Aristotle's_Arguments_for_Democracy

Aristotle’s arguments for democracy are based on his concepts of the citizen, the city, and the constitution. Since “a citizen…shares for any period of time in judicial and deliberative office” (Barker 84), it is already clear that the people, politai, of the city, polis, are involved in making laws and in the rule of the city regardless of where they live or whether they are involved in litigation. The form of association in which the inhabitants of a city organize their lives is the constitution, politeia. All three Greek words are linked in meaning to the idea that people rule, demos=people, cracy=rule. Aristotle goes further, though, and like his mentor, Plato, teaches that the aim, indeed “the principle of a constitution is its concept of justice” (Barker 102). However, unlike Plato’s argument in The Republic for an oligarchy ruled by guardian philosopher kings, Aristotle contends that the principle of justice, which is “the promotion of a good quality of life” (Barker 103) fundamentally differentiates democracy from oligarchy. Both the democratic and oligarchic ideas of justice are necessarily faulty in their views of equality because their conceptions are restricted to their own self-defined interests, whereas the true nature of justice is to establish a “proportion between the things produced and those to whom they are distributed” (Barker 103). This is, of course, the famous “Golden Mean” that was so much a part of Greek culture. In terms of justice, this means that “those who have contributed to the end of the city should have privileges in proportion to their contribution to that end” Barker 103). How does this equality work in an oligarchy and democracy' Is it just for a person who has contributed a dollar to share in an enterprise with an oligarch who has contributed a hundred dollars' It is not just but only if, Aristotle says, the acquisition of property and land wealth is the only reason people come together to form a civil community. Since he previously showed that the justice of a city requires an appropriate proportion between goods, services, and customers as it were, democracy is a more equitable form of government. This is what Aristotle calls the goodness of the city, “the good quality of life” (Barker 104), and indeed he regards the stability of the city as the highest good because there are many sites and forms of social life in exchanges and alliances that “have failed to reach the stage of a city” (Barker 105). The nature of how good or how bad this life is should be the concern of those who want a secure government. This is clearly not the main interest of an oligarchy whose members are primarily interested in aggrandizing their wealth and position, which is maintained by alliances rather than the civic interactions of a democracy; and even these alliances are fraught with intrigue, social unrest, and political instability like the Italian city-states during the renaissance of the 16th century. Therefore, while “preventing mutual injustice and easing exchange” (Barker 105) are essential aspects of civil life, it is the association of the homes and families of the citizens that comprise the life of a city devoted to self-sufficiency in the just, proportionate sharing of goods. The key word for “living a happy and truly valuable life” (Barker 106) for Aristotle is “association”, and that is made possible by the constitution which organizes the institutions to that end. “Civic excellence” (Barker 106) does not reside in high, noble birth or landed status, but in the actions that are done for the sake of this association; and in turn, those who contribute more have a greater share in the city. Since there are many diverse social classes in the city, “the good, the wealthy, and well-born, and some general body of citizens” (Barker 115) the question still arises, who should rule' Aristotle finds that whenever a majority takes everything and divides among its members the possessions of a minority, that majority is obviously ruining the city” (Barker 107). Aristotle does not flinch from questioning the poor who, being a majority over the wealthy, might despoil the possessions of the oligarchs among themselves as an act of injustice, and presumably a violent one as indeed occurred in the French Revolution. Aristotle, however, is questioning the whole concept of might as right, plunder and confiscate, by whoever does it; whether it is the upper middle class, “the better sort” (Barker 107) or the tyrant. Within this context, though, Aristotle introduces the concept of “honours” as the civil offices which all citizens are entitled to as members of the community. Any acts of plunder and confiscate are acts of injustice because they deprive citizens of “the honour of holding civic office” (Barker 107), and this is the ruin of the city because it will cease to function as a polis. This is a major framework for Aristotle’s claim to rule for democracy. It is not so much which system is better, but which system of government provides the basis for justice in the city and thereby guarantees its stability. Aristotle says that the people should be sovereign because as a group they possess all of the qualities for judicial and deliberate offices. He asserts that the assembled people should have the power to elect magistrates and evaluate their performance “at the end of their tenure” (Barker 108). If an objection is raised regarding the suitability of the people to assess the conduct of experts, Aristotle points out that as an assembled group “the combination of the qualities…makes them collectively better judges than the experts” (Barker 108). In a sense, Aristotle is making a good argument for bypassing the Electoral College in the U.S. because he is basing his argument on the inherent “share of goodness and practical wisdom” (Barker 108) of each individual, which is the bedrock of democracy. When all these individuals are gathered together, their responsibility to the honor of civic government can surpass that of the magistrates and experts. They can also, if these magistrates are found wanting, turn them out of office as indeed happened in the last U.S. elections. Aristotle concludes this aspect of his argument by emphasizing that although the peoples’ assembly can function well as a sovereign entity, “rightly constituted laws should be the final sovereign” (Barker 108). Indeed since the people are predisposed to act in accordance with this, then the stability of the polis is assured. The problem of over which matters “the freemen, or the general body of citizens…should properly exercise sovereignty” (Barker 109) is resolved because democracy works. Aristotle, however, is still not satisfied. Although “the assembly, the council, and the court consist of many people” (Barker 111) can and should act as a safeguard for unworthy people assuming office, Aristotle wants guarantees, and like the framers of the Constitution he wants it in writing. The means by which the constitution of a city organizes the life of its citizens is through law. Since rightly constituted laws are framed by Aristotle as the final sovereign, it is clear that “laws must be laid down in accordance with constitutions; and…it follows that laws which are in accordance with right constitutions must necessarily be just” (Barker 112). The fact that Aristotle uses the plural may indicate that not only was he familiar with good and bad (perverted) constitutions, but he may even have recognized the need for a constitution to be amended because “owing to the difficulty of framing general rules for all contingencies [they may be unable] to make an exact pronouncement” (Barker 112). Aristotle taught that man is a political animal, but “justice is the political good” (Barker 112) of the polis. There is no life outside the city-state; that is why ostracism was such a severe punishment, even though it was at times limited to a period of years (during which, of course the individual may have died). Since equality is the linch-pin of justice, therefore “the only proper criterion” (Barker 112) for equality is the civic contribution of the people to the common good of the society as a whole; but what is the nature of contribution. Aristotle’s answer to this is that “justice” as we have seen, entails things, and those to whom things are assigned” ( Barker 113). Those individuals who contribute to the function of the society receive equal amounts; those who are inferior receive inferior amounts. The idea is that through proportional “distributive justice” (Barker 112) everyone receives what they need. “What is equally right is what is for the benefit of the whole city and the common good of its citizens” (Barker 117). However, if an outstandingly superior individual arises, there can be no question of including him in this formula because his contribution would outweigh all the others and “the rule of proportion” (Barker 118) that is so important to Aristotle is dangerously out of balance. That is why he proposes either ostracism for such a person; and yet, “for someone of outstanding excellence” (Barker 119), he should be king. There is nothing inherently contradictory, however, in an executive office balanced by peoples’ assemblies. Whether he is called king or president, the same rule of law as the ultimate sovereign applies. That is why Aristotle’s argument is so relevant. Even in Nazi Germany, the rule of law had to be perverted in its constitutionality for the tyrant to rule.