Aristotle

Aristotle, Plato’s student and associate for 20 years, followed his teacher in theorizing constitutional developments that he observed among the Greek city-states. Though he was not an Athenian or even a citizen of any surviving Greek state (his own native city, Stagira, having been destroyed by the Macedonians) he remained a lifelong admirer of the Greek city-states and sought in his Politics to develop a general theory applicable to all Greek city-states.

Aristotle defined the nature of the constitution (politeia) in conjunction with the related concepts of city-state (polis) and citizen (polites) (Pol. 3.1-9). Like Plato he regarded the goal of the city-state and its citizens as more than physical survival. Human beings are ‘‘political animals,’’ animals who come together into city-states to achieve their common good, which in its fullest realization consists in the good life for all its citizens (Pol. 1.1-2; 3.6, 9; 7.1-3, 13).

Aristotle acknowledged that Greek city-states organized themselves in various ways. He defined a constitution as ‘‘the organization of the offices and in particular of the office that is sovereign over all [the others],’’ such as the people (demos) in democracies and the few (oligoi) in oligarchies (3.6.1278b8-13). The few who are sovereign in an oligarchy, he observed, are those with property, whereas the people who are sovereign in a democracy are the poor, the mass of those who have nothing except their freedom (3.8.1279b17-19). Thus Aristotle constructed his constitutional theory around the authority or power exercised by citizens who were differentiated according to economic class (cf. Pol. 4.4; Yack 1993: 209-39). Aristotle formally classified constitutions following the traditional tripartite division into rule by one, by a few, or by many. He then subdivided each of them by modes of rule: (a) right rule in the interests of the city as a whole (the common good); or (b) deviant rule in the interests only of the ruler(s). Aristotle thus recognized six primary constitutions: three correct constitutions, kingship, aristocracy, and the constitution that goes by the name of ‘‘polity’’ (politeia, lit. ‘‘constitution’’), and three deviant constitutions, tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy (Pol. 3.7).

One of Aristotle’s major projects in the Politics was to define and evaluate these constitutions and to explain the changes from one to another, above all the changes between oligarchy and democracy. This was the most common change in Greek cities and one that occurred even in Athens (Pol. 3.9-6.8). His explanations were designed to discover ways to promote stability and improved governance for a city as a whole. His prescription for alleviating civic conflict (stasis) and for stabilizing the typically deviant Greek constitutions was for rulers to govern with a view to the common good, that is, to establish a right form of constitution. This, he contended, would not only improve stability, but also enable the city and its citizens to achieve success or happiness (eudaimonia), the proper end of the city-state. Of the six constitutions, Aristotle regarded polity as the best option for a typical Greek city, most of which were either oligarchies, organized around and for the pursuit of wealth, or democracies, organized around and for the pursuit of liberty (Pol. 4.8-9). His advocacy of polity derived from his confidence in its stability. This confidence, in turn, was predicated on polity’s status as a mixed constitution. In the final analysis, Aristotle, like Plato, regarded a mixed constitution as the best practical choice for Greek city-states.

Aristotle, however, had a different conception from Plato of what constituted a mixed constitution. This became apparent in his critique of Plato’s proposal in the Laws for the second-best constitution {Pol. 2.6). Aristotle found much to criticize in it, including Plato’s conception of the role of constitutional mixture. In viewing Plato’s proposal through the lens of his own classificatory scheme, Aristotle determined that it was a ‘‘mean’’ {mesei) constitution: ‘‘It is neither democracy nor oligarchy, but midway {mese) between them, the constitution called ‘polity’ ’’ {2.6.1265b26-9). Regardless of how Plato construed the constitution of the Laws, Aristotle understood it as equivalent to the constitution to which he had given the name ‘‘polity’’ and as such, a mixture { mixis) of oligarchy and democracy {cf. Pol. 4.8-9).

By construing Plato’s proposed constitution as a polity Aristotle could see its value in gaining acceptance among Greek cities; but he could not accept Plato’s ranking it as the second-best constitution, surpassed only by a monarchy governed by a philosopher-king, such as the one Plato advocated in the Republic. He attacked Plato’s ranking by arguing that there are other constitutions superior to it, such as the Spartan constitution, which many regarded as the best of all because it was mixed from all three basic types. Plato, he pointed out, constructed his allegedly second-best constitution from only two constitutions, and the two worst ones at that, that is, democracy and tyranny {2.6.1265b29-1266a5). Aristotle did not deny that the constitution of the Laws was mixed or that a mixed constitution was superior to an unmixed. His point was that Plato’s mixed constitution contained an inferior mixture. He added that it also suffered from inconsistency in misidentifying the components that constitute the mixture. The constitution proposed in the Laws was actually a combination of oligarchy and democracy, like his own constitution called ‘‘polity.’’ There were no monarchical elements to be found in it, only democratic and oligarchic elements {2.6.1266a5-22).

