POLITICAL SCIENCE &

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
UPSC CIVIL SERVICES EXAMINATION

DR. ANKUR SHARMA

 GREEK POLITICAL THOUGHT

PLATO

Important Works

Plato produced several important works which dealt with different

subjects. Gorgias dealt with the question of ethics in society; Meno
discussed about the nature of Knowledge. In the Apology he presents
the imaginative reconstruction of Socrates’s trial where he is
presented as defending himself against the charges levelled against
him of atheism and corrupting the minds of the youths in Athens; in
Crito he forwards Socrates' justifications about the need to obey the
laws of the state; and in Phaedo he reimagines the execution of
Socrates and discusses about ideas like theory of forms, nature of soul
etc. He also wrote other texts like Theatetus, Promenades, Sophist,
Philebus, and Timaeus, but his most important philosophical
contributions remain to be Republic, Laws and Statesman.

Socrates and Plato

Death of Socrates had a great impact on Plato. Socrates influenced him

to such an extent that most of his dialogues are written as
conversations between Socrates and other notable citizens of Athens.
Socrates is the main protagonist of Plato’s Dialogue. In fact, since
Socrates did not leave any writing of his own, much of what we know
today about Socrates, through the Platonic corpus.

Virtue is Knowledge
Sophists, the main philosophical rivals of Socrates opined that virtue
consisted in the ability to acquire those things that get you pleasure
like wealth, honor, status, etc. So, they believed that knowledge was
also an instrument to gain power that could lead to pleasure. For
Socrates, on the other hand, virtue was the basis of happiness and
virtue entailed in developing excellence or the capacity to achieve
higher ends of life. He argued that knowledge gave us that capacity and
taught us how we ought to live our lives, so knowledge was the
supreme virtue. In fact, he maintained that it was the sum of different
virtues like courage, wisdom, etc. he further held that all knowledge
was contained within ourselves and the need was to realize that
knowledge through right method. So, he stressed at apriori knowledge
of all primary virtues and the method that he suggested to eject this
knowledge is that of dialectics.

George Sabine in his book A History of Political Theory (1973) argued

that the core idea of Republic was inspired by Socrates’s doctrine that
virtue is knowledge: “The proposition”, Sabine wrote, “that virtue is
knowledge implies that there is an objective good to be known and that
it can in fact be known by rational or logical investigation rather than
by intuition, guesswork, or luck? The good is objectively real, whatever
anybody thinks about it, and it ought to be realised not because men
want it but because it is good”. By producing Republic Plato gave this
doctrine of Socrates a significant place in the history of political
philosophy.

Theory of Forms

Influenced by Pythagoras, Plato in his philosophy treated the universal

idea as the perfect and whole truth and placed it above the particular
or the part. The principle that logically follows from this position is that
the particular or the part is to be viewed in the perspective of the
whole. That is, to comprehend truly the particular, the nature of the
whole needs to be known first. His theory of Forms or ideas taken from
the Greek word “Edios” is integrally related to his idea of Knowledge.
Like Socrates, Plato also held that knowledge can be attained and that
it had two important characteristics: firstly, this knowledge was certain
and infallible; and secondly, it needs to be differentiated from what is
only appearance. True Knowledge, therefore was permanent and
unchanging, and was identified by Plato (as in Socrates), with the realm
of “ideal” as opposed to the “physical, material world”. In his view
“Form”, “Idea”, and “Knowledge”- they constitute what is “ideal”,
whereas that which we perceive through our normal sense of sight,
through the eyes, is “actual”. He therefore differentiates between what
is “ideal” and what is “actual”; and what are “forms” from what are
merely “appearances”; and therefore, also between what constituted
“knowledge” and what constituted “opinion”; and between “being” and
“becoming”. For him it was the world of “ideas” or “forms” that was
eternal, fixed and perfect.

Plato differentiated between the visible world (doxa) or the world of

senses from the intelligible world (episteme). Doxa was seen as the
world of opinions or becoming, whereas true knowledge lay in the
world or being or forma represented by episteme. He admits that
opinion is much above ignorance. Yet, it cannot be equated with
knowledge. Opinion cannot naturally be infallible. Knowledge, on the
contrary, is infallible irrespective of time and space, that is, it
universally applies in all times and territories. Thus, the object of
knowledge is the whole truth or reality which, different from the
particular, is the general which always is, that is, unchanging that
transcends the barriers of time and space. The stages of development
of knowledge, is explained by Plato through the analogy of the divided
line.

Plato further argues that it is impossible to locate this reality in the

world of senses which is subject to change. Transcending the
particular and the domain subject to sense, this idea belongs to
transcendental world where it reveals itself as a holistic, endless,
indestructible ideal. According to Plato, this eternal and universal idea
is the reality around which the process of knowledge revolves. It is not
possible to have this knowledge through sense perception. As Plato
comments in Book 6thof his Republic, those are philosophers who
were able to grasp that which is always invariable and unchanging. In
a way Plato insisted that the journey from “appearances” to “forms”
was only possible by following the path of education, the culmination
of which could only be reached by philosophers.

Divided Line analogy

Plato had conceived the Forms as being hierarchically arranged. In

fact, the whole perception of Knowledge and process of its attainment
is arranged in the form of stairs that each seeker of true knowledge
needs to travel in order to unravel and reach the zenith or the supreme
form, which according to Plato is the “form of Good”. This highest level
of knowledge, like the sun in the allegory of the cave, sheds light on all
other ideas. This hierarchy of different levels of knowledge is explained
by him using the Divided Line analogy. In this Plato imagines a vertical
line divided into four equal parts. The two parts in the lower section
falling in the visible world or doxa. Of these, the lowermost part
denotes eikasia or the field of mistaken beliefs or superficial
appearances (example: The perception that sun rises in east ad sets in
west). The higher plane of knowledge in the doxa represents the pistis
or the world of empirical realities or common sense developed on
sensory experience (example: The realization that sun does not rise or
set, it is earth’s rotation that makes it appear as such). The upper two
levels form part of the intelligible world or episteme. Of these the
lower level is of dianoia or the stage of discursive thought and
mathematical reasoning (example: Knowledge of geometry,
arithmetic). The highest among all these is noesis or the stage of true
knowledge or forms the topmost point of it being the knowledge of
“form of Good”. This is achieved by knowledge and practice of
dialectics, which is even more difficult than mathematical reasoning
and not all people can reach to this stage of true knowledge and only
philosophers have that required capacity to reach the knowledge of
Good or idea of Good. So, he is also building a case thereby to argue
that only philosophers are capable to differentiate between true and
apparent reality and judge between right and wrong as this vision is
achieved through the highest form of knowledge that they have
achieved.

Allegory of the Cave

According to Plato, a philosopher was one who was in a constant quest

of truth. His earnest logging and effort to understand truth or reality
leads him to develop a theory of knowing and philosophy begins with
what is called epistemology. Thus, according to Plato, a true
philosopher is always in search of what is real or true. On the other
hand, ordinary people who are not philosophers treat whatever they
see through senses as reality though it is only apparent reality. Their
idea of knowledge is like that of the group of men in chains confined
within a stony cave. Since they are chained, they are unable to make
any movement of their body, not even able to shift their shoulder. There
lies in front of them the wall of the cave and behind them is a burning
fire. As an effect of the light behind, they see shadows on the front wall.
As it is not possible for them to cast their eyes in any other direction,
they are compelled to watch these shadows in front and they continue
thinking this false and illusive shadow as real. However, one prisoner’s
chains break and he tries to move around. He feels immense pain. With
a lot of efforts, he tries to escape the cave but the light at the entrance
makes him uncomfortable. He wants to run back and has to be dragged
out of the cave. Once he gets out, he is almost blinded by the light of
sun. So, he starts looking at shadows of animals and plants in water
and then directly at each of these creations and he realizes truth is
different from what he saw and believed so long inside the cave. At
last, he looks at the sun and realizes that it is the cause of all that we
can see, or the highest source of knowledge. On the basis of this poetic
narrative, or allegory of the cave, Plato concludes that those who are
denied philosophical vision are like these men chained and confined in
the cave. On the contrary, to a true philosopher, the process of
knowledge begins by differentiating the real from the apparent and
then, to search for a universal idea in a super-sensible,
superintelligible and transcendental world.

