Constitutional government is a term that we hear often in political discussions, but what does it really mean?
Aristotle, a philosopher from ancient Greece, had a lot to say about this topic. He believed that constitutional government was one of the best forms of government, as it combined elements of oligarchy and democracy to find a compromise between the demands of both the rich and the poor.
In this article, we will explore Aristotle’s views on constitutional government and how he classified different types of constitutions as either “right” or “wrong.”
Join us as we delve into the world of ancient Greek politics and discover what Aristotle had to say about the best way to govern a society.
How Does Aristotle Describe Constitutional Government
Aristotle used the term “constitution” to describe a complex entity that could be translated as “constitutional government” or “polity.” He believed that constitutional government was one of the best forms of government, as it allowed the masses to be granted citizenship and govern with everyone’s interest in mind.
Aristotle identified six different types of constitutions, which he classified as either “right” or “wrong.” According to Aristotle, “right” constitutions served the common interests of all citizens, while “wrong” constitutions served only the selfish interests of a certain person or group.
Aristotle believed that kingship was a “right” constitution, as it allowed a single man to rule through heredity or election. However, he argued that kings should not possess absolute power and should be limited by the law. When a king uses his power to benefit only himself and not the common interest, he becomes a tyrant.
Aristocracy was another “right” constitution according to Aristotle. Aristocracies were societies governed by a small group of men chosen because they were considered the “best.” However, when an aristocracy ruled for the benefit of the rich, it became an oligarchy, which was one of Aristotle’s “wrong” constitutions.
Aristotle was not a fan of democracy and included it as one of his “wrong” constitutions. He believed that democracy meant that every free-born man had the right and duty to help rule the city. However, Aristotle saw danger in this form of government as the poor majority could easily outvote the wealthy and confiscate their property. He also feared the rise of demagogues in a democracy who gained influence by appealing to the emotions of the people.
Defining Constitutional Government
Constitutional government, as Aristotle described it, is a form of government where the masses are granted citizenship and govern with everyone’s interest in mind. It combines elements of oligarchy and democracy, finding a compromise between the demands of both the rich and the poor. In this system, the constitution serves as a fundamental document that outlines the rules and principles of the government. It also limits the power of those in charge and ensures that all citizens are equal before the law.
Aristotle believed that constitutional government was one of the best forms of government, as it allowed for the common interests of all citizens to be served. He argued that constitutional government was superior to other forms of government because it balanced the interests of different classes within society. In this way, constitutional government could prevent one group from dominating over others and ensure that all members of society had a say in how they were governed.
The Balance Of Power In Constitutional Government
In a constitutional government, the power is balanced between the citizens who govern and those who are being governed. Aristotle believed that the ideal constitutional government was one where all citizens participated in the governance of the city-state. This meant that every citizen had a voice in decision-making and shared in the benefits of citizenship.
Aristotle believed that the balance of power in a constitutional government was achieved through a system of checks and balances. The fighting-men, or those who possessed arms, had the supreme power in a constitutional government. However, they were not the only ones who governed. The citizens as a whole had a say in how the city-state was run, and this ensured that no one group held too much power.
Aristotle also believed that constitutional government was more stable than other forms of government because it allowed for peaceful transitions of power. In a monarchy or oligarchy, power was often passed down through heredity or wealth, which could lead to instability if an incompetent ruler took over. In a constitutional government, however, power was shared among many citizens, making it less likely for any one person or group to abuse their power.
Classification Of Constitutions As Right Or Wrong
Aristotle classified constitutions into two broad categories: “right” or ideal constitutions and “wrong” or perverted forms of government. The ideal or right constitutions aimed at the common interest or good of all citizens, while the perverted or wrong constitutions gave priority to private interests and aimed to hold power continuously.
Aristotle further subdivided each category of constitution into three forms. The normal or right or ideal form of government had three subdivisions: kingship, aristocracy, and polity. Kingship was when a single man governed the state and looked to the common interest of society. Aristocracy was when a few persons ran the government with the same objective. Polity was when people at large governed the state with a common interest in mind.
However, when the administration was conducted for the sole benefit of the ruler, the government became perverted. The corresponding forms were one-man rule (tyranny), rule of few (oligarchy), and rule of many (democracy). The basis of classification was not simply the common good criterion but also the number of people in power.
Aristotle believed that constitutional government was one of the best forms of government as it allowed for the masses to be granted citizenship and govern with everyone’s interest in mind. He argued that a man should not desire to hold power with an eye to his personal gain, but rather the principle of political rule should be the maximization of the benefit of the ruled – the people.
Examples Of Constitutional Government In Ancient Greece
In ancient Greece, constitutional government took on a different meaning than it does today. Aristotle believed that a constitution was the way of life of a citizen-body and consisted of all the customs, rules, and laws about how a city-state should be governed. These customs, rules, and laws were sometimes written but often not. Still, everyone understood what they were.
Most of the city-states in Greece were small, only 100 square miles or less with populations rarely exceeding 10,000. Citizenship in the city-states was a status granted only to certain groups, depending on the form of government. In some, only the rich were full citizens. In others, all free-born men enjoyed full citizenship. Children, women, and slaves were not considered citizens.
Aristotle believed that constitutional government was one of the best forms of government as it allowed for the masses to be granted citizenship and govern with everyone’s interest in mind. He saw examples of constitutional government in ancient Greece in the form of aristocracies and kingships. In Athens, for example, there was a constitutional government that was run by elected officials who represented the interests of the people.
However, Aristotle also saw examples of “wrong” constitutions in ancient Greece. Oligarchies were societies governed by a small group of wealthy men who ruled in their own interests. Tyranny was another form of “wrong” constitution where a single ruler had absolute power and ruled only for their own benefit.
Relevance Of Aristotle’s Ideas In Modern Politics
Despite being written over 2,000 years ago, Aristotle’s ideas on constitutional government remain relevant in modern politics. In particular, his emphasis on the importance of governing for the common interest rather than selfish interests is still highly relevant today. This is especially true in democracies, where politicians may be tempted to make decisions that benefit their own interests or the interests of their supporters rather than the broader population.
Aristotle’s criticisms of democracy are also worth considering in today’s political climate. He argued that democracies could easily become tyrannical if the majority used their power to oppress minority groups or confiscate their property. This is a concern that is still relevant today, as we see populist movements gaining traction around the world and politicians making promises that may not be in the best interests of all citizens.
Furthermore, Aristotle’s emphasis on the rule of law is still highly relevant in modern politics. He believed that a functioning state required everything to be governed by laws, and that without this there was nothing to stop those who held the most power from doing what they wanted and tyrannizing everyone else. This is an important reminder for modern democracies that may be tempted to prioritize popular opinion over the rule of law.
Overall, while some of Aristotle’s ideas may seem outdated or even objectionable today, his emphasis on governing for the common interest and the importance of the rule of law remain highly relevant in modern politics. By considering these ideas, we can work towards creating more just and equitable societies that truly serve the needs of all citizens.
