Democracy According to Aristotle
The text quoted below is taken from “The Complete Works of Aristotle, Politics Book IV, 4, Princeton University Press 1984”. I quote it without much comment because it speaks for itself.
A few words about the context of the quote
Aristotle distinguishes between three forms of government, which in their ideal form are characterized by the rulers having the welfare of the state and its citizens in mind:
- monarchy: the rule of one
- aristocracy: the rule of a few (the “nobles”)
- constitutional government: the rule of many
In his opinion, not all people are suited to living under a constitution, but of course the Greeks are (barbarians, i.e. many of other peoples, are not). However, this biased worldview is a different topic. I will not go into it further here.
Get Jürgen Schwab’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Aristotle recognizes that none of these ideal forms exist in reality. He calls the real forms the “perverted” versions:
- the perverted version of monarchy is tyranny
- the perverted form of aristocracy is oligarchy
- the perverted form of constitution is democracy.
It may be somewhat irritating for us when he says that he (as a citizen of the Athenian democracy) and we live in a perverted form of government. But he is pragmatic and recognizes that, since we are not all ideal human beings, we do not live in an ideal form of government. For him, democracy is the best of the bad forms of government, at least under the conditions of Hellenic Greece.
It is enlightening to learn how he describes democracies in Politics, IV,4:
Of forms of democracy first comes that which is said to be based strictly on
equality. In such a democracy the law says that it is just for the poor to have no more advantage than the rich; and that neither should be masters, but both equal. For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost. And since the people are the majority, and the opinion of the majority is decisive, such a government must necessarily be a democracy. Here then is one sort of democracy. There is another, in which the magistrates are elected according to a certain property qualification, but a low one; he who has the required amount of property has a share in the government, but he who loses his property loses his rights. Another kind is that in which all the citizens who are under no disqualification share in the government, but still the law is supreme. In another, everybody, if he be only a citizen, is admitted to the government, but the law is supreme as before. A fifth form of democracy, in other respects the same, is that in which not the law, but the multitude, have the supreme power, and supersede the law by their decrees. This is a state of affairs brought about by the demagogues. For in democracies which are subject to the law the best citizens hold the first place, and there are no demagogues; but where the laws are not supreme, there demagogues spring up. For the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one; and the many have the power in their hand, not as individuals, but collectively. […] At all events this sort of democracy, which is now a monarchy, and no longer under the control of law, seeks to exercise monarchical sway, and grows into a despot; the flatterer is held in honour; this sort of democracy is to other democracies what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy. The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens. The decrees of the one correspond to the edicts of the tyrant; and the demagogue is to the one what the flatterer is to the other. Both have great power — the flatterer with the tyrant, the demagogue with democracies of the kind which we are describing. The demagogues make the decrees of the people override the laws, by referring all things to the popular assembly. And therefore they grow great, because the people have all things in their hands, and they hold in their hands the votes of the people, who obey them. Further, those who have any complaint to bring against the magistrates say, let the people be judges’; the people are happy to accept the invitation; and so the authority of every office is undermined. Such a democracy is fairly open to the objection that it is not a constitution at all; for where the laws have no authority, there is no constitution. The law ought to be supreme over all, and the magistracies
should judge of particulars, and only this should be considered a constitution. So
that if democracy be a real form of government, the sort of system in which all
things are regulated by decrees is clearly not even a democracy in the true sense of
the word, for decrees relate only to particulars.
These then are the different kinds of democracy.
Thank you for reading. Enjoy your day and keep a close eye on those who rule by decree.
