Aristotle’s analysis and description of 158 constitutions of Greek city-states suggested that these constitutions changed periodically and the changes occurred as cyclical alterations. Aristotle observed that these alterations followed a pattern of transformation, which reflected change in the nature of the constitution, e.g., from monarchy-aristocracy-democracy to tyrann–oligarch–mobocracy. While the first set represents ‘pure’ forms of constitution, the second set represents ‘corrupt’ forms of the first set.
For Aristotle, a constitution is ‘an arrangement of political offices that effectively determine who shall be allowed to participate in ruling the state.’38 These arrangements characterize the government and any change means change in the government and the constitution. Revolution is occurrence of cyclical alterations in the forms of government and the constitution.
What do these cyclical alterations signify? To answer this we may have to ask another question; for Aristotle, what does a constitution stand for? A constitution means arrangements of political offices organized as per the principle of distributive justice advocated by the ruling class. In short, constitutions in Aristotle’s scheme of things are not mere arrangements of political offices but more a reflection of spirit of class that rule and the principle of distributive justice it advocates. Since different classes advocate different principles of distributive justice, change in constitution takes place. Revolution though appears as a mere political revolution, i.e., change in the form of government; in fact, it is a change in the spirit associated with classes and the principle of distributive justice they advocate, hence it signifies a social revolution as well.
Figure 12.1 Aristotle—Cyclical Alterations of Constitutions
Aristotle’s monarchy, pure form of rule by one person, is based on personal high qualities, almost like Plato’s philosopher king and is oriented towards public good. Monarchy is an ideal state for Aristotle and if one finds such a rule, it would be most stable. When monarchy becomes perverted or corrupt and that one man seeks personal gain at the cost of public interest, it becomes tyranny. Tyrannies produce hatred and contempt and their oppressive character leads to revolution. Generally, aristocratic elements stake their claim for rule.
Aristocracies are based on the rule of tew people claiming political office based on distributive principle of contribution made by high birth, education and wealth. Aristocracy may suffer due to narrowing of the circle of government and instead of serving the public interest, starts serving a small group of people. Aristocracy become perverted and changes to oligarchy, rule of few for their own interest. Within oligarchy, there can be dissatisfaction regarding oligarchic factions and a change may lead to a change in factional rule. At this stage, constitutional change does not take place. Ultimately, however, arbitrary and irresponsible authority of oligarchy is changed to democracy.
The selfish and perverted government of oligarchy may give way to democracy, the rule of the many claiming political office based on free birth, civic and social equality. Democracy may become extreme and get corrupted to mobocracy, where there is ‘unintelligent rule of masses’ without concern for public interest.
Aristotle calls such alterations in the forms of constitution, revolution. He observed that oligarchy and democracy were the unstable form of constitutions and generally, revolutions were rampant during these two forms. He also observed that within oligarchy and tyranny, there were changes in the incumbency, one tyrant by another, one oligarchic faction by another, with change of the constitution. As a solution to this instability, Aristotle suggested his scheme of Polity, a constitution that is a mixed between oligarchy and democracy. Aristotle’s book, Politics is a celebration of this Polity, in which middle class is in majority and balance the extreme poverty and richness and claims of distributive justice coming from oligarchic elements, on the one hand, and democratic elements, on the other. It avoids the unintelligent rule of masses and the irresponsible and arbitrary authority of the oligarchic elements. Polity is a balance between the rich and the poor, a constitution of the middle class with moderate wealth. Polity is visualized by Aristotle as the best practicable constitution because it is a moderate and stable constitution.
Aristotle identifies several reasons for revolution, some of these are: (i) uneven distribution of wealth between the rich and the poor leading to widespread discontent, (ii) conflicting interpretations and claims with respect to principle of distributive justice—aristocrats claim high birth, wealth and education as criteria for distribution of political offices, honour and privileges while democratic elements argue for free birth and social equality. Due to conflicting claims, there is a feeling of uneven distribution which leads to revolutionary temper, (iii) personal motives of self-seeking persons and groups/factions, (iv) political corruption, etc.
Causes of change of the constitutions identified by Aristotle are equally relevant for modern democracies and political obligation they seek from citizens. Modern democracies are struggling to mitigate the consequences of inequality and have devised welfare states. They are in search of a principle of justice that could help distribute the resources of the society in an equitable manner and provide a condition of social and economic equality, which is a condition for meaningful democracy. Political corruption is no less an issue today than what Aristotle has seen in Athens and other Greek city-states. Aristotle’s concept of revolution suggests that political obligation was a matter of principle of distributive justice and corresponding constitutional spirit and different elements in society showed different degree of political obligation to a particular form of constitution.
Leave a Reply