

good motives of the virtuous people.



    Our time is now up for this session.  But I will begin the final

lecture in Part Three by assessing some of the rather surprising

conclusions and implications of Aristotle's political system.  We shall

then look at some of the other options for political systems which, for

one reason or another, Aristotle did not consider.







QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT



1. What is power?



2. Is anarchy ("no ruler") a political system?



3. Where does law come from?



4. Is absolute freedom possible?





RECOMMENDED READINGS



1. Aristotle, The Politics, tr. Carnes Lord (Chicago:  Chicago University

Press, 1984), passim, but see especially Book 4, Chapter 2 (=1289a-b).



2. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, tr. J.A.K. Thomson in The Ethics of

Aristotle (Harmondsworth, Middlesex:  Penguin Books, 1953), especially

Book VIII, Chapter 10, pp.1160a-1161a.



3. Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, tr. G. Bull (Harmondsworth, Middlesex:

Penguin Books, 1961).



4. Antoine de Saint-Exupery, The Little Prince, tr. Katherine Woods (New

York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1943).