By

Mohammad Zameer Musazai

According to Aristotle,

A state is an association which exists for the good of itsmembers.

If its power is exercised for the good of the people, the ruled,the State is of a normal or good form.

But if it is exercised for the benefit of the rulers, it is then abad or perverted State.

When monarchy becomes perverted, it becomes a tyranny,and when a polity is bad, it is what Aristotle calls a democracy,which may be translated as a mob-ruler or Mobocracy.

Numbers ofrulers

One Few Many

Good Monarchy Aristocracy Polity

Bad Tyranny Oligarchy Democracy

Monarchy:A government by a king who rules for the good of the whole

community.

Tyranny:A perverted form of monarchy in which the one ruler uses his

supreme authority for his own selfish ends or benefits.

Aristocracy:The rule of the few good rulers who exercise supreme authority

for the well-being of the people.

Oligarchy:The selfish government of the few rich men in their own interests.

Polity:A good form of the rule of the many for the good of all.

Democracy:Aristotle says: The rule of the poor who are many but lawless,

just as an oligarchy is the rule of the few rich, who are selfish.

It contains that how one form changes into another.

First of all, there is a monarchy or kingship, the rule of a good king.

In course of time, the kings become bad and oppressive tyrants.

But the tyranny does not last long, for the people overthrow itunder the leadership of a few good men, who establish anaristocracy.

When the character and aims of the few rulers degeneratearistocracy becomes oligarchy.

Then the citizens establish a constitutional rule of the many, whichAristotle called Polity.

Thus polity degenerates into democracy, the rule of the mob, butthis lawlessness and confusion too cannot last long, sooner or later,one strongman, e.g. a successful military leader assumes supremepower and once again re-establishes monarchy or the rule of one.

Thus the cycle of change or progression come.

Aristotle’s cycle of change is illustrated by the history of ancient States of his times,especially the Greek city-states, they were originally monarchies, whichdegenerated into tyrannies.

When they degenerated into oligarchies, the citizens overthrow them andestablished polity or constitutional rule, as illustrated by the city-state of Athens.

History of Rome also illustrated this cycle.

Modern history also illustrates this cycle of political changes to some extent.

For example: France was ruled by kings whose government became pervertedunder Louis.

The revolution of 1789 overthrow French monarchy and established an aristocracywhich lasted only two years and became a democratic State under the directory.

Then change to monarchy.

At last, the French monarchy was overthrown by the constitutional Republic.

History has nowhere followed the exact pattern of succession or progression, aslaid down by Aristotle.

Aristotle classification of states has some merits.

In the first place, it is so precise and exact that it has fascinated andattracted the attention of political writers down to the present day.

Secondly, he classified the states not only on the basis of their governmentstructure but also on that of their ethical or moral spirit.

He clearly showed that a good or normal state is one which is governed bygood rulers.

Thirdly, he analyzed the causes of political change and revolution.

He found two causes, the deterioration of the character of the rulers andthe influence of wealth.

He was the first great political writer who showed that politics isconditioned by economics or that wealth influences the political structureof the state to a great extent.

He illustrated his theory of political change or cyclic progression by thehistory of his times.

In this connection the following objections have been taken toit:

1. Aristotelian classification is unscientific and merelyquantitative

2. Aristotle’s classification confuses the state with government

3. It does not apply to many kinds of modern governments.

It is urged that Aristotle’s classification is unscientific and artificial becauseit is based not on organic and qualitative distinctions between variousforms of the state but merely on numerical and quantitative differences.

The distinction between monarchy, aristocracy and democracy or polity isreally qualitative and organic because it indicates the spread of politicalconsciousness among the people

Aristotle believed that knowledge is the basis of the state and knowledgemeans the consciousness of the ethical end for which the state exists

A monarchy is qualitatively different from an aristocracy as well as from apolity or democracy

Burgess said: the distinctive character of a state depends upon the numberof persons who are inspired with political consciousness and thereforeparticipate in its organization and government.

Garner said: Aristotle did not keep in mind the differencebetween the state and government and he did not classifystate, but governments

A classification of governments it is unsound and unscientificbecause it is not based on their fundamental characteristics

The Greek did not know the difference between the state andthe government.

Seeley and Leacock have objected that his classification does not embrace severalkinds of modern states and governments

Dr. Leacock raised four objections against his classification

1. It does not provide any place for constitutional or limited monarchies like that ofEngland. Modern constitution is a mixed constitution which combines thefeatures of a monarchy and a democracy

2. Aristotle’s polity or democracy and monarchy open the way to great confusionlike the England and USA both of them are democracies, but they will be put indifferent categories, for England is a monarchy, while the USA is a republic

3. This classification fails to take account of the difference between a federal and aunitary form of government

4. It also fails to distinguish the parliamentary from the presidential form ofgovernment

Aristotle’s classification is inadequate for modern states.

Democratic

Limited/constitution monarchy• Unitary

• federal

Republic

• Presidential

• Parliamentary

• Ruling own wishes without any legal rule

• Rule of one party in a country without opposition party

• Rule of religious people

• Kingship, without party

Monarchy

Theocracy

Dictatorship

One party rule

Non-democratic

you