Philosopher King

Who is a philosopher?
Plato held that the philosopher was “one who loved wisdom, had a
passion for knowledge, was always curious and eager to learn”. He
was a lover of Truth and one who had raised himself to such level of
consciousness and knowledge that could never falter from the path of
righteousness.

Why should philosopher rule?

“Until philosophers are Kings, or the Kings and the Princes of this
world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness
and wisdom meet in one .... cities will never have rest from their evils-
nor the human race, as I believe- and then only will this our state have
possibility of life and behold the light of a day” – Book V of Republic.
The theory of the philosopher ruler was the linchpin of Plato’s ideal
state. According to him, a good ruler was responsible not only for
preservation of the subjects’ lives but also to transform it. Influenced
by Socratic dictum that virtue is knowledge, Plato believed that political
ills and injustice could be eradicated, if knowledgeable people are put
at the helm of city-state’s politics. They are the one who had knowledge
of the idea of the good, justice, beauty, truth, courage and the other
moral attributes. Forms could only be seen by those with a rational
mind as only they had the potential to reach to the highest level of
consciousness.

Not only did the philosophers have the right kind of knowledge, they
were best suited for the job of ruling because they had no private
interests. Plato did not allow his guardian class anything private and
developed theory of communism of wives and property to keep the free
from corruption or nepotism.

Plato insisted that unlike popular belief, philosophers did not stay in
isolation, rather were willing to actively participate in activities of
society including politics if their role was respected. According to him
a philosopher could make a good legislature as he had the idea of Good
and shall frame laws accordingly.

He compared statecraft with soul-craft and held that the field of

politics had to be ethical with expertise required in attaining welfare of
people. A philosopher by virtue of his education and training would
develop virtues necessary for the field. They shall have calm approach,
a sound mind and a good character. They also inculcate the qualities
necessary for a good ruler which included high mindedness, courage,
discipline, truthfulness, public spiritedness, wisdom and devoid of
economic considerations. Plato is sure that as we reach out to best of
doctors in case, we fall sick, the sick polity also needs experts who can
improve the condition of society through expert knowledge, training
and positive approach. This person for Plato can only be a philosopher
and he is therefore sure that only philosophers can make good rulers.

Plato’s Justice with State & Individual

Plato argued that the state was nothing but the ‘individual writ large’.
He firmly believed in an organic theory of the state. Therefore, although
Plato took the state as the province of his analysis, his theory of justice
does not begin with state but with individual. What is the basis of justice
in the life of individual or for the matter, what makes a man just? It was
with this moral question related to individual life that Plato began his
theory of justice. However, he was convinced that there was no
fundamental difference between an individual and the state except in
extent, that is, according to him state was a magnified form of the
individual, and as he believed that it was always convenient to analyse
the nature of a thing whenever it was larger in size, he began with the
life of the state instead of the life of individual in order to find out an
answer as to what justice was.

In Republic Plato presents his theory of justice as a product of a

discussion between different characters like Cephalus, Polemarchus,
Thasymachus, Glaucon, Adeimantus and Socrates. Socrates, as Plato’s
representative voice, invites and involves others on the question and
engaged them through dialectics. In the process Socrates is presented
as demolishing the idea of justice forwarded by all others through deep
questioning. First, he denounced the claim of Cephalus and
Polemarchus (father-son duo) that justice was concerned with giving
every man his due or “doing to others what is proper” (as according to
Cephalus) or “doing good to friends and harming enemies” (as argued
by Polemarchus). Plato considers that this traditional theory of justice
had its own worth in morally compelling men to pay everyone’s due
and lead an ethical life accordingly. But he looks skeptically at the
suggestion that this principle could be followed at all times. The
principles of justice need to be universal and equally applicable for all
and it is here that Cephalus and Polemarchus’s views have its
limitations. He also rejected Thrasymachus's (who was a Sophist) idea
of justice whereby he claimed that justice represented the interests of
the stronger. Similarly, he also refuted the idea of Justice forwarded
by Glucon and Adeimantus. Rather, for Plato justice was related to the
inner nature of the man and could not be conformed through external
law. Just state according to Plato aimed at common good and therefore
cannot be serving the interest of the strong. Justice, in its English
translation, gives the resemblance of the word ‘Dikaiosyne’, used by
Plato in Greek. This word has a more comprehensive meaning ‘justice’
as understood in English. ‘Dikaiosyne’ would mean “righteousness” and
also reflects a sense of social bonding. That is the reason that Plato's
idea of justice neither legal nor judicial, nor is it related to concepts
like rights and duties as in case of modern political philosophers. He
uses it to connote a definite form of “social ethics” that he felt was
essential for the development of society.

Plato opined that in society there were four primary virtues- wisdom,
courage, temperance and justice. Justice was dependent on other
three virtues and if society was managed and balance in a way that
other three virtues are effectively placed, Justice will be taken care of.
Explaining the idea of virtues, Plato starts with individual as the unit as
he held that the principles that are good for individual shall also be
similarly applicable and good for the society at large. He is influenced
by Pythogras’s idea about three souls and three classes and adopts it
to develop his theory of justice. He argued that each human soul had
three aspects: rationality, spirit and appetite. Each of these parts
corresponds to a particular kind of virtue. So, the virtue of rationality
is wisdom, the virtue of spirit is courage and the virtue of appetite is
temperance. In each soul, one of these parts is more dominant than
the others and therefore the virtue attached with that particular part
of soul would be more reflective in the nature of that individual. In the
individual where the rational faculty is more dominant, according to
Plato, is fit to represent the ruling class, as they through their wisdom
had the competence to comprehend the idea of Good. Similarly, those
in whom spirit was the dominant faculty they ought to be courageous
and therefore are best suited to become auxiliaries. They are brave and
can defend the city well and were public spirited and ready to sacrifice
material interests for the common good of society. Together the ruling
class and the class of auxiliaries, according to Plato shall constitute
the guardian class. The individuals in whose soul the appetitive part
dominates the others have a fondness for material things and
temperance was their virtue. So, they were appropriate for jobs like
trading, business or manufacturing and producing sector.

According to Plato, justice at the level of individual meant that each

individual does the job corresponding to its natural aptitude which
meant that the job must be based on the dominant aspect of one’s soul.
Only then he will be able to perform the job with zeal and would excel
in it. Justice in a way meant harmony or balance and ordering of
different aspects of an individual’s nature by assigning it duty
according to the characteristic feature of that individual. Similarly,
Plato argued that Justice at level of state would mean that the three
classes of rulers, warriors and the producing class are made of people
whose souls reflect the corresponding characteristics and members
of each such class performed their functions without interference in
the activities of other classes. Justice was “one class, one duty; one
man, one work”. Interference in others work or mobility into the class
contradictory to one’s nature created the conditions for injustice.

The Athenians believed that they were autochthonous, children of the

soil they lived on, and not the descendants of ancestors who came from
other lands. It was this illusion that Plato uses in his myth of the metals
in Republic which he proposes in a way to lent legitimacy to his idea of
justice. Plato argued that the guardians should spread this ‘noble lie'
that the earth was their mother, and as the children of earth, they were
born with some metallic components in their bodies. Some were born
with gold in their bodies (those meant to be philosophers or rulers),
others with silver (those meant to be auxiliaries), and some with brass
(those meant to be farmers). This ‘noble lie' would serve two purposes.
It would make every man believe that he was part of a bigger family
with all other members being his brothers, and it would also make
everyone to accept their station in life as natural, and based on the
qualities they were born with. Therefore, rather than interfering with
others or rejecting their occupations, they would focus on excelling in
their respective field of work. The idea about division of soul into three
parts with each exhibiting a particular virtue only substantiated this
point.

