Politics: Book 3

A city is a self-sufficient [autarkeia] whole made of different parts: citizens. A citizen, not defined by his place of residence or by his right to justice, is one who “shares in the administration of justice and in the holding of office.” ‘Citizens’ differ from constitution to constitution. Some become citizens by birth, some by changes in the constitution. A city changes its identity with a change in its constitution even if the people or the space remains the same.

Excellence  in a good man, and in a good citizen is not the same. Excellence in the citizen is relative to the city’s constitution, while in a good man it coincides with that of a ruler (though in a well-ordered state one may not be able to distinguish between the good man and the good citizen). The ruler need not know how to perform tasks, but how to use those who do: the manual labourers. One learns ‘political rule’ (rule over those similar in birth) by being ruled first. Ruler and ruled require different virtues.  The city tries to ensure eudaimonia for citizens. Therefore, under most constitutions, “all who are necessary to the city’s existence” [barnausoi], cannot be considered citizens. Shortage of genuine citizens calls for relaxed rules of citizenship.

The Civic body [politeuma] (synonymous with Constitution [politeia]) is sovereign. The sovereign (one, few, or many), who considers public interest is good, while all else is despotic. Kingship, Aristocracy, ‘Constitutional Government’ are the right forms; their perversions being Tyranny, Oligarchy, and Democracy. Each constitution has its own view of Justice. All parties concerned think that they profess absolute justice. Equality and inequality are both considered just, but one for equals, and the inequality for unequals. He tries later to determine the criteria for judging of ‘equality’. Contribution to the state is to be the deciding factor. Proximate habitation, mutual safeguard of justice, and commercial exchange are necessary conditions for a city’s existence, but it is ultimately a community engaged in a ‘good life’.

Although Aristotle maintains faith in people, who according to him, act in judicious and prudent manner as a group, he concludes that sovereignty should ultimately lie not in human beings, but in law. He then discusses the possibility of the coexistence of ‘the good, the wealthy, and wellborn, and some general body of citizens’, all fit to rule. If there is a person, superior in all aspects to the rest, it would be unjust to give him a share equal to what the others receive. In perverted forms, Aristotle explains with illustrations, these persons are ostracized. But in the best constitution, all else would pay him willing obedience.

There are five types of kingship: i) Spartan (in charge of military); ii) (barbarian) law-governed tyrannies; iii) (‘Heroic Age’) elective tyranny [aisumneteia]; iv) consensual tyranny; and v) absolute kingship. Since a ‘numerous body’ is less easily corruptible, Aristotle seems to argue for limited powers of kingship. Even if there is one person ruling, he should be made ‘servant’ of the law. When a family surpasses the ordinary people it should be vested with kingship. He may then command absolute subservience, and his rule need not be time-bound.

Aristotle commends most highly a constitution administered by the best (one, few, or a number of people). “[T]he same method… by which a man becomes good, should also be used to achieve the creation of a city on the pattern of aristocracy or kingship; and thus the training and habits of action which make a good man are the same as those which make a good statesman or a  good king.”