Aristotle’s treatment of Plato shows that he was not interested in attempting to understand Plato on his own terms or in acknowledging any debts to Plato, but only in refuting Platonic claims that on their surface appeared inconsistent with his own theory. His biased reading reveals his essential difference from Plato. Aristotle’s use of political control mechanisms and practices to define simple constitutions and to diagnose the constituents of the mixed constitutions proposed by others indicates that Aristotle conceived of constitutional mixture as a sharing of governing authority by the various economic subdivisions of the citizen body.

His analysis of the Spartan constitution in Politics 2.9 shows how he thinks this sharing produces constitutional stability. In Aristotle’s analysis the consequence of the Spartan division of governing functions among three governing bodies, the kings, the elders, and the democratically elected ephors, was that each of the social classes from which these rulers came, viz. two royal dynasties, the elder citizens, and the people as a whole, had a significant stake in governing and hence in the survival of the constitution. The principle he drew from this was: ‘‘For a constitution to be secure and stable it is necessary that all the parts desire it to exist and to remain the same as it is’’ {2.9.1270b21-2). He agreed with Plato in crediting the psychological effects of shared governance for the stability of the Spartan constitution; but he did not agree in identifying the causal mechanism behind the stability as the moderation and restraint that results from a fear of being thwarted by another governing agent. Instead, he appealed to the fact that each party had a stake in the government and therefore had an interest in preserving the government that gave it that stake. Thus, though Plato and Aristotle both construed the Spartan constitution as a mixed constitution in which three components shared the rule, Aristotle saw the mixture as a way to involve more segments of the population and increase support for the constitution; he made no use of Plato’s conception of curbs or checks among the organs of government.

In his own theory Aristotle took the same approach, but explicitly grounded in his comprehensive theoretical framework. Throughout his exposition in Politics 3-6 Aristotle used division of governing authority by the constituent economic classes, specifically the rich and the poor, as the defining mark of a mixed constitution. He defined ‘‘polity,’’ the constitution that he rated as the most viable for actual Greek cities, as a ‘‘mixture [mixis] of oligarchy and democracy.’’ There was, he assumed, a continuum of proportions in mixtures of oligarchy and democracy. When a constitution leaned toward democracy, it was commonly called ‘‘polity’’; when it leaned toward oligarchy, it was called ‘‘aristocracy’’ (4.8.1293b31-8). He was keen to stipulate the two relevant populations that constituted the mixture and to identify the ways of mixing structures and practices to implement an equitable sharing of authority because he believed shared governance to be the key to constitutional stability: ‘‘A well-mixed constitution remains stable through itself. . . because no part of the city would even wish to have a different constitution’’ (4.9.1294b36-40; cf. 4.12.1297a6-7). It was the voluntary acceptance of the constitution by both parties that guaranteed its stability. When Aristotle went on to spell out in detail the different types of combination and mixing (synthesis kai mixis) that constituted a polity, he invariably cited practices of political control as evidence of mixture. He defined a well-mixed constitution as one that combines the respective practices so completely that it may legitimately be described either as a democracy or as an oligarchy, as in the case of Sparta (4.9).

In Politics 5 he explored the threats to constitutional stability and the causes of constitutional change. Following in the Platonic tradition he focused on the psychological state of the two principal social classes, the wealthy nobles and the poor masses. He underscored the importance of feelings of exploitation or inadequate respect by the dominant class as the primary motivation for faction and revolution. The best way to assuage these feelings of hostility, Aristotle argued, was to treat the nondominant class justly and to compromise on traditionally hierarchical practices by assigning all members of the city enough honor and political authority so that they would accept the constitution and work for its preservation (5.8-9; cf. 4.8.1296b14-16). In effect, to maintain an oligarchy or democracy he recommended a compromise. That was tantamount to transforming the constitution into a mixed constitution, that is, into a polity with justice for rich and poor alike and governing authority divided fairly between the two classes (Yack 1993: 231-9).