Part of Soul Virtue Class

Rationality Wisdom Rulers
Spirit Courage Auxiliaries
Appetite Temperance Artisans

Plato forwards three important ideas here. Firstly, every individual was
a “functional unit”, who had the quality to perform a particular kind of
job for which he was naturally inclined and that he should focus on
performing this job properly and excel in it. Secondly, he visualizes
society as a harmonized entity based on the division of labour
according to one’s natural instinct, the principles of which are intact
and should not be faulted with. Thirdly, based on the above two
observations it can be understood that Plato presented an organic
theory of society whereby the functional specializations should be kept
intact and till the units perform well the society remains in order and
progresses.

Communism of Property and Wives

Plato aimed to develop a meritocratic society that was free of

corruption, selfishness and nepotism. He firmly held that corruption in
different forms was the primary cause of degeneration of societies and
therefore this menace needed to be nipped in the bud by understanding
its basic cause. Here he was inspired by the Spartan society. Therefore,
he wanted to inculcate virtues in the guardian class so that they are
not diverted from the end they are meant to achieve. This was also
based on the belief that the concentration of political and economic
power among same people could lead to tyranny. Based on these
understanding, he devised the principles of communism of property
and wives in his thought which was only applicable for guardian class
to ensure they do not indulge in corrupt practices.

He held that the guardian class would live together in common, like
soldiers in barracks. This shall give them a feeling of oneness and they
will learn to live with minimum possessions. They were not allowed to
possess any form of gems, gold or silver, and allowed for a minimum
amount of property that was thought essential for their survival. They
were also not allowed ownership of any property or private space
including house etc. For subsistence and livelihood, they would receive
only fixed quota of goods from the producing class. The third class or
producing class were allowed to have property, but even they could
not appropriate too much property. His system allows for supervision
of the guardian class over the property of the producer class and if the
gap between rich and poor seem to increase a lot, their property could
be taken under state control for redistribution.

In the same way the communism of wives was also applicable only for
the guardians aiming to end any form of preferential treatment or
nepotism in society. Plato was wary of the negative emotions like
selfishness, envy, hatred that institution of family encouraged. He saw
the institution of monogamous marriages as discriminatory against
women. He held that both men and women should be treated equally
and argued the even women should even be allowed to become
legislators and rulers. His theory of communism of wives is an attack
on the conventional marriage, particularly permanent monogamous
marriage. He rejected the idea that marriage was spiritual union or
sacrament. However, he still held that some form of sexual union
important for reproduction and continuity of human race. The truth is
that he saw marriages as only serving the purpose of sexual
intercourse to produce children. If that was the case, he was more
concerned about how to produce best breed of children and hence
proposed controlled form of sexual union. In this only best of men
(brave ones and good at war) and women (beautiful) would be paired.
He held that the best marriageable age was 25- 55 for men and 20-40
for women. The entire system was controlled by the philosopher ruler
who shall arrange the pairing through a system of open lottery but
shall manage the pairings internally in such a way that the best of
males ate with the best of females. The secret management is also
allowed because only the philosopher ruler shall know about the
relationship of the candidates in the lottery and shall ensure that son-
mother, father-daughter are not paired.

Plato’s understanding on the subject is so instrumental that he allows

for all forms of abortion is there are any chances of foetus developing
deformities or is born of sex outside regulated marriages or outside
prescribed age limit as he is sure that such children will not be healthy
and proof to be a burden for society. He also allows for killing of
children who are born with some forms of handicap. Once a healthy
child is born, he is taken away by state to state-maintained crèches
and nurseries and shall be raised there along with other children. They
shall never come to know who their parents were and the mating
partners or the mother or father of a particular child shall also never
come to know about their relationship. This ignorance for Plato is a
bliss because he believed that no knowledge about one’s children shall
inspire all men and women to consider all children as their own and
love each one equally.

Plato presents a very complicated system in his communism based on

his own perception and understandings. There are several limitations
of these understandings. For example, scholars have pointed that he
considers property as an evil, whereas property can also have a
rewarding value so that it motivates individuals to work harder.
Similarly providing the producer class the right to property can
develop jealousy among the guardians which can have repercussions.
Similarly, his views about marriage in its instrumental form is deeply
problematic. It completely overlooks the emotional bonding among
partners and concentrates only on sexual relations, and even there his
belief that the best breed could only be born of marriage between
strong males and beautiful females is deeply flawed and as progress
in medical sciences have shown, it is also irrational. Also, if family as
an institution is demolished, it can also affect the balance of society as
family provides the first and most significant stage in socialization
process, a point stressed strongly by Aristotle as well. Also, the faith
that if no one knows who their child is they ought to love all children
as their own could also backfire as it was possible that all children get
equally ignored and in absence of emotional bonds, they do not receive
proper care.

Based on the fact that Plato suggested some form of communism,

some scholars have tried to compare between Plato and Marx. C. C.
Maxey has gone as far to claim that Plato was the predecessor of all
forms of communism. Though there may be some merit in this
conclusion, Plato’s comparison with Marx’s idea of communism is quite
exaggerated. Plato provides a theory of communism that was purely
political in nature, whereas Marx’s idea is primarily economic.
Secondly, Plato’s communism is limited for the two classes of rulers
and auxiliaries, whereas Marx’s communism aims at fundamental
transformation of entire social order leading to a classless society. For
Plato the reason to devise communism was his fear that the society
could be corrupted, But Marx sees Communism as a natural
culmination of a society that evolves through the struggle between
forces of production and relations of production and passes through
the stages of primitive communism, slavery, feudalism and capitalism.
As visible, the idea of communism as present in Marx’s philosophy is
very different from Plato’s.

Other Forms of Regimes

Plato’s ideal state was the rule of the philosopher ruler, where justice
shall prevail and all classes would be engaged in their respective
duties based on their individual virtues. In the ideal state, as pointed by
Plato, reason shall rule over spirit and appetite. But Plato also
examined other forms of state and the reasons for their instability and
decay. He discussed about four such regimes: timocracy, oligarchy,
democracy, and tyranny. He argued that each of these regimes, due to
their inherent character, was bound to decline into tyranny. It seems
he has listed all these degenerate forms to suggest that if the ideal
state is not respected and firmly established, it can gradually lead
people to worse form of states, thereby trying to legitimize his ideation
about the rule of philosopher-king.

• Timocracy– Timocracy was the first form of degeneration from ideal

state. Succeeding generations, if lacked the talents and did not get
educated in the right spirit, the society was bound to decline along
with the quality of ruling class. The ruling elite in this form of regime,
 valued wealth and material things above intelligence and wisdom
and soldiers and auxiliaries are valued more than philosophers.
• Oligarchy– When virtues further decline, and wealth earns
centrality, it turns to be rule of few rich or oligarchy. Gap between
rich and poor gradually enlarges, and the lust for wealth could
undermine rule of law. As a consequence, the poor shall revolt.
• Democracy– it was characterised by license, wastefulness, anarchy
and desires and appetite ruled. Product of revolt of poor in
oligarchy. It was unjust and Plato equated it with ‘mobocracy’ as
people from any walk of life could participate in politics. Quantity
rather than quality was main criterion with respect to values
cherished. Due to excessive lawlessness, it was bound to invite a
central, strong leader to take control and the tyrant shall rise.
• Tyranny– In the name of security and protection, tyrant shall control
the life of people and curtail all liberties. Plato does not suggest any
way out of tyranny.

