Aristotle (384-322 B.C.

) was an ancient Greek

philosopher who is regarded the father of the
science of politics. He was the illustrious disciple
of Plato (427-347 B.C.) and the tutor of Alexander
the Great (356-323-B.C.).
In any case, Aristotle's own thought shares many
concerns with Plato. Both saw instability of the
state as the major problem of the Greek
city-states and held moral anarchy responsible
for this state of affairs. Both held the view that
the state comes into existence for the sake of life
and continues for the sake of good life. Both
accepted the need for proper education of
citizens as well as rulers and wanted to pass the
burden of manual labour to the slaves. However,
Aristotle sought to build his philosophy on
scientific foundation while Plato had largely relied
on speculative method.

Aristotle on State

Aristotle believed that the state, or polis, was the

highest form of community and the best place for
humans to live. He thought that the state's
purpose was to help its citizens live well and fulfill
their potential.

How Aristotle viewed the state

The state is a natural outcome of other forms of

association, such as families and villages.

The state should have a distinct identity, such as

rivers and mountains.

The state's population should be just large

enough to achieve self-sufficiency.

The state should be ruled by one, a few, or the

many.

The state should be governed for the general

good.

The state should provide economic opportunities

to help citizens enhance their well-being

How Aristotle viewed government

Monarchy is government by a single person for

the general good.
Tyranny is government by a single person for
private benefit.
Aristocracy is government by a minority that aims
for the state's best interest.
Oligarchy is government by a minority that
benefits only the ruling minority.
Polity is popular government in the common
interest.
Democracy is anarchic mob rule.

STATE AS A NATURAL INSTITUTION

For Aristotle state is necessary as well as natural

for human beings. He argues that a lonely person
is unable to sustain himself. Man and woman join
together to set up a family or household. The
expansion of family into many branches leads to
the formation of a village community. A
combination of several village communities
results in the formation of city or state. In ancient
Greece, city and state were conterminous.
Aristotle observes that with the formation of the
state, human community becomes
self-dependent. Thus the process of social
organization begins with an attempt to fulfil
ordinary needs of life and culminates in laying the
foundations of good life. State is as natural an
association as a family or village community.
Other associations are imperfect as they provide
for one or the other aspect of good life, but the
state is meant to secure all aspects of good life.

For Aristotle, living in a state is'as natural for a

man as to be a human being. In other words, a
man is like any other animal until he lives in a
state. The urge for leading a good life is the
distinctive characteristic of human being which
necessitates formation of the state. You cannot
think of a human being as different from other
animals without thinking of the state. Thus
Aristotle postulates: State is prior to man.
Historically the state appears after the
appearance of man. But from the point of view of
logic, the idea of state comes before the idea of
man, as the idea of 'full' comes before the idea of
its 'part'. You cannot think of a 'hand' or a 'foot'
without thinking of the body of which it is a part.
If a hand is separated from the body, it becomes
redundant. So a man outside the state loses his
identity as a human being. Politics is an essential
part of human character, That is why Aristotle
postulates: Man is by nature a political animal. He
who does not live in a state or who does not need
a state is either a beast (subhuman) or a god
(superhuman).

Other living beings, such as bees and elephants

may live in groups; so they may be regarded as
'social animals' (or 'gregarious animals' in modern
terminology); but they have no aim in life beyond
mere survival; they have no idea of good life. But
man is always interested in pursuing good life; so
he lives in a state which is the indispensable
instrument of good life. That is why in Aristotle's
view, man is not merely a 'social animal', but he is
by nature a 'political animal'.

Aristotle's notion of politics is different from its

present-day notion in this context also. In the
present age, conflicting demands and pressures
are considered to be the common characteristics
of politics. The state is expected to evolve such
policies and decisions which could be made
acceptable to the conflicting parties, at least for
the time being. Such a notion of politics was alien
to Aristotle's political philosophy.

