Aristotle draws a relation between organ and organism. Each organ of a living being performs a specific function; each individual performs different responsibilities in society. The body consists of different organs performing varied functions, and the body ensures harmony in its functioning. Similarly, the state ensures the communion of various individuals, where the division of labour ensures cooperation and harmony in society. Aristotle and his classification of governments and constitutions are as
The father of the science of politics owes the title to his name because he employed empirical inquiry as to his method. Aristotle was troubled by the instability that existed in Greek city-states' governments. He studied over 158 case histories of various city-states by sending his students to prepare case studies of various constitutions. He analysed almost 160 case histories. To be precise, it is believed that he analysed 158 case histories. The case history of Athens is an important source to understand his classification of the constitutions. One can understand this fact based on two factors:
The number of individuals ruling the state: whether it is one person ruling the state, a few individuals or if it is a rule of many. The intent of the ruler or rulers: whether the ruler is ruling for his state's interest (known as a normal form of government), or whether the ruler is looking after his self-interest (known as a perverted form of government).
Aristotle’s Classification of Government
Public Interest Selfish Interest
The One Monarchy Tyranny
The Few Aristocracy Oligarchy
The Many Constitutional Democracy. If it is the rule of ONE, then it would be MONARCHY or a Kingship in an ideal form of government, or it would be despotism or TYRANNY in a perverted form. If the rule is by FEW, it would be ARISTOCRACY in an ideal form of government or OLIGARCHY in a perverted form. If the rule is by MANY, it would be POLITY or a constitutional government as the ideal form of government, and interestingly, DEMOCRACY in a perverted form. According to Aristotle, without any adequate checks on a ruler's power, no form of government would be stable. He believes that power and virtue cannot coexist. He has provided the cycle of change of governments over time. Kingship, a normal form of government, turns to tyranny when there is an absence of control over the monarch's power. Tyranny leads to a rebellion or a revolution by a few individuals who establish an aristocracy. Aristocracy can deteriorate and turn into an oligarchy, the perverted form. With time, a greater many rebels against oligarchy and supersede it with polity. Polity further decays in democracy when the many rulers begin to seek their self-interest. In the end, a single individual who seems virtuous establishes a monarchy, and the progression of ideal form and perverted form continues in a circular motion.
Monarchy > Tyranny > Aristocracy > Oligarchy > Polity > Democracy >
normal perverted normal perverted normal perverted. Aristotle gave the concept of a mixed constitution as a solution to prevent instability and establish a lasting form of government in the Greek city-state. He employed his idea of the "Golden Mean" to create stability. In his book "Ethics", he explains the Golden Mean as a middle path, which means that virtue lies between two extremes. Anything on an extreme end becomes a vice, and each virtue lies in the middle of the two extremes. For instance, courage is a virtue that lies between the two extremes of timidity and negligence. His solution to bring a stable form of government is the combination of rule by few and rule by many. He discarded Monarchy because it would be corrupt from absolute power. Aristocracy would suit because few would make the rules. This would comprise the chosen minority who are educated and rich. However, in case of no checks on aristocracy, it would deteriorate. To prevent that, Aristotle suggests that the decisions made by the aristocrac.
About the Creator
Syed Ammar
Social Critic, learning to get rid of so-called social values, Columnist, having eagle eye on South Asian matters. Intellecting the things differently.
Keep reading
More stories from Syed Ammar and writers in History and other communities.
Lahore Resolution 1940
With the introduction of political reforms in India by the British, the Muslims realized that they would become a permanent minority in a democratic system and it would never be possible for them to protect their fundamental rights. The attitude of Congress leadership during 1920’s further endorsed what the Muslim leadership had realized. After the failure of Khilafat / Non-cooperation Movement, the Indian politics revolved around the process of introducing new political reforms for the upcoming Act. Simon Commission and Nehru Report were not welcomed by both the opponents. The first practical step which presented the change of attitude in the Muslim League leadership was a four days conference of the Sind Provincial Muslim League, held at Karachi from October 8 to 11, 1938. Jinnah presided over the conference. In his address, Jinnah very boldly said that there must be a separate state which would represent the Muslims. 27thAnnual session of the Muslim League, in which the party was all set to change its goal, was originally scheduled for December 28-30, 1939.When Lahore was selected as the venue and Sikandar Hayat and the Punjab chapter of the party was assigned the task to organize the meeting, they requested for a couple of extra months to make good arrangements and to help the event become a success. Date was finalized on the recommendation of Liaquat Ali Khan, who suggested it to be held during Easter Holidays. Jinnah, alongside, Fatima Jinnah, Liaquat, Nawab Ismail, Khan, Nawab Sadiq Ali Khan, Begum Mohammad Ali Johar etc. arrived in Lahore by a special train, decorated by Muslim League flags, at 9:45 hrs. on March 21, 1940. Though the main plan of reception was cancelled due to the Khaksar tragedy, yet a huge number of people including League leaders, members of thePunjab assembly and representatives of different organizations had assembled at Lahore railway station to greet their leader. On his arrival Jinnah told the print media that the All India Muslim League will make historic decision in the upcoming session. After a gape of fifteen months from the 26th annual session of the party, that was held at Patna, a huge pandal was set up at Minto Park Lahore on March 22, 1940. Though the function was scheduled for 14:30 hrs., Muslim League workers and general masses had started coming to the venue ever since morning. Though there were tickets 38 for the entrance in the pandal, yet the arena, with the capacity of around sixty thousand, was jam packed hours before the start of the session. Tens of thousands of people were forced to listen to the proceedings through loud-speakers installed outside, while standing directly under the sun. According to a rough estimate around 100,000 masses attended the public meeting. 