Plato as Totalitarian

One of the essential features of totalitarianism is its deliberate denial

of the autonomy and dignity of the individual. On this consideration,
many of modern writers have identified Plato as an advocate of
totalitarianism. Their point is that the separate identity of individual is
hardly recognised in Plato's Political ideas. According to them, Plato
wanted to make political authority indomitable and universally
acceptable. Crossman (1939) in his book Plato Today has argued that
Plato’s views and ideas present a dangerous cocktail that was
absolutely threatening during his own times and also for contemporary
period. He argued that Plato aimed to create an ideal society by
reforming the system prevalent in Athens. He identifies many such
evils including class conflict, poor system of education and the
loopholes within the political system. However, Crossman highlighted
that Plato had several assumptions that were problematic like:

a) he did not have faith on the wisdom and rationality of masses and
therefore favoured a particular class;

b) his belief that philosopher ruler has full understanding of right and
wrong and is infallible in his views;

c) his belief that suppression of different liberties was important to

maintain peace and harmony in society and maintain a pure social
order based on discipline. Crossman therefore claimed that Plato could
be seen as against basic ethos of liberal democracy, like liberty,
equality and democracy, because he did not have faith on the capacity
of individuals to balance and contain the fallouts of these values.

Similarly, Berlin (1969) argued that Plato’s philosophy does not show
any respect for individual freedoms like freedom of opinion, or freedom
of choice. He also pointed that Plato’s views rejected any scope for
plural life style by presenting a disciplined social order where the role
and boundaries are well defined for each class./

However, the most skating attack came from Karl Popper (1945), who
in his book Open Society and its Enemies, accused philosophers like
Plato, Hegel and Marx of being enemy of open society. An open society,
according to him, allowed for dissenting views and critical analysis of
the political structure and system. It included free thought and opinion,
freedom of action, and open system of education based on liberal
values. It had individual at its core and took care of individual’s rights
and liberties. Contrarily, as Popper asserts, totalitarian systems reject
and is antithetical to the principles of open society. For him, Plato’s
political was non-democratic and reflected a sense of extreme
centralization. Plato further disallows any prospect for social change
and advocated for status quo. Further Popper points that for Plato
ruling elites mattered the most and all his focus is on guardian class,
which is equally non-democratic and against principles of equality.
Based on these observations, Popper claims Plato to be representing
the initial visions of totalitarianism.

On the other hand, there are also scholars like H. D. Ranking who in
his work Plato and the individual argue that it would be unfair to come
to the conclusion that, in his political philosophy, Plato totally ignored
the individual. Indeed, in his political ideas, there are several pieces of
evidence disproving that he was indifferent to the individual. For
instance, first, it is around the life of individual that Plato introduced
his theory of justice. Second, he realised that the welfare of society and
the state, on the whole, is in the ultimate analysis dependant on the
achievement of individual of excellence in his mentality, character and
physique. Third, he gave due regard to the diversity of individual nature
and character. He admitted that individuals are different from each
other in every respect. Fourth, he not only viewed the individual in the
context of class to which he belonged but also, in some cases,
evaluated a class in terms of individuals included in it.

Joad (1966) comments that although there are many similarities

between Fascism and Plato’s state, they also have fundamental
differences. One of the most fundamental differences, Joad highlights,
is that Plato aims to build a state to uphold the principles of common
good and justice, whereas Fascism was against these ideals. So, Joad
argues that it will be exaggeration to compare modern fascism with
Plato.
As is visible, there is a divided house among scholars who comment
on and interpret Plato. But the comparison of Plato’s views with
modern forms of totalitarianism is over exaggerated. Even his critics
like Popper fail to establish clear linkage. At the most they claim that
Plato’s views are not supportive of the values celebrated by liberal
democracy. But does not being a supporter of liberal democracy fix you
as a totalitarian thinker? There appear severe limitations in these ideas
with extreme level of reductionism based on creation of a binary
between liberal democracy and totalitarianism, which in reality does
not exist. It has to be understood that context of any thinker is
important and therefore to implant or judge a thinker based on modern
understanding of particular ideas and its parameters does not do any
justice to his political philosophy and is bound to fail the test of
methodological rigour.
ARISTOTLE

Aristotle’s differences with Plato’s ideas Though Aristotle was Plato’s

student and there were many things common, they differed in
fundamental ways. They both represented similar context and their
philosophy aimed at the idea of common good, they varied in their
imaginations about how this ideal could be achieved. The points of
differences can be noted as following:

• Aristotle refused to share the Platonic view that the ideal is to be

located only in the transcendental world. According to him, this idea
is to be built with very many elements of the temporal world. This is
why in his Politics, he does not present like Plato an imaginary ideal
state but turns his eye only to those earthly objects with which it is
possible to construct an ideal state.
• Unlike Plato’s claim that all knowledge could be found upon a single
set of axioms and could be reached through dialectics, Aristotle
opined that knowledge could be productive (based on making of
things like rhetoric and poetry), practical (focused on action like
ethics and politics), and theoretical (based on exploration of truth
as ultimate good).
• He criticized Plato’s theory of forms as he argued that ‘properties’
or ‘forms’ were not outside the things and had to be understood in
relation to matter (discussed extensively in the next section).
• Unlike Plato’s radical reforms Aristotle favored conservation and
preservation of existing tradition and institutions. His ideas of
golden mean, protection of polity and advocacy of mixed
constitutions and his analysis of revolution indicate this aspect.
• He argued that Plato’s idea of state overemphasized unity at the cost
of harmony and could lead to regimentation.
• He particularly attacked Plato’s views about communism of wives
and property.
o Believed that family was a natural institution and to abolish it
could be detrimental to both individual and society.
o He argued that it was better to be cared by one’s own father
than be ignored by many fathers.
o Family as an institution was important to inculcate civic duties
and personal love. At the same time he saw private and public
sphere as complementary and institution of family as
significant in ensuring stability of the state. In absence of
family individuals also lack motivation and inspiration.
o For property, he argued that it was not only necessary for
possessive instincts but also for goodness and philanthropy.
o Common ownership is no ownership. He argued that those
who work harder expect better rewards. This idea is explicit
in his theory of distributive justice.
o Other than these, Aristotle also pointed that permanent rule
of philosopher ruler could create discontent as it prevented
circulation of elites.
o A stable polity, according to him needed to protect and
accommodate aspirations of different claimants and classes,
which was not ensured in Plato’s ideal state.
o Further, being a pragmatist, he argued that a good ruler
should be wise and conscious about worldly affairs more than
about world of ideas.

Rational morality
Aristotle points to at least three different aspects of what it is to be
moral based on rational intellectual exercise. First, in order for us to
be able to say that someone has acted morally, that someone must
have intended, in his action, to have acted morally. The actor must have
some intention to bring about good for others. Moral acts must always
issue from a choice, and so volition is essential to a definition of
morality. To choose to do something is not to do it impulsively, but to
do it after some deliberation. Volition is deliberate choice and the
process of deliberation is also important. This process of deliberation
points to the second feature of moral action for Aristotle: To be moral,
an individual must not only have the strength of will, but also the
faculty of right judgment. Aristotle gave the name phronesis to this
faculty of right judgment. Even after deliberation, if we lack phronesis,
we might choose a course of action that will actually harm others. The
third aspect of Aristotle's theory of moral action has to do with
character. By doing the right action repeatedly, that is, by forming good
habits, we can build a character, which will result in right actions.