(Aristotle treated the state as a moral as well as a

natural institution. He upheld organic theory of
the state and maintained that the relation
between individual and the state was similar to
that between an 'organ' and the 'organism', that is
the body. As different organs of the body perform
different functions according to their differential
capacities, so different individuals in society have
different status and function. The division of
labour among different groups of individuals
benefits all of them by making use of their
different faculties of mind and body. This gives
rise to the sense of responsibility, mutual regard
and cooperation and strengthens their moral
character.

FAMILY, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND SLAVERY

Family is the first institution to provide for good

life. Aristotle pays due attention to household
management which included family, property and
slaves. He concedes that family is the cradle of
virtue. Property is an essential ingredient of
household. Ownership of property gives a sense
of security and an urge to increase one's wealth.
It is an instrument of hospitality, generosity,
friendship and affection. So Aristotle defends
private ownership of property and ridicules Plato's
scheme of common ownership of property
among the guardians. Aristotle holds that while
property should be held under private ownership,
its owners should make it available for common
use. He hopes that proper education will
inculcate this type of generosity among citizens.

Extending the analogy of organic theory to the

realm of human relations, Aristotle maintained
that as some organs of the body are superior to
others, so some individuals are superior to
others. He argued that men were superior to
women, freemen were superior to slaves, and
Greeks were superior to barbarians. He likened
the relation between man and woman to that
between master and slave. He held that men
were fit for command and women for obedience.
He rejected Plato's plea for equality between men
and women within the guardian class as it was
not based on experience.

Aristotle argued that woman is weak of will, and

therefore incapable of independence of character
or position; her best place is a quiet home life.
While she is ruled by man in her external relations,
she may reign supreme in domestic affairs. No
attempt should be made to obliterate the natural
difference between man and woman: "The
courage of a man and that of a woman are not,
as Socrates supposed, the same. the courage of
a man is shown in commanding; that of a woman
in obeying... As the poet says, 'Silence is a
woman's glory." Thus woman's role should be
confined to the sphere of family which is a natural
institution; it caters to the good of woman as well
as man.(Aristotle seeks to exclude women from
the domain of citizenship on this ground.
Again, men differ widely in their intellectual
capabilities. The great majority of men are natural
dunces and sluggards; in any system whatever
these men will sink to the bottom. These people
must be ruled in politics and directed in industry,
with their consent if possible, without it if
necessary: "From the hour of their birth some are
marked out for subjection and others for rule."
Those who are proficient in mental work are by
nature intended to be masters or lords; and those
capable of physical work are by nature meant to
be slaves. It is better for all inferiors that they
should be placed under the rule of their superiors.
(Ancient Greek philosophers considered physical
labour always inferior to intellectual work,
Aristotle argued that those capable of intellectual
work were fit to be masters, and those capable of
physical labour were by nature fit to be slaves. He
even refused to recognize the slave as a
full-fledged human being, and compared him to a
'living tool which was a part of the property of his
master. As a poor man kept oxen to do physical
labour, so a rich man kept slaves for the similar
work. Thus a slave was at best a tool or the
counterpart of a domestic animal)

(Aristotle even declared the slave to be incapable

of virtue or moral excellence. He argues that
manual or physical labour blunts one's mind and
renders one incapable for performing political
function which requires high calibre. It is
therefore the prerogative of a freeman who alone
is capable of virtue. Moreover, a freeman needs
'leisure' for the exercise of virtue which is created
by assigning all physical work to the slave. The
slave could get the benefit of virtue only through
serving his master. So slavery was beneficial for
the master as well as the slave. While Aristotle
wanted the slave to be dutiful, he also advised the
master to be kind to his slaves.

In this context, 'leisure' does not mean the escape

from work. It simply means the freedom from
physical labour to enable a person to devote
himself fully to the study. contemplation and
pursuit of art. Those who work to fulfil material
needs of society do not need 'leisure' in this
sense. Hence mechanics, labourers, peasants
and salves are not fit to rule. They are not entitled
to the status of citizens..

Here Aristotle uses the term 'slave' in a wider

sense. Even merchants and financiers are
thought to be slaves in this sense. However,
Aristotle concedes that learning the theory of
finance is not unworthy of philosophy, but to be
engaged in finance or in money-making is
unworthy of a free man. A free man is constantly
devoted to intellectual work the way to
actualization of good life which is an end-in-itself.
On the other hand, anybody who is required to do
a fixed job, and repeat it everytime, is not fit to be
a citizen.