A sharing of power by rich and poor in a polity may not always be enough to ensure stability. The growth of one of the parts or the cumulative effect of slight changes may upset the balance and lead to dissatisfaction and civil strife (5.4; 5.8). For this Aristotle saw a solution in reimagining the constitution as a combination of three, rather than the typical two, economic classes, rich and poor. Wealth is by definition a continuous scale, in which there are not only some very wealthy and some very poor, but people in between, whom Aristotle called the ‘‘middle people’’ (hoi mesoi). Every state, he claimed, consists of three, not two parts. Even polity, a mixture of wealthy oligarchs and poor democrats, has citizens that fall between them in degree of wealth, however few they may be. A state in which this middle part is large in comparison to the very rich and the very poor, Aristotle argued, will be well run and the most harmonious and stable constitution of all. It would be best, he claimed, if the middle part were the largest of the three classes; but even if it is not, as long as it is more numerous than either of the extremes, it can outweigh one extreme by siding with the other and prevent either from becoming dominant and going to excess. Thus a large middle will ensure that a majority of the citizen body are satisfied and will support the preservation of the constitution. Aristotle called this a ‘‘middle constitution’’ (mese politeia). Whether he regarded it as a form of polity or as a distinct type, he hailed it as the best constitution possible in the real world (4.11-12; cf. 5.1.1302a14; Johnson 1990: 143-54). Aristotle admitted that a middle constitution with a significant number of middle people never existed or only rarely; but because of its superior stability he advised both oligarchies and democracies to include the middle class as beneficiaries of their constitutions.

Aristotle consistently recommended a mixed constitution, construed as a coalition of socioeconomic classes through an equitable distribution of governing authority, as the most stable constitution and did so because it satisfied the natural desire of every citizen for a share in governing the city. The few wealthy citizens and large numbers of ordinary citizens each had assigned roles to play, commensurate with the ability of each to contribute to the good of the whole. Those equally qualified for governing would take turns in office, so none would be excluded. Policy decisions would be made on the basis of free public debate, in which Aristotle confidently predicted the right view and the virtuous action would generally prevail (cf. 3.11).

Like Plato Aristotle saw shared governance as the key to stability because of its psychological effect on the citizens, but his understanding of the psychological mechanism behind it was different. Plato saw parts of the state, like parts of the Platonic soul, in potential conflict. The mixed constitution, he believed, mitigated the conflict by using one organ of government to impose restraints on another, so that, ideally at least, the embodiment of reason might lead the whole. Aristotle, in contrast, saw the parts of the state as interconnected and operating (ideally) in harmonious conjunction for the common good (F. Miller 2000: 330-4). It was a concept that was going to have a long and fruitful life in later European political thought (Blythe 1992).

When Aristotle moved beyond constitutional stability to the virtue, well-being, and happiness (eudaimonia) of the state and its citizens, he made no use of the concept of mixture per se as a defining feature of a correct constitution. In contrast to Plato, Aristotle viewed the difference between right and defective constitutions not as a matter of degree (excess or deficiency of some quality), but as a difference in kind. They are two different species of rule, originating in the household: viz. in the rule of the master over slaves (despotic) looking out primarily for the good of the master, and in the rule of the male/father over the free and equal female/mother, where the ruler looks out for the good of the whole family. The latter type of rule he calls ‘‘political,’’ corresponding, as it does, in a city to shared or reciprocal rule, in which free and equal citizens take turns ruling each other and looking out for the good of the city as a whole (F. Miller 2000: 325-34). In other words, Aristotle formally distinguished benevolent from autocratic government by its ends, whether the common good or the good of the rulers. Nevertheless, mixture was not irrelevant to the best constitution available to the typical state. Since the common good comprised the good of both rich and poor citizens, polity, which as a mixture of oligarchy and democracy gave a share of rule to both rich and poor, met the criterion of a constitution in which rule is for the common good. Thus by means of the single mechanism of mixing democracy and oligarchy Aristotle achieved both stability and right rule for the city. There was no need for Plato’s two different kinds of mixing of constitutions.

He did, however, leave the door open for Plato’s psychological explanation of moral degeneration to play a role alongside mixture in the best constitution. In his explanation of why the rare middle constitution with a majority of middle people is the best, he appealed to the psychological phenomenon that Plato had used to explain the stability of the Spartan mixed constitution, the tendency of wealth and power to turn rulers into despots (Leg. 3.687b-691a, 694c-695b). The superfluity of goods with which the few wealthy citizens are endowed leads to an inability and unwillingness to be ruled, Aristotle claimed. In a city with many poor and powerless, who do not know how to rule, the affluent inevitably establish despotic rule, with a high incidence of criminal injustice on the part of both rulers and ruled. A large body of citizens with a moderate degree of wealth, however, will be obedient to reason, willing both to rule and to be ruled in turn and to enter into political associations as friends and equals. They will constitute a virtuous well-run city, free of factions and divisions (4.11.1295a4-1296b21). Aristotle thus ascribed to the middle constitution essentially the same qualities (intelligence, freedom, and friendship) that Plato had ascribed to the constitutions of Athens and Persia at the times when they successfully blended the two mother-constitutions, the monarchic (despotic) and the democratic (free) (Leg. 694a-701d).