Aristotle & Virtue

Aristotle believes that the intellectual virtues were acquired by

inheritance and education and the ethical ones through the imitation of
practice andhabit. According to Aristotle the highest virtue is
intellectual contemplation. In

addition, Aristotle mentions twelve virtues and they are as follows:

• Courage – bravery and valour (mean between cowardice and

rashness)
• Temperance – self-control and restraint (mean between
insensibility and over-indulgence)
• Generosity (mean between stinginess and extravagance)
• Magnanimity (mean between pettiness and vulgarity)
• Pride – self-confidence (mean between timidity and conceit)
• Proper ambition (mean between under-ambition and over-
ambition)
• Good Temper – equanimity, level headedness (mean between
impassivity and ill-temper)
• Friendliness and friendship – conviviality and sociability on the one
hand and camaraderie and companionship on the other (mean
between unfriendliness and flattery)
• Truthfulness – straightforwardness, frankness and candour (mean
between false modesty and boastfulness)
• Wit – sense of humor – meaninglessness and absurdity (mean
between humourlessness and buffoonery)
• Proper shame – (mean between shamelessness and excessive
shame)
• Justice – impartiality, even-handedness and fairness (mean
between malice and envy)

Theory of Forms

In Book VII of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, he particularly mentions the

theory of ‘forms’ which Plato introduced in his text, The Republic.
Aristotle then recommends his own theory of forms, which is quite
different from Plato’s. Both Plato and Aristotle acknowledged that
there are two critical elements that compose all things that exist: the
form and the matter in which the form manifests itself. However,
Aristotle’s reflection of being led him to disagree with Plato on the
relationship between form and matter. Though both Plato and Aristotle
mention form as one of the main components of things that exist, their
ideas of just what form is were quite dissimilar.

Aristotle drew conclusions that lead him to reject Plato’s theory of

forms. Aristotle tells us that ‘a thing comes to be from its need or from
its subject which we call the matter’. What he means is that all things
must have matter, from which they come into existence. A chair might
come to be from wood, which is why we call it ‘of-wood,’ or ‘wooden.’
However, another thing must be present for anything to come to be:
the form. Aristotle defines a form as ‘whatever the shape in the
perceptible thing ought to be called’. For example, wood might take on
the form of a house or concrete might take on the form of a sidewalk
or a seed might take on the form of a tree. Aristotle says that “the form
does not come to be and there is no coming to be of it”. According to
him, both form and matter are necessary for anything to come to be
and when things come to be, it is not a matter of creating one or the
other, but of combining them. For example, a shoe might be created by
forming leather into the correct shape, but the shoemaker creates
neither leather nor the shape of the shoe. Shoemaker merely combines
these two elements of being.

The consideration of the roles of form and matter led Aristotle to ask
whether there could be any such thing as a form apart from matter.
Contrary to Plato, Aristotle says that it is not. This is his way of saying
that it is impossible for a form to exist without matter, for both must
be there for anything to come to be. There can be no form of a table
without any existing tables. One could talk about a table apart from its
materials, but ‘it is not a thing and something definite’. In other words,
it is not an actual table. Aristotle continues that it is evident, then, that
the forms, construed as things apart from particulars, are useless as
causes, at any rate of comings to be and of substances; this role, at any
rate, is no reason for these forms to be substances in their own right.
Aristotle dismissed Plato’s forms without empirical groundings
(particular experience) and matter as “useless.” As Aristotle said, form
cannot really exist without matter. There is no ‘house apart from
bricks.’

Man as a Social Animal

To determine the area of this activity, Aristotle points out that man
alone, abstracted from society, cannot secure happiness for him
because man is a social animal, and accordingly, the intense desire to
have the association of others very much lies in him. As Aristotle says
in his Nicomachean Ethics, “No one would choose the whole world on
condition of being alone, since man is a political creature and one
whose nature is to live with others”. This association with others or for
man that matter, friendship enables one to move forward to the goal
of happiness. For after all, friendship helps man to get used to the
practice of mutual give and take and thus, inspires him to look after the
interests of others, rather forgetting his self-interest. Hence,
friendship in social setting is one of the important means to ensure the
achievement of moral happiness.

Man as Individual

For the sake of reaching the goal of highest good, man also must learn
to love himself. This self-love, of course, does not mean so-called
egoism nor mean attachment to self-interest. This love for oneself
actually means to discover the best element in one’s self and then to
cultivate it with all sincerity. Constant development of intellect or
reason is the best means to attain the highest good. Man gets the
highest happiness through this intellectual exercise because it is for
sake of cultivation of intellect alone, that is, not motivated by any other
purpose, and it may be enjoyed forever.

Man as a Political Animal

It is also this purpose that allows us to make sense of Aristotle's

claims that man is a political animal, or that the state is a natural
association. Man is a zoon politikon (political animal) because it is only
by living in a political community that he realizes his true nature, which
is to become a moral being. Similarly, the state is an association
natural to man because it is essential for the completion of his nature.
According to Aristotle, men are born with the potential of becoming
moral, but this potential can be actualized only under the right social
conditions. The most important of these social conditions is being a
member of a political community. Further, only theoretical
understanding might not help in attaining virtuous life. So, Aristotle
holds that Laws and good education is essential in developing and
guiding faculties in an individual to achieve the goal of good life. It is
for this reason that the state is supposed to complete the nature of
men. The polis can also make its citizens moral only by giving them the
right to make political decisions. The purpose of the polis cannot be
realized without allowing all citizens a share in judicial and deliberative
office. All citizens sit in the Ekklesia, the principal assembly, and be
members of the Dikasteria, the courts. Therefore, according to
Aristotle, state is an association not merely for living but for living a
good life.
Theory of the State

Aristotle's theory of the state was completely based on his teleological

philosophy and moral principles. This is why it is commonly known as
teleological theory of the state. Hence, this theory reveals that
Aristotle viewed the state not only as a human organization but also as
the highest human association, that is, he treats the state as a form or
nature or in other words, as the final fulfillment of certain potentialities
inherent to individuals. Accordingly, to comprehend fully the nature of
the state, he turns his eye to searching the potentialities, which, when
fulfilled, gave birth to the state. It is found therefore, that in his Politics
to introduce his theory of the state, he begins with an enquiry into the
roots of its origin.

Aristotle's Politics begins with the statement that ‘Every association

aims at some good and the state as the highest association aims at the
highest good’. According to Aristotle, at the most fundamental level the
state comprises two fundamental and natural human relations. These
are, first, the relation between man and woman and, second, the
relation between master and slave. The first is necessary for the
purpose of reproduction and, thereby, to continue the human race. The
second is necessary to ensure the intellectual development of the
human race. According to Aristotle, these two relations together
constitute an institution which is family (he uses the term family
interchangeably with household). The goal of family is only to meet the
daily wants of life and is the most basic unit of co-operation. It is
headed by the citizen and includes children, women, and slaves. This
family, the basic human institution, undergoes transformation
whenever in course of time several families are united together to
result in the formation of a village. The purpose of the village,
compared to family, is much greater, for it caters to the needs of life
higher than the daily wants including economic needs.

But Aristotle holds that all needs of individual are not even satisfied at
the level of village and eventually, when several villages are united
together, it gives birth to a much larger institution, which is self-
sufficient or nearly self-sufficient, and is called the state. Like the
earlier institutions, the state also emerges to meet the necessities of
life. Yet, it is a unique institution in that its final purpose is not only to
serve the needs of life but also to ensure conditions of what is a good
life on moral considerations. Furthermore, the process of evolution
through which various institutions grow reaches its final destination in
the birth of the state.

From this account of the origin of the state, Aristotle derives three
premises that together constitute his theory of the state.

• The first premise is that the state is a natural institution. The

institutions that came into existence earlier to the emergence of the
state reach their final development in the state and in the light of
Aristotle’s teleological philosophy, what represents the final
development is the form and is the true essence of the development.
• Aristotle’s second premise is that man is by nature a political
animal, that is, he is ordained to be the member of a state. In fact,
argues Aristotle, he who is not the member of state is either a beast
or a god. In support of this premise, Aristotle’s argument is that
nature gives man nothing in vain. Thus, nature has given man the
power of speech and practical judgment in order that he is able to
determine what is good or bad, what is justice or injustice, etc. Since
man is endowed with this power of judgment, he has been able to
build up family, village and the state. In fact, he argues that politics
 is nothing but a collective form of “reasoned action” (a collective
exhibition of virtue as reasoned action is an individual virtue). This
is why man cannot help being a political animal.
• Third, as per Aristotle's theory of the origin of the state, the family
and the village created by men came much earlier than the state.
Therefore, he admits that, in point of time, the individual is prior to
the state. But he adds that in respect of importance the state is
above the individual, that is, much greater than the individual or
even family and village. He argues that the whole is always more
important than the part because the importance of the part is fully
dependent on that of the whole. For example, human body is the
whole of which the hand is a mere part, and if the body is destroyed,
the hand is of no use.

