Defective Regime Under Aristotle? Aristotle Was Perhaps

¶ … defective regime under Aristotle? Aristotle was perhaps the first political philosopher to allow that all regimes are not the same to all people. Indeed, political regimes are more subjective in their quality, often, then objective. But, after permitting these deviations, Aristotle was quite adamant about the better regimes and the type of people who populate them. Good men are the same everywhere, Aristotle argues, but all good men may not be considered good citizens in all regimes.

Strauss, in his "What is Political Philosophy?" gives the example: "a good citizen in Hitler's Germany would not be a good citizen elsewhere." Aristotle writes, quite clearly, "If, then, there are many forms of government, it is evident that there is not a single virtue of the good citizen which is perfect virtue. But we say that the good man is he who has one single virtue which is perfect virtue.

Hence it is evident that the good citizen need not of necessity possess the virtue which makes a good man." Only in a perfect, or at least best, regime will the qualities of a good citizen and a good man converge: "But will there be no case in which the virtue of the good citizen and the virtue of the good man coincide? To this we answer that the good ruler is a good and wise man, and that he who would be a statesman must be a wise man.

And some persons say that even the education of the ruler should be of a special kind; for are not the children of kings instructed in riding and military exercises?" This special education of the ruler -- which Samuel Johnson also recognizes in his "Rasselas" -- results in a better understanding of what a good regime is; it results in a better understanding of how to ensure that good citizens and good men mesh in the same society.

The good ruler, according to Aristotle, will determine that "The conclusion is evident: that governments which have a regard to the common interests are constituted in accordance with strict principles of justice, and are therefore true forms; but those which regard only the interest of the rulers are all defective and perverted forms, for they are despotic, whereas a state is a community of freemen." In other words, common interests must be of integral concern to the ruler -- presumably he will learn the worth of his subjects' common interests through his special education -- and rulers who do not receive this education or who contravene it will care only for their own interests, and thence a defective regime is born.

In determining a perfect state, the ruler may be either in the form of a democracy, an oligarchy, or a monarchy according to Aristotle. Each has its benefits and detractions, but the common thread is the same: keeping the common interests of the subjects at heart. Aristotle discusses the judicial branch and its selection and its function, and many more nuances of government, but all these wax futile without the ruling power's education to take into consideration the common interests.

So that is the key to a correct regime: common interests of the people. Where these interests are not involved in the decision-making process, the regime is decidedly defective. Aristotle extrapolates from this basis and argues that a correct regime boasts of a ruling class that serves the people; justice for everyone is served through a correct regime. On the other hand, the defective regime represents an unjust system in which the ruling class serves itself and its select group of oligarchic lesser powers.

In the defective regime, the people are unjustly not served by the ruling class. The highest good for Aristotle is common advantage: What is good for the people on a daily and practical level should be the concern of the ruling class. Indeed, justice leads to the common advantage, which in turn signifies a correct regime which engenders equality.

As far as actual comparison among the different styles of regimes, Aristotle is a bit cynical but picks democracy as the most correct regime, if only because none exists that is better: In our original discussion about governments we divided them into three true forms: kingly rule, aristocracy and constitutional government, and three corresponding perversions -- tyranny, oligarchy and democracy...That which is the perversion of the first and most divine is necessarily the worst.

And just as a royal rule, if not a mere name, must exist by virtue of some great personal superiority in the king, so tyranny, which is the worst of governments, is necessarily the farthest removed from a well-constituted form; oligarchy is a bit better, for it is a long way from aristocracy, and democracy is the most tolerable of the three.

(Aristotle 488) Aristotle does not necessarily see the beauty in democracy, as does Benjamin Franklin, for instance, but he does see that it is by default the best form of government because the others are simply unjust and they do not recognize the common advantage. Aristotle does recognize the reason that so many impure forms of regimes exist: every state contains many elements, and these various elements combine in.