39Moreover, the most significant feature of the session was the appearance of a huge number of Muslim women in a public meeting, something which was unheard off till that time. Archway leading to the entrance of the pandal was decorated by theMuslim League flags. Muslim League National Guards, who had the responsibility to make necessary arrangements, particularly the control of the huge crowd, were also wearing green cloths that matched with the color of the party’s flag. The session started with the recitation from the Holy Quran. Then a couple of selected poems including one by Mian Bashir Ahmad, ‘Millat ka pasban hai Mohammad Ali Jinnah’ were recited. He was zealously welcomed by the spectators, when he reached the dais. He started his speech in Urdu but soon he switched to English by saying that the ‘world is watching us, so let me have your permission to have my say in English. The other reason for switching to English was perhaps he was not fluent in speaking Urdu and in order to express his ideas, that too in an extempore speech which lasted for about hundred minutes, he was to Jinnah and the Lahore Resolution speak in a language in which he could express himself in the best possible way. However, the most interesting part is that though over whelming majority of the audience could not understand English, yet they not only listened to his long speech but that too with enthusiasm. His address was frequently sprinkled by a roaring applause. According to The Times of India, ‘Such was the dominance of the personality that, despite the improbability of more than a fraction of his audience understanding English, he held his hearers and played with palpable effect on their emotions. Jinnah also discussed about the austerities conducted by Congress Ministries in different provinces. He talked about the ill treatment and oppression of Muslims in all the Congress governed provinces and also in the Indian States like Jaipur, Bhavnagar and Rajkot. He specially threw light on the negative impact of Vidya Mandir Scheme in Nagpur and Wardha Scheme all over India. He said,‘I never dreamt that they would ever come down so low as that’. He claimed that several attempts were made to remind the British Governors and Governor-General about ‘their duties’ but without any positive response. He considered that the Muslims were caught ‘between the devil and the deep sea’. Yet, he was sure that neither the devil nor the deep sea would ‘get away with it’. He asserted that Muslims have ‘learnt many lessons’ from these experiences and had become more ‘apprehensive and can trust nobody. Next Jinnah talked about the Hindu-Muslim situation in India. He pointed out that several schemes had been sent by various well informed constitutionalists and others’ and the League had appointed a subcommittee to examine the details of the schemes that have come in so far. He held that it had always been taken for granted that Muslims were a minority .He stressed that Muslims were ‘a nation by any definition’. He added that even according to the British map of India, the Muslims occupy large parts of this country where they are in a majority – such as Bengal, Punjab, N.W.F.P, Sind and Baluchistan’. He quoted the letter written by Lala Lajpat Rai in 1924 to C.R. Das in which he clearly mentioned that the Hindus and the Muslims were two separate and distinct nations’ which could ‘never be merged into a single nation’. He questioned that when Lala Lajpat Rai that it was ‘not possible to rule this country on democratic lines’ it was all right, but when he had the ‘temerity to speak the same truth’why were there unstopped attacks of criticism on him? He supposed that the remedy for the Congress was to keep the Muslims in the minority and under the majority rule’ while the British Government, their parliament and nation ‘nurtured with settled notions about India’s future, based on the developments in their own country. A controversy related to Lahore Resolution is that if the resolution demanded for one or more states? It was the word ‘states’ and not ‘state’ which was used in the Resolution. However, a good look at the developments that followed, one could realize that either the word ‘states’ was included as a mistake or had a different meaning in the minds of the authors of the resolution. The dynamic leadership of Jinnah and the commitment and devotion of the followers made it possible for them to achieve an independent state within seven years of their struggle, and that too when the odds were against them.
By Syed Ammar3 years ago in History
The Titanic Mystery: Secrets Beneath the Frozen Sea
On the night of April 14, 1912, the RMS Titanic sailed calmly through the dark waters of the North Atlantic, carrying more than 2,200 souls and the dreams of a modern world that believed it had conquered nature. Labeled “unsinkable,” the Titanic was the pride of human engineering. Yet before dawn broke, the great ship lay shattered beneath miles of icy ocean. More than a century later, the Titanic remains not just a tragedy—but a mystery filled with unanswered questions.
By The best writer 4 days ago in History
3 True Stories That Sound Like Urban Legends but Aren’t
Urban legends usually follow a familiar pattern. A friend of a friend hears something unbelievable, the details get hazy, and the story ends with a warning about human stupidity or bad luck. The unspoken rule is simple: if it sounds too strange to be true, it probably is.
By Enoch Saginia day ago in History
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.