It is these three premises that together represent the basics of

Aristotle's theory of the state. He tried to establish that the state, by no
means, had come into existence by use of force nor is it an artificial
institution deliberately created by man, as held by the social contract
theorists many hundreds of years after Aristotle, particularly by
Hobbes, Locke, and others. At the same time, Aristotle believed that
man was essentially good and it was function of state to develop his
faculties for good action for the common good. So, it was state’s duty
to inculcate virtues in its citizenry. Some similar function is also
performed by family but its focus is on individual and not on the
collective. So, it caters to larger numbers and represents the public
arena where citizens, unlike in household, exercise rationality free of
personal determinants.

Critique of Organic Theory of State

Aristotle’s theory of state has been criticised for subsuming individual
and all other associations under the state. His state is seen as a
totalitarian state. Again, this is unacceptable. Hence, the subordination
of the individual to the state is a must.

This type of subordination of individual to the state—which may also be

described as totalitarian, authoritarian or paternalistic—is undoubtedly
recommended by Aristotle. He thinks that people want to be happy and
their happiness is required to be maximum. This is possible only if the
state takes steps in making legislation and regulating the entire
educational system. That means, the state-controlled education and
state-sponsored laws are the only weapons of attaining happiness. The
state is the only authority of all the enterprises and the individual has
no choice. There is no alternative but subordination. His concept of
organic theory of state is also a powerful hint of totalitarianism. In an
animal body the parts have no importance away from the whole.
Although this is true, yet the same cannot hold good for the
relationship between the individual and the state. The state is essential
for the individual no doubt, but it cannot claim to embrace all the
aspects of his life. The state can fulfil a part of human demands but not
all the demands. For complete satisfaction and happiness, the
individual seeks the membership of different organizations.
Aristotelian state cannot tolerate this. It is absolutely unintelligible
how a political association can make all its inhabitants moral, ethical
and ideal single-handedly. It is both physically impossible and morally
unjustifiable. No person or organization can take the absolute
guardianship of all individuals. Aristotle’s polis is a community and not
an association, because men value it for its own sake and not just as a
means to the fulfilment of separate individual ends. If this is the nature
of Aristotle’s polis, the individual finds no honourable position in the
state. Any form of defiance to the state is seen as irrationality on the
part of individuals. Rationality of the individual is equated with
unconditional surrender to the state.

Rule of Law and Constitution

Aristotle took a cue from Plato's suggestion in the Laws that laws were
necessary for a moral and civilized life. Civility of law was possible if
one perceived law as wisdom accumulated over the ages and
generations resulting from customs, both written and unwritten.
Aristotle, unlike Plato, contended that the collective wisdom of the
people as superior to that of the wisest ruler or legislator, for “the
reason of the statements in a good state cannot be detached from the
reason embodied in the law and the custom of community rules”.

A constitution for Aristotle was not only a basic law determining the
structure of its government and allocation of powers between the
different branches within a government, but it also reflected a way of
life. A constitution gave an identity to polis, which meant that a change
in constitution could bring about a change in the polis. In fact, he says
that constitution is like the form in the context of state. The state will
grow as its constitution is. Constitutions had two aspects: the ethical
or the aims and goal to be pursued by a community; and the
institutional order structure of political institutions and offices, and the
distribution of power. In its ethical sense, a constitution, for Aristotle,
provided the identity of a state, for it examined the relationship
between a good citizen and a good man.

Constitutional rule had three elements:

• Common interest of people taken care of.

 • No arbitrary power of the rulers.
• Consent and not force is the basis of obligation for constitutions.

A constitutional ruler, unlike a dictator, ruled over his willing subjects

by consent. Aristotle was categorical that a rightly constituted law was
the final authority, and that personal authority was only desirable if for
some reason it was not easy to codify laws to meet, all general
contingencies. Aristotle's ideal was constitutionally-based order. Laws
were less arbitrary and more fair, since they were impersonal as
compared to rule by a person. He contended that a free political
relationship was one where the subject did not totally surrender his
judgment and responsibility, for both the ruler and the ruled had a
defined legal status.

Governments/Constitutions and their classification

Based on a comparative study of 158 constitutions he provides

qualitative and quantitative analysis of different constitutions. It is
broadly based on number of rulers and the quality of rulership. He
believes that as the highest office of the state as well as the highest
political power is held by the ruling class, the character of a
government is determined by the nature of the rulers. This ruler may
be just one person or a few persons or many persons united together.
Again, the political rule may be led by only the interest of the ruler or
by larger public interest. Thus, using the number of the rulers as well
as the purpose of rule as the criterion, Aristotle makes a six fold
classification of governments. For instance, whenever the ruling
power lies with one person and it is committed to serving public
interest, it is monarchy. On the other hand, when it is meant to serve
the narrow self-interest of the oneman ruler, it turns into tyranny
which represents the perverted form of monarchy.

Furthermore, when a few rule to serve public interest, it is aristocracy.

Its corresponding perverted form is oligarchy where a few rule with
the purpose of looking after only their own interests. On the other hand,
many rule with a view to serving general interests, it is called polity.
But when this mass rule is directed to the goal of taking care of only
the interests of the rulers, it turns into democracy that represents a
perverted form of polity. Property in a way is both a good and an evil.
Distribution of wealth and property determines character of perverted
constitutions as it was based and motivated by selfish interests,
whereas the duty of state is perceived to be to protect and promote
common good. By means of this classification of governments,
Aristotle makes it clear that in his opinion monarchy, aristocracy and
polity are three good types of government and tyranny, oligarchy and
democracy are three corresponding bad/perverted forms.

Number of Rulers Pure Form Perverted form

One Monarchy Tyranny
Few Aristocracy Oligarchy
Many Polity Democracy

Among the ideal types, Aristotle concentrated on monarchy rather than

aristocracy. Monarchy would be the best form if a wise and a virtuous
King could be found. He firmly believed that it is easier to find one man
who could look beyond self interest and work for common good, then
finding few or many people who could do that. Being a good among
human, the monarch ought to be allowed to make laws. It would be
best to allow the monarch to rule, but Aristotle was not sure whether
to grant anybody the absolute right to rule.

The Best system of Government (Practicable)

After classification of governments, Aristotle proceeded to determine

which among the six form of government, was the best. At the very
beginning of this discussion, Aristotle points out that his purpose is not
to look for a perfectly ideal system of government. For him, ideally
monarchy based on constitutional law is the best form of government,
but the best practicable and stable form of government, according to
him, was polity.

To prove it he relied on the theory of golden mean, essentially derived

from Pythagoras and presented in his Nicomachean Ethics. For him,
organizational structure and social base of the power holders in polity
signified an intermediary position. To elaborate, he pointed out that
polity stood just in the middle of the two opposites like democracy and
oligarchy as polity represented a mixture of oligarchy and democracy.
Furthermore, the rulers in a polity were neither very rich nor very poor.
They were actually the representatives of the middle class. Aristotle
further tried to prove that middle class were the best as rulers due to
following reasons:

• They are not insolent and unruly like the rich nor do they tend to get
involved in violence and crimes like the poor. Naturally, they are
answerable to reason.
• Second, the rich only know to rule and dominate and are not used
to obey. The poor, on the contrary, know how to obey but hardly
know how to rule. The middle class, on the other hand, knows both
to command and obey.
• The middle class is the best fitted to ensure stability, peace and
discipline. Because, on seeing the rich to possess and enjoy
property to a large extent, the poor naturally feel envious of them
and become keen on wresting property from the rich. This leads to
constant instability and indiscipline in society. But as members of
the middle class are neither very rich, nor very poor. So under their
rule, there is very little chance of instability and indiscipline in the
social life.
• Fourth, according to Aristotle, history gave many evidence of the
qualitative excellence of middle class. For instance, the famous
lawmakers like Solon, Lycurgus and Charondas, all emerged from
the middle class.

