When one considers the political and social situation that America finds itself in today, it is understandable that some might dismiss the musings of Aristotle as irrelevant, ancient history. Indeed, Aristotle’s Politics was written over 2400 years ago – it IS ancient history. However, to dismiss the Politics as irrelevant to our current situation would be a grave miscalculation; Aristotle’s thoughts on democracy, systems of government, and the ultimate end to which both citizen and state should aim appear to have only grown in relevance over those 200-odd generations. We would be wise to heed his advice, or at least to consider its wisdom.
As I participated in the Occupy Fort Wayne demonstrations this past weekend, I found myself pondering the meaning behind Aristotle’s concepts. I found relevance reflected in the process of assembly and protest. I found purpose behind the seemingly obtuse actions of the varying factions that sought to be heard. And as I conversed with Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Socialists, and independents, I gained a newfound appreciation for the way disparate voices can begin to blend into consensus. Democracy is messy, muddled, and uncertain – but it does seem to be the best option available to us, as Aristotle indicated.
Democracy is preferred because the many are more capable than the few. Aristotle argued that the masses are more deserving of authority than those who, though full of merit, are few in numbers (1281a:40 – 1281b:6). What the masses lack in individual measure, they make up for in number; when they combine talents and efforts, when they blend their voices into a consensus, their excellence become like a single person, exceeding the excellence of any solitary, actual person.
Democracy is more equitable and more stable than alternative regimes. The philosopher explained that everyone has “skin in the game” in a democracy (1328b:32 – 33). Because the people all share an equal share of freedom, they each have an equal stake in the maintenance of the regime (1317a:40 – 1317b:13). In addition to its equitable nature, democracy is more stable than oligarchy in that the only possible serious conflict between factions would be between those citizens favoring democracy and those favoring oligarchy (1302a: 8 – 13). Democracy is more stable and less prone to factional conflict than oligarchy. In an oligarchy there are two types of possible conflict, namely, conflict between the oligarchs themselves and conflict between the oligarchs and the people. In a democracy, however, there is only conflict between citizens favoring democracy and citizens favoring oligarchy, as no serious factional conflict arises in the people [that is, those favoring democracy] against themselves.
While democracy is certainly Aristotle’s preferred regime, he warns us of the potential for conflict between the wealthy and the poor. He explains that the greatest tension in any city-state is the mutual resentment that exists between those of wealth and those without. His solution is to balance the interests of the rich minority and the poor majority by allowing both factions a roughly equivalent sum of power. Additionally, Aristotle recommends that the regime maintain a strong middle class in order to keep the state in balance and to guard against corruption and oppression. He warns us that unrestrained capitalism is a grave danger to a city-state, and that it is of the greatest importance to have laws and regimes arranged in such a way as to prevent those in power from profiting financially from their offices (1308b:31 – 33). As I demonstrated this past weekend, I considered the truth and relevance in Aristotle’s words.
With regard to the middle class, the philosopher advised that the middle class control government and stand as a buffer between the rich and poor, saying that those who possess the goods of fortune in moderation will necessarily find it “easiest to obey the rule of reason” (1295b:4 – 6). A regime governed by a healthy middle class is most stable and freest from faction (1296a:7 – 9). He held that it is best for citizens to possess only a moderate amount of wealth, else the democracy slip into a direct democracy (tyranny of the many) or an unmixed oligarchy (tyranny of the rich) (1295b:39 – 1296a5). Once established, the victor will not be equitable, but will set up a system to their permanent advantage (1296a:22 – 36).
Education is the very most important component to the well-being of the regime for Aristotle, and the aspect that is most often neglected; education should not be governed by partisan politics (1310a:12 – 36). He also warned us here that freedom is not everybody living as they please and for whatever goal they desire; that is contemptible, he says. We should define freedom in terms that promote the equity and stability inherent in democracy – which for Aristotle meant placing the needs of the community above those of the individual. Since a state is in actuality a multitude and not the metaphorical unit we commonly reference, we must utilize education in ways that preserve the union, constantly making and remaking it into a partnership (1263b:36 – 37).
This brings me to my final observation in light of the Occupy Fort Wayne demonstrations occurring now. Aristotle teaches that the duty of the citizen is the preservation of the partnership that democracy demands (1276b:28 – 29). As the cold grew and my endorphins were wearing down, as we stood and shivered in protest to the corrupting influence of greed in our democracy, I understood that it was our responsibility to do what we must to preserve that union, to make and remake that partnership, making one out of many.
This is what makes the Occupy movement so very powerful: it is an Aristotelian solution from the middle of the political spectrum. As the movement advances, we would all do well to heed the philosopher’s counsel.