(Aristotle further believed that only the Greeks

had the ability lity to do intellectual work, hence
they were fit to be free men. On the other hand,
barbarians were able to do physical labour only.
Hence they were fit to be slaves. On the whole,
Aristotle stands for supremacy of men over
women, of freemen over slaves, and of Greeks
over barbarians. It is therefore rightly said that
Aristotle was a spokesman of patriarchal society,
institution of slavery and the supremacy of the
Greeks.

Aristotle's justification of slavery was designed

only to defend the interests of the Greeks who
were mainly freemen. His assumption regarding
the differences of capacity of virtue or moral
excellence between different categories of
persons was not based on any scientific evidence
or sound logic. He even recommended different
scales of punishment for master and slave in the
case of a similar offence. He tried to justify this
recommendation on the flimsy ground that the
slave was less sensitive to pain!

In short, Aristotle's defence of patriarchy and

slavery can best be understood only in terms of
his political realism and expediency rather than
on the basis of a sound logic. The Greek
economy during those days was founded on
household organization and its productivity was
largely dependent on slave labour. In any case,
Aristotle's defence of slavery was based on the
false assumption of inherent qualitative
differences between different races. This
argument was widely used in early modern times
by colonial powers in order to justify their
exploitative rule in a large part of the world. They
claimed to spread enlightenment among the
allegedly ignorant people of non-white races.
CONCEPT OF CITIZENSHIP

DEFINITION OF THE CITIZEN

In the Book I of his classic work Politics, Aristotle

dwelled on the importance of households and
village communities and defined the state as an
'association of associations'. But in Book III
thereof he described the state as an 'association
of freemen'. In this sense, constitution of a state
is an attempt at determining the status of its
residents in a specific way. Here Aristotle
conceded that the state is made of individuals It
is therefore necessary to examine the status of
different individuals in the state. We must
likewise identify as to who are citizens of a state,
and who are not so.

(According to Aristotle, all the residents of a state

are not its citizens. In ancient Greek city-states
women, slaves and aliens were not regarded as
citizens. In those days there was no scope of
development of the concept of citizenship in the
sense which developed in England after the
Glorious Revolution (1688) and which reached its
logical conclusion in the concept of welfare state

In short, Aristotle recognized 'citizenship' as the

privilege of the ruling class. In his times, the right
to participate in public decisions was confined to
the citizens. So Aristotle equated citizenship with
effective participation in the exercise of power.
Aristotle regarded this privilege of the ruling class
as its duty and insisted on its performance. He
held that when all members of the ruling class
would fulfil this duty, they will be able to secure
good life for all the members of the political
community (that is the citizens as well as
non-citizens).

The peculiar conditions prevailing in ancient

Greek city-states were responsible for drawing
special attention to the problem of citizenship,
Internally these small states were inflicted by the
conflict between the rich and the poor, externally
they were threatened by the attacks of their
neighbouring states. Under the circumstances.
maintenance of peace and stability in the state
was the chief concern of political philosophers.
Would it be safe to vest all power in the hands of
the few or should it be dispersed among large
numbers? Should they allow the aliens to acquire
citizenship easily? Athenians had the harrowing
experience of the regime of "Thirty Tyrants", and
they had not yet forgotten the experience of a
slack democracy which did not hesitate them
pronouncing a death sentence for Socrates - the
wisest man of Cireece. Pur had proposed to set
up the rule of 'philosopher-kings' to deal with this
situation. But Aristotle felt that this scheme was
far-removed from ground reality. So he focused
on the problem of citizenship in order to solve the
problems of the city-states.

stration

Politics

Aristotle argued that mere residence in a city or a

state cannot be treated as a qualification for
becoming a citizen thereof. For example, slaves
or resident aliens cannot be treated as citizens.
Nobody becomes a citizen of a state by virtue of
being entitled to certain legal rights because such
rights can ensue from a commercial contract or a
treaty. Then the criterion of birth, too, cannot be
accepted as the basis of citizenship because the
question of citizenship of parents, grandparents
and to be decided. It will be better if citizenship is
defined so on will still remain on the basis of
one's function. Accordingly, political rights alone
can be treated as a qualification of a citizen.
These include the right to share in the
administration of justice and the right to share in
political office. Aristotle believed that only those
members of a state can be regarded its citizens
who are entitled to 'take part in deliberative or
judicial office. It is not necessary that each citizen
should be actually holding a political office for the
time being. For example, where people are
chosen as members of a jury by rotation, all those
eligible for election shall be considered as
citizens.

STATUS OF THE CITIZEN

According to Aristotle, the nature of political

authority is different from all other types of
authority. Political authority stands for the
authority used by political office-holders over
other citizens. This authority is used according to
the rules of the prevalent constitution. In other
words, the relation between the ruler and other
citizens in a state is determined by the prevalent
form of government. Thus different patterns of
relations between the ruler and other citizens may
be found under different types of constitutions of
the state. For example, citizens under a despotic
rule would not enjoy the same privileges as those
under a monarchical role.

In spite of conceding these variations in the

nature of political authority under different
constitutions, Aristotle also dwells on the
distinctive features of political authority as such.
In what sense political authority is different from
other types of authority? Aristotle argues that
husband's authority over wife or master's
authority over slave is derived from the law of
nature because nature has made woman inferior
to man, and slave inferior to master. But in the
political sphere, nature has not made any citizen
inferior to the ruler. Then master's authority over
slave is essentially despotic in nature, because
slave's life is entirely at the disposal of his master.
But ruler's authority over citizens cannot be
allowed to follow this pattern.

FUNCTIONS OF THE CITIZEN

Aristotle is now convinced that ruler's authority
over citizens cannot be regarded to be despotic.
He argues that in the eye of law, all citizens are
equal-whether one is rich or poor, whether one is
holding a political office or one is an ordinary
citizen. It would be worthwhile to extend
citizenship to all those entitled to be citizens of a
state, but those enjoying the right to vote should
be adequately rich so that they are not tempted to
grab others' wealth by means of their political
power.

Aristotle sought to make a clear distinction

between a 'good man' and a 'good citizen, It is
important to note that in his classification of
various forms of government, Aristotle drew
distinction between 'normal' and 'perverted forms
of Under 'normal' or ideal form of government,
rulers were devoted to good of the government.
state. Under this form of government, there was
no conflict between the demands of individual
righteousness and the demands of political
righteousness. In other words, in the ideal polis
(i.e. city-state) there was no clash between the
roles of a good man and a good citizen. itizen.
However, under 'perverted form of government,
rulers were devoted to self-interest at the expense
of the state. Under this form of government, the
requirements of good citizenship ntight run
counter to the requirements of individual
righteousness. For example, under aristocracy
which is a normal form of government, a good
citizen would prove to be a good man by obeying
the commands of the state. But under oligarchy
which is a perverted form of government, a good
citizen, obeying the commands of the state
cheerfully, will not be able to uphold the good of
the state, he will not be able to remain a good
man. Thus Aristotle was aware of the dilemma of
a good man living in a bad polis, but he did not
elaborate his obligations in detail. This problem
was relegated to the background for centuries
together until T.H. Green (1836-82), brilliant
English philosopher, sought to tackle it effectively.

Aristotle endeavoured to show that citizenship

did not imply mere subjection to political rule. The
citizen himself should play an active role in
shaping that rule. The function of citizenship can
be properly performed only by those who have the
competence to analyse political problems
thoroughly and who have sufficient 'leisure' at.
their disposal. According to Aristotle, only the
Greeks were endowed with this competence.
There was little scope of evolution of citizenship
in the very cold regions of Persia and the North.
The people in those regions could hardly manage
the means of their survival. So for them, there
was no scope of engaging in politics. On the other
hand, the people of hot regions were very
indolent. They would accept the despotic rule in
order to escape from hard work. So the idea of
citizenship could not flourish in those regions.

Again, a city with a very large population no

longer remains a state in the proper sense of the
term. If a city's population of active citizens
exceeds ten thousand, they fail to evolve personal
acquaintance. Consequently they become unable
to develop friendship among themselves which is
essential for maintaining citizenship. Thus the
Greek city-states of those days alone were fit for
evolving an effective citizenship; no other country
would qualify for its practice. Citizenship was an
exclusive quality of the Greeks; it was an
exclusive prerogative of the 'freemen' among
them. Labourers, peasants and women were not
eligible for citizenship, not to speak of slaves!
CONCEPT OF JUSTICE

In Aristotle's view, justice is concerned with the

regulation of human relations. He identified three
types of justice: (a) Distributive Justice; (b)
Retributive (also called Corrective, Rectificatory or
Remedial) Justice; and (c) Commutative Justice.
The legislator should be concerned with
distributive justice whereas the judge should be
concerned with retributive and commutative
justice. Distributive justice deals with the
allocation of honours and wealth. Its basic
principle is 'treating equals equally and unequals
unequally'. Aristotle preferred to rely on the
prevailing custom and customary law for deciding
as to who were equals or unequals.

Retributive justice deals with imposition of

punishment and payment of damages.

It requires full restoration of any loss involuntarily

sustained in the course of transactions between
individual members of the community. Finally,
commutative justice seeks to determine the
amount of one sort of goods or services to be
rendered in return for another sort in voluntary
transaction of buying and selling, or letting and
hiring. Its guiding principle should be full
equivalence.

SEARCH FOR A STABLE CONSTITUTION

CLASSIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONS

Aristotle sought to evolve empirical method of

studying politics and to combine it with the
comparative method. He was particularly
perturbed by the prevailing instability of
government in his contemporary Greek
city-states. So he sought to develop a model
constitution that would ensure political stability.
He sent his disciples to various places for the
purpose of preparing case histories of their
constitutions. In this process, 158 case histories
of various city-states were prepared which were
examined by Aristotle himself. On this basis he
produced his famous classification of
constitutions. Unfortunately these case histories,
except that of Athens, have been lost. But
Aristotle's observations regarding the various
forms of government, the causes of their
instability and the steps required to overcome this
instability are still accessible to us.

(Aristotle's classification of constitutions focused

on two factors: (a) Whether a state is ruled by
one, the few or many persons; and (b) Whether
the ruler is devoted to interest of the state (the
normal form of constitution) or to his self-interest
(the perverted or deviant form). From this
perspective, the following classification was
derived.

This classification indicates only the predominant

features of different types of rule because none
of them is found in pure form. For example, a
single government may embrace some
democratic features (if all citizens are eligible for
jury service) and some monarchical features (if
the military forces are under the control of one
man). Aristotle observed that none of these
forms of government was stable for want of
proper checks on the power of the ruler.
Monarchy was good under normal conditions.
But in the absence of any effective control over
the absolute power of monarch, it degenerated
into tyranny because 'power and virtue cannot
coexist'. Tyranny was followed by a rebellion by
the chosen few who overthrew it and set up
aristocracy in its place. In the absence of any
effective curbs on their power, aristocracy
degenerated into oligarchy. In due course the
larger numbers rose against it and replaced it by
polity. This again degenerated into democracy
(the rule of the larger numbers seeking
self-interest). This was eventually overthrown by a
single virtuous man who set up monarchy in its
place. This marked the beginning of a new cycle
of change.
CAUSES AND REMEDIES OF REVOLUTION

Aristotle realized that the political instability of the

Greek city-states was the outcome of frequent
revolutions in those states. So he proceeded to
inquire into the causes and remedies of
revolution.

While Plato in his 'Republic' had proposed a

radical solution of the problem of political
instability by postulating the rule of
philosopher-kings and communism of wives and
property for the guardian class, Aristotle took a
conservative stand. He rejected these proposals
as they contradicted the experience of the
hitherto society. He

argued that politics cannot remake human nature;

it should be accepted as it was.

Analysing the causes of revolution, Aristotle

observed that dissatisfaction with the existing
distribution of power and prestige gave rise to
rebellion. Dissatisfaction may be widespread or
limited to a small group. It erupts in violent form.
Hence sedition is the first step to revolution. If
revolt is suppressed, it fails; if it succeeds, it
results in the overthrow of the existing regime. In
this process power passes from one party to
another whether constitution is changed or not.

What is the source of dissatisfaction that leads to

revolution? Aristotle observes that the seed of
revolution grows in the mind of the people. The
sense of injustice is the source of all
dissatisfaction. When some people feel that they
have been deprived of power and honour which
they deserved, they feel dissatisfied and start
organizing themselves to fight for their rights.
Thus signs of conflict appear in society and the
sense of unity disappears.

Un Aristotle's view dissatisfaction chiefly stems

from the desire for power and honour rather than
wealth. However, he does not ignore the impact
of economic inequality altogether. He observes
that faster the division of society into the rich and
the poor, greater the chances of revolution. The
poor would never tolerate the luxurious ways of
living of the rich. However, if a large and strong
middle class exists to maintain balance between
the two, the probability of revolution would be
minimized.,

The first and foremost remedy of revolution lies in

preventing dissatisfaction in any section of the
community. If a constitution is founded on
consent of all the citizens and it is enforced
impartially, it would prevent the growth of 'sense
of injustice'. If consent of all the citizens cannot
be obtained, it should be based on the consent of
the large majority but the minorities should not be
cheated. No individual or class should be allowed
to become too powerful, and political office
should not be allowed to become a source of
personal gain..
Secondly, political stability can be secured by
educating the people in accordance with the spirit
of the constitution. State sponsored educational
system can induce the people to make their
property available for the common use. This
would give rise to mutual understanding, goodwill
and cooperation. It will make the people
law-abiding. Younger generation can be taught
discipline and respect for law so that all their acts
tend to raise the dignity of the state.

Finally, the statesmen should be sensitive even to

the minor changes. No constitution should be
allowed to take an extreme form. Here Aristotle
invokes his ethical principle of 'the golden mean'.
Accordingly, all extremes should be avoided and
a middle path should be adopted between
mutually opposite properties. Thus a middle
course between aristocracy and democracy will
prevent the feeling of injustice among the rich
and the poor. Aristotle's concept of the 'mixed
constitution' is precisely based on this principle.

CONCEPT OF THE MIXED CONSTITUTION

in social, der in which verthrows he tion of on, S

strength progress modern tariat to in order

Since no form of government was found to be

stable under the existing conditions, Aristotle
sought to consider whether a judicious mixture of
any two forms was likely to prove stable. This
idea was consistent with his doctrine of 'the
golden mean' which held that virtue or excellence
lies in the middle of the two extremes which
would otherwise turn out to be vices. Earlier, Plato
(427-347 B.C.), in his Laws, had observed that a
combination of monarchy and democracy could
provide for a stable political system. However,
Aristotle drew his conclusions from his own style
of logic independently. He observed that since
you cannot find perfect men on earth, as Plato
had imagined, it was imperative that the state
should be placed under the rule of laws. In that
case, rulers would be obliged to enforce the laws
which had existed since time immemorial, and
which had stood the test of time. As an adherent
of conservatism, Aristotle argued that it was
unwise to change the existing laws in the hope of
bringing about a better political order. He warned:
"Characters are not so easily changed as laws."
He firmly asserted: "Political science does not
make men, but must take them as they come
from nature." Aristotle's notion of the rule of law
may be regarded as a precursor to the modern
concept of rule of law.

Now each form of government was ruled by its

own law. We must examine its merits and
demerits before considering its claim for mixing it
with any other form in order to prepare a
judicious mixture of two forms that would serve
our purpose. At the outset, Aristotle observed that
monarchy involved the exercise of absolute
power, hence it was more prone to be corrupted.
Aristocracy was preferable because it allowed for
some dispersal of power. But in the absence of
effective control on its power, this too was
corruptible. Let us consider whether this tendency
can be prevented by combining it with
democracy.