As regards the organizational structure of Polity, Aristotle argued for

combining the components of democratic and oligarchic systems. This
reconciliation may be implemented in various ways.

• It may be done by mixing the rules of oligarchy with those of

democracy. For example, the rule may be made in polity that the
poor would be paid for acting as jury, and the rich would subject to
fine, if they fail to discharge the duties of jury.
• Second, by taking a middle position between the standing rules of
oligarchy and democracy, the system of polity may be developed by
way of making an adjustment between the two. For instance,
ownership of a small amount of property may be made a
qualification to be a member of the assembly in a polity.
• Third, instead of combining the rules of oligarchic and democratic
systems, certain elements may be chosen from each of these
systems, and on the basis of such elements, the political framework
of polity may be constructed. In polity magistrates may be chosen
by vote, as is the practice in oligarchy. At the same time, the rule
 may be made, as in vogue in democracy, that to be a magistrate one
would not require any property qualification.

So why Polity is the most suited to be best practicable state?

Polity is reflective of collective rational wisdom He uses the Analogy

of feast and argues that as more people cook, we have many dishes
and the feast becomes better. Accordingly, he claims that more
decision makers shall mean better and rational judgment.

Specialists neither infallible nor best. So, public control important.

Here he uses Builder-owner analogy. Who is a better judge about the
what and how the house should be built? He claims that neither
specialists like builders nor commoners like owner of house can have
complete knowledge. Therefore, it is best that both work together
sharing their respective knowledge.

• Gives stability as middle-class dominant.

• Middle path.
• More likely to follow reason.
• Most likely to incorporate friendship and equality. Neither extremely
arrogant nor fearful. Values of shared partnership nurtured.
• No class opposed to middle class. High class and lower class
identify themselves with it.

Ideal State

As regards the social composition of the ideal state, Aristotle begins

with the argument that a state in order to be self-sufficient essentially
requires

• food to feed the people,

 • handicrafts to manufacture various instruments necessary for
human living,
• the arms required to establish authority of the state and to fight
out external aggression,
• flow of finance to meet domestic needs and exigencies of war,
• worship of gods and performance of religious rites and
• definitive methods and means to determine public interest and
justice.

Corresponding to these six kinds of works, the ideal state would have
six classes of namely husbandmen, artisans, warriors, businessmen,
priests, and counsellors and judges. Accordingly, people with the
highest moral virtue are capable of fulfilling the purpose of the state.
This is why he eliminates artisans and businessmen as citizens of the
ideal state for in his judgment, they are bereft of moral virtues and,
hence, on moral consideration their life is lowly and focus on profit.
Similarly, husbandmen cannot be citizens of the ideal state as, engaged
in agricultural activities, they do not at all have the opportunity of
enjoying leisure without which moral virtues cannot be developed. The
remaining classes would be the citizens of the ideal state and they all
would have the right of ownership and possession of land.

Communism of Property & Wives

Aristotle was thus a proponent of private property system. He was

naturally opposed to communism or property proposed by Plato. In his
opinion Plato’s system of communism of property is disadvantages
and, in fact, impossible for several reasons.

• Aristotle believed that, by virtue of his communism, Plato wanted

to establish unity of an extreme extent but too much unity is bad
 for the state because the state really presupposes plurality.
However, extreme unity destroyed plurality, and as a result, the
state no longer remained a state or at best qualitatively, it
became a state of very poor standard.
• Second, in case of property under collective ownership, there
may crop up a constant conflict or dispute.
• Third, if property was under private ownership, everyone
developed a special interest in it, that is, when someone knows
that he owns a particular property, he naturally derived a kind of
pleasure from his sense of private ownership.
• Fourth, one always derived pleasure from doing charity to others
but one having no property of one’s own was unable to do charity
and, hence, missed the happiness of accompanying it.
• Fifth, private property was no doubt very much required for
comfortable living. For this reason, Aristotle regarded platonic
communism was unacceptable.

Slavery

Aristotle approached the institution of slavery from teleological and

instrumental lens. Slavery was practiced in Greece and he tried to
defend the system as an important relationship and an important
constituent of the household. He characterizes instruments in
household as animate and inanimate and puts slaves in the category
of animate objects. In the view of Aristotle, slavery is desirable and not
to be detested.

First, he argued that a slave had immense contribution in the

intellectual and moral development of his master. It secured sufficient
leisure to the slave owner so that he could achieve moral and
intellectual development.

Second, the system of slavery was wholesome to the slave also. For,
as his moral and intellectual qualities are much inferior by any
standard, he naturally benefitted much from his subjection to his
master, as tame animals are always better off when they are under the
control of men.

Third, according to Aristotle the system of slavery was verily natural

as it was in conformity with natural law. This was so because the law
of nature that applied everywhere in the world was that some would
control and others would remain under their control, as the soul
dominated over the body and intellect over appetite, male over female
and men over animals. Thus, it was ordained by nature that some are
born to rule and other to obey.

Aristotle, however, admitted that sometimes there may be an

exception to this natural rule. For instance, sometimes it so happened
that someone was born in the class of slaves with the body and mind
of independent citizens. On the other hand, some among the class of
independent citizens were born with the body and mind of a slave.
Furthermore, it is Aristotle’s firm belief that Hellenes could never be
slave as they invariably possessed high intellectual and moral
qualities. Despite these exceptions, Aristotle was convinced that
slavery was natural and justified.

He, of course, made a distinction between a natural slave and an

artificial slave. This artificial slave was what was created by man and
hence not ordained by nature. Thus, when the prisoners of war, as per
the practice of that time, are forced to slaves, they are artificial slaves.
Naturally, this did not get Aristotle’s approval. However, he added a
provision to it in that according to him, whenever the winner in a war
was gifted with a high moral quality, it was not wrong for him to turn
the prisoners of war into slaves. On the other hand, when the victor in
a war was of inferior moral quality, his victory was far from fair. In
such a case, forcing the prisoners of war into slaves was unfair and
immoral.

Aristotle & Gender

Aristotle accepts sexual inequality while actively defending slavery.

Anyone who is inferior intellectually and morally is also socially and
politically inferior in a well-ordered polis. A human being can be
naturally autonomous or not, ‘a natural slave’ being flawed in
rationality and morality, and thus naturally fit to belong to a superior;
such a human can rightly be regarded as ‘a piece of property,’ or
another person’s ‘tool for action.’ Given natural human inequality, it is
supposedly unfitting that all should rule or share in ruling. Aristotle
holds that some are marked as superior and fit to rule from birth, while
others are inferior and marked from birth to be ruled by others. This
hypothetically applies not only to ethnic groups, but also to the genders
and he unequivocally asserts that males are “naturally superior” and
females “naturally inferior,” the former being fit to rule and the latter
to be ruled. The claim is that it is naturally better for women
themselves that they be ruled by men, as it is better for “natural slaves”
that they should be ruled by those who are “naturally free.”

Aristotle does argue only for natural slavery. He opposes custom

slavery wherein in ancient period conquered enemies were made
prisoners of war and slaves. Aristotle (like Plato) believes that Greeks
are born for free and rational self-rule, unlike non-Greeks
(“barbarians”), who are naturally inferior and incapable of it. So the fact
that a human being is defeated or captured is no assurance that he is
fit for slavery, as an unjust war may have been imposed on a nobler
society by a more primitive one. While granting that Greeks and non-
Greeks, as well as men and women, are all truly human, Aristotle
justifies the alleged inequality among them based on what he calls the
‘deliberative’ capacity of their rational souls. The natural slave’s
rational soul supposedly lacks this, a woman has it but it lacks the
authority for her to be autonomous, a (free male) child has it in some
developmental stage, and a naturally superior free male has it
developed and available for governance.

