Politics

In Book 3, Aristotle proposes that studying the nature of both a city and its citizens will provide guidance into what type of political constitution will most benefit all. He argues that it is not enough to look at a city as a single entity, because a city is made up of many parts—citizens included. The philosopher carefully defines a citizen and determines that a citizen is someone who holds an office, excluding anyone else living in the same city as non-citizens. Citizens must also be born of other citizens from both their mother and father’s parentage. Aristotle defines the term based upon whether the individual’s ancestors were a part of developing the constitution for the city. If so, they are naturalized citizens. When a constitution is amended, potentially changing who qualifies for citizenship, it must be followed.

However, the question of citizenship leads Aristotle to another question: “When can a given act be considered an act of the city or polis?” (88). The philosopher asserts that a city’s credit is called into question when the government alters its original nature, thereby losing its political identity. He compares a city to a river which has a specific identity even though it is always changing. Similarly, a city is continuously replacing the dying with infants, replenishing and changing while maintaining its identity. When a constitution changes, it alters the identity of the city.

Aristotle momentarily sets aside the question as to whether this change provides a basis for citizens to rebel against a city’s laws. Instead, he examines the relationship between how a city defines a good citizen and the composition of a good person. Good citizens are defined as those who contribute to the safety of their community; this appears to support the idea that a good citizen is a person committed to good. However, when the individual is torn between varying political ideals, it is impossible to continue a personal pursuit of good. This flaw in logic reveals that one can be a good citizen without being a good person. One can support the city’s constitution without holding tightly to the virtues that lead to happiness. Therefore, a ruler and the ruled must hold tightly to the pursuit of goodness through virtue, bringing out the best in one another.

Aristotle returns to citizenship, noting that tradesmen are neither citizens nor aliens. He likens enslaved peoples and tradesmen to children: While they are a part of a city, they are not citizens and never could be. Only those who are free from the “necessary tasks of life” have the leisurely time to take up the political yoke and advance the purposes of the constitution (95).

Born in Macedonia, Aristotle was not considered a citizen of Athens and was not able to participate in the political realm. However, the philosopher believed that to achieve happiness, one must engage with one’s own political nature. This aligns with the theme Politics as a Pathway for Good and Happiness. He argued that it was only through political action in a community, while personally pursuing a virtuous life, that a person can achieve self-actualization. Meanwhile, Aristotle was excluded from political life in Athens. In Book 3, Aristotle continues to argue that certain peoples should be excluded from citizenship, contributing to the theme Political Hierarchies as Natural Forms of Subjugation. Aristotle’s views represented the prejudices of his time, but he failed to see how his own biases perpetuated his personal oppression.

The philosopher’s assertion that all people are naturally political presents another, more sinister, connotation. By suggesting that all people are political, the denial of political life for specific groups of people is simultaneously the denial of their human nature. This is revealed through the theme The Political Nature of Man. For Aristotle, humanity is limited only to those who have enough wealth and means to devote copious amounts of leisure time to political pursuits. Anyone living within the city who does not come from a lineage of wealth and influence is excluded from humanity. Therefore, happiness belongs to an exclusive club; all others exist only to advance the happiness of the select few.

Aristotle defines a constitution as how a government is organized. He uses the examples of democracies and oligarchies. In democracies, citizens hold sovereign power; in oligarchies, only a few are granted that privilege. Therefore, the philosopher divides constitutions into two types: those which are ruled by a few and those ruled by all. Aristotle gives preference to constitutions which seek to benefit all and limit the terms of office; he admonishes constitutions which