(Aristotle identified democracy as 'the rule of the

many', that is the more numerous members of the
community, particularly the poor ones. In his
classification of governments into normal and
perverted forms, Aristotle placed democracy
among perverted forms since it referred to the
rule of mediocres seeking to serve their selfish
interests rather than the interest of the state.
Here Aristotle makes very interesting
observations about the merits and demerits of
democracy: This rule by the poor has some
advantages. The people, though individually they
may be worse judges than those who have
special knowledge, are collectively as good.
Moreover, there are some artists whose works
are best judged not by themselves alone but by
those who do not possess the art; for example,
the user or master of a house will be better judge
of it than the builder... and the guest will be a
better judge of a feast than the cook.

Again, the involvement of larger numbers in the

process of governance has its own advantages.
As Aristotle observes:

(The many are more incorruptible than the few;

they are like the greater quantity of water which is
less easily spoiled than a little

Moreover, the larger number are less likely to be

swayed by anger or passion. Hence their
judgement is likely to prove more sound than that
of one or the few persons.
But the demerits of democracy were no less
striking. Aristotle argued that democracy is based
on a false assumption of equality. It arises out of
the notion that those who are equal in one
respect (such as in respect of law) are equal in all
respects; those who are equally free, claim to be
absolutely equal. The upshot is that ability is
sacrificed to numbers, while numbers are
manipulated by trickery. Because the people are
so easily misled, and so fickle in their views, the
ballot should be limited to the intelligent.
Proceeding on this line of argument, Aristotle
comes to the conclusion that a judicious mixture
of aristocracy and democracy, described as the
mixed constitution, would prove to be the best
form of government.)

In a nutshell, under the mixed constitution

authority to rule will be confined to the rich,
educated, cultured and competent persons. In
this sense, it will retain the prominent feature of
aristocracy. But the ruling class will not be
allowed to exercise absolute powers, because its
decisions will be subject to approval of the
ordinary citizens. In this sense, it will adopt an
important feature of democracy. So it will
represent 'the golden mean' between aristocracy
and democracy.

CONCLUSION

e or the fo argued the notion the all-respect at

ability the peop ited to th lusion the nstitution

As a champion of the rule of law, Aristotle was

more concerned with political stability than
progress. He sought to prevent the causes of
revolution by stressing the virtues of the
prevailing inequalities. His belief in differential
levels of moral excellence not only between
master and slave (the racial factor) but also
between man and woman (the gender factor)
was not based on sound logic; it cannot be
accepted in the modern times.

However, his idea of the mixed constitution can

be considered worth adopting in the modern age,
with necessary modifications. For our purpose,
aristocracy as a component of the mixed
constitution should be redefined as a group of
those with high character and competence rather
than the rich and the high-born; and democracy
should be redefined as the provision of equal
political rights of all citizens without
discrimination (e.g. between freemen and slaves
which was conceded by Aristotle). The people
should not only approve the policies proposed by
the rulers but should choose the rulers
themselves. The rulers would be chosen from the
general body of the people on the basis of
competence and high character. This would
mean the adoption of the existing model of liberal
democracy with the proviso that duly qualified
and tested persons should be eligible to hold
political office.
Aristotle is right when he says that the ordinary
people should have the right to approve public
policy as 'the wearer knows where the shoe
pinches'. But the responsibility of its
implementation should rest with the specialists
who have given substantial proof of their
competence and character.

Although Aristotle deprecated democracy in its

raw form, yet his definition of democracy as 'the
rule of the poor' cannot be set aside as totally
irrelevant in modern times. C.B. Macpherson
(1911-87), contemporary Western political
philosopher, has pleaded for the revival of the
classical concept of democracy (which roughly
corresponds to Aristotle's view). Macpherson
(Democratic Theory: Essays_in Retrieval; 1973)
argued that the truly classical concept of
democracy saw democracy as the cry of the
oppressed, their claim for recognition as equally
human beings; a means by which, or a society in
which all men could enjoy and develop their
human capacities.

In a nutshell, Aristotle's definition of democracy

may be recast as 'the empowerment of the poor'
in order to convert it into 'substantive democracy'.