Aristotle also had a high view of the state, as is clear from the opening lines of his Politics. The state is, in fact, the most encompassing of human institutions and strives for the highest good for the human being, whom Aristotle called not only a ”rational animal” but also a ”political animal.”
'Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.’
Aristotle rejected the communistic and bizarre features of Plato’s utopian state, as well as his intellectual elitism. Even though Aristotle himself believed, in his own way, in the rule of the best (not just anybody can occupy the highest offices), and even though he rejected extreme democracy (mob rule, again), he did believe, more commonsensically than Plato, that an adequate form of government must accommodate the rank and file of the citizenry with its collective experience and good sense, to say nothing of its greater stake in the political enterprise.
"The principle that the multitude ought to be supreme rather than the few best is one that is maintained, and, though not free from difficulty, yet seems to contain an element of truth. For the many, of whom each individual is but an ordinary person, when they meet together may very likely be better than the few good, if regarded not individually but collectively, just as a feast to which many contribute is better than a dinner provided out of a single purse. For each individual among the many has a share of virtue and prudence, and when they meet together, they become in a manner one man, who has many feet, and hands, and sense; that is a figure of their mind and disposition. Hence the many are better judges than a single man of music and poetry; for some understand one part, and some another, and among them they understand the whole. There is a similar combination of qualities in good men, who differ from any individual of the many, as the beautiful are said to differ from those who are not beautiful, and works of art from realities, because in them the scattered elements are combined, although, if taken separately, the eye of one person or some other feature in another person would be fairer than in the picture.
Whether this principle can apply to every democracy, and to all bodies of men, is not clear. Or rather, by heaven, in some cases it is impossible of application; for the argument would equally hold about brutes; and wherein, it will be asked, do some men differ from brutes? But there may be bodies of men about whom our statement is nevertheless true. And if so, the difficulty which has been already raised, and also another which is akin to it – viz. what power should be assigned to the mass of freemen and citizens, who are not rich and have no personal merit – are both solved. There is still a danger in allowing them to share the great offices of state, for their folly will lead them into error, and their dishonesty into crime. But there is a danger also in not letting them share, for a state in which many poor men are excluded from office will necessarily be full of enemies. The only way of escape is to assign to them some deliberative and judicial functions. " - Aristotle, Politics
One of Aristotle’s most important contributions was his insistence on natural law as the foundation of our social-political structures and institutions. Already in his Ethics Aristotle distinguished between conventional law, or law that is established by general agreement, and natural law, which is derived directly from the natural order of the world and from built-in tendencies of human nature. And here, too, is an example of the close connection between the question of reality and the question of value. Aristotle’s idea of natural law is part and parcel of his metaphysical view of objective and fixed essences which define the rationality and General and universal rules of conduct, both personal and social, derive rationally from natural orderedness, or lawfulness, of things. As with all other fundamental principles, the fundamental principles of our social and political life are discoverable in the very nature of things. ”Man is a political animal” is as much a statement about actual human nature as is ”man is a rational animal.” The basic principles of social existence and institutions are not, therefore, ”up for grabs”; rather, they are up for rational discovery, expression, and application.
From: Questions That Matter
Miller, L (ed.), 1996
After discussing the several different kinds of democracy and oligarchy, in chapters 8 and 9 Aristotle discusses the kind of polity that he calls "polity". He generally defines this as the form of government in which all the citizens take turns to rule, but now he defines it in terms of the idea just introduced, that rule is a complex of activities that can be allocated to different social categories. Polity is the form of government in which different organs of government are controlled by different sections of the population, in such a way that both rich and poor have a share of power. Perhaps it is because power is shared by all categories that it can be said that all take turns to rule.
Polity is "a fusion of oligarchy and democracy" [1293 b34], in an attempt to "unite the freedom of the poor and the wealth of the rich" [1294 a17]. The fusion or mixture is made by including in the constitution some features generally associated with democracy, such as an assembly open to all citizens, with other features generally associated with oligarchy, such as election to high office (wealth is an advantage in electoral contests).
The mixture can be more democratic or more oligarchical; polities with more oligarchical features are sometimes called "aristocracies", because they favour wealth, and good family and education tend to go with wealth [1293 b36, 1294 a19-25].
Read IV.9.
Note that election is an oligarchical practice; democracies choose office bearers by lot, on the assumption that all are competent enough.
Read IV.11, IV.12
So a "polity", a fusion of democracy and oligarchy, requires a balance of social classes, of rich and poor; a strong middle class holds the balance. (For the influence of these ideas on J.S. Mill and other liberal writers of the 19th century, see “Liberal Democracy”, “Influence of Aristotle's Polity” .)
From: http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y6704.html
Questions
1. Does Aristotle believe in the modern concept of democracy? What does he believe in politically?
2. What is natural law?
[Index]