Citizenship

According to Aristotle, direct participation in the functions of the state

is the basis of citizenship. Thus, in his opinion residence in a particular
territory under the jurisdiction of state does not make one a citizen.
Similarly, a person cannot be treated as a citizen on the ground that in
his paternal or maternal side someone was a citizen. No support for
natural citizenship. Only a person who is associated with the functions
of the judiciary or with the deliberative functions of the public assembly
is, according to Aristotle, a citizen. Only adult male members, except
slaves, are to be recognized as citizens.

After providing thus a definition of citizenship, Aristotle moves further

to settle the question whether a good man is necessarily a good citizen,
that is, whether good moral obviously gives one a good political
capacity. He tried his best with various arguments to establish that the
virtues of a good man and a good citizen are not one and the same.

• His first argument is that a citizen works under a particular

constitutional system. Hence, the virtues of a good citizen are no
 doubt determined by the purpose and the goal of constitutional
system concerned. On the hand, the virtues of a good man are
always the same, no matter whatever was the pattern of the
constitutional system.
• Second, according to Aristotle even if it is assumed that a good
citizen is a good man, it can hardly be denied that different citizens
have to do different works of the state which require different worth
and capability, that is, good citizens need to have different types of
qualities but the qualities of good men for obvious reasons never
vary.
• Third, a state is constituted by different type of citizens. Naturally, in
terms of political capacities, some are superior and others are
inferior. Thus, although they are good citizens, their virtues vary.

Distributive Justice

The premise Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, begins with is that

what is generally taken as equality cannot be the basis of justice, that
is, to treat indiscriminately all as equal cannot be the way to
establishing justice in society. In his opinion, to distribute according to
proportion, amounts to true justice. According to this rule of
proportion, those who are really equal in consideration of worth and
ability would have equal shares. As Aristotle says in Book III, Chapter
XII of his Politics, ‘Equals ought to receive an equal share’. But in case
of those who are not equal in ability and worth shares would be
distributed in proportion to their respective worth and ability. In the
light of his philosophy, Aristotle believes that this worth and ability of
a citizen would be determined by his contribution to realization of the
final goal of the state. Distributive justice meant that offices and
wealth, rewards and dues were distributed among different social
classes according to their contributions based on merit, defined in
accordance with the spirit of the constitution. In an oligarchy, merit
meant wealth, while in an aristocracy, it was related to virtue. In an
ideal state, merit meant virtue. Since in Aristotle's perception the
objective end of the state was to ensure and promote good life, the
group that contributed most to this end could legitimately claim most
of society's honours. Thus, Aristotle does not believe in what may be
called arithmetical equality. He underscores proportionate equality by
which everyone would get his due on the basis of an estimation of his
contribution to the telos of the state. As he says in Book VIII, chapter II
of his politics, “justices in an absolute sense consist in proportional
equality”.

Revolution

Aristotle’s Politics includes a detailed discussion on revolution.

Revolution means, according to Aristotle, a change in the constitution,
a change in the rulers, a change-big or small. For him, the change from
monarchy to aristocracy, an example of a big change, is a revolution;
when democracy becomes less democratic, it is also a revolution,
though it is a small change. So to sum up Aristotle's meaning of
revolution, one may say revolution implies: (i) a change in the set of
rulers; (ii) a change, political in nature: (iii) a palace revolution; (iv)
political instability or political transformation; (v) a change followed by
violence, destruction and bloodshed. Aristotle was an advocate of
status quo and did not want political changes, for they brought with
them catastrophic and violent changes.
According to him, revolution may be of different nature depending and
its objective. For instance, in the first place, the purpose of revolution
may be to replace the prevailing political system by a new one, that is,
the objective of revolution may be to bring in a total change. Secondly,
keeping the political system intact, the objective may be only to replace
the ruling group. In such a case, the rebels tried to rest political power.
Third, without forcing a total change of political system the purpose of
revolution may be to make the tune of the existing political system
more pronounced or to temperate former that is, in the case of
revolution arise look for a partial change in the character of political
system. Fourth, revolution may be organized just to create some new
wins in political system or some new offices under it.

Aristotle argues that there may be various kinds of such objective

conditions. For instance:

• First, the very fact that some people are enjoying greater amount of
gain or honour may generate a feeling of acrimony and resentment
among others and as a result, this may create an objective condition
favorable for revolution.
• Second, impudence and indomitable lust for money of the public
officials may incite the citizens to resist the political system, and
this is how an objective condition is created to lead to revolution.
• Third, if a person or a group of persons become too powerful at
variance with the nature of the political system concerned, it may
create a situation contributory to revolution.
• Fourth, those who have committed crimes but try to avoid the
inevitable consequences of such crime or those who are anxious to
free themselves from the possible ill effects of injustice may
condition leading to revolution.
• Fifth, just the contempt of the ruled for the ruler may eventually
create a situation contributory to revolution.
• Sixth, uneven development resulting in the predominant influence
of a part of the state may also give birth to a situation contributing
to revolution.
• Seventh, party intrigue and deliberate appointment of person
disloyal to existing political system to the highest office of the state
may create a situation inviting revolution.
• Eight, indifference to bring in small political changes may lead to a
situation contributory to revolution. Because according to Aristotle,
sometimes the unwillingness to effect a little change in political
system may finally generate an urge to force a total change of
political system by way of revolution.
• Finally, the racial and geographical diversity unless harmonized into
unity, may create an environment for explosion of revolution.

To the general causes of revelations, Aristotle adds the particular

causes. In democracy the most important cause of revolution is the
unprincipled character of the popular leaders. Demagogues attack the
rich, individually or collectively, so as to provide them to forcibly resist
and provide the emergence of oligarchy. The causes of overthrow of
oligarchies can be internal as when a group within the class in power
becomes more influential or rich at the expense of the rest, or external,
by the mistreatment of the masses by the governing class. In
aristocracies, few people share in honour. When the number of people
benefiting becomes smaller or when disparity between rich and poor
becomes wider, revolution is caused. After identifying the cause of
revolution, Aristotle turns to measures to prevent it. In this matter, he
has following suggestions:
• His first advice is that in all political system care must be taken to
ensure complete allegiance to the laws of the state so much so that
even the small matter in the respect should be given due care.
Because neglect of small instances of violation of law final result in
the ruining of the state. As he says in Book VIII, chapter VIII of his
politics, “transgression creeps in the unperceived and at last ruins
of the state just as the constant recurrence for the small expenses
in that time eats up a fortune”.
• Second, measures taken to deceive the people should always be
avoided.
• Third, cordial relations with those denied the right of political
participation must be maintained.
• Fourth, to stall the misuse of power, the term of public official
should be brief.
• Fifth, it is Aristotle’s firm belief that in the face of impending danger
people, afraid of it, try their best to keep the political system intact.
Hence, to arrest the possibility of revolution the ruler should go on
creating an atmosphere of fear and bring the distant danger nearer.
• Sixth, by means of appropriate law the internal dispute and conflict
within the upper class should be restrained so that other classes of
people may not take advantage of this conflict and dispute.
• Seventh, it is necessary to stop the practice of using public office
for private gain and no official should be given disproportionate and
excessive power.
• Also, a public official should be given the responsibility to keep
watch on private life of citizens so that their way of life does not at
all have any harmful effect on the political system.
• Finally, the citizens must be educated in the spirit of political system
under which they live. If thus educated, they will gladly accept their
allegiance to the state not as servitude but rather as a means to
guard their interests and identity. As Aristotle comment in Book VIII,
in chapter IX, of his Politics, “the citizen should live and live gladly
in the spirit of the polity, as such a life ought not to be regarded as
a bondage but rather as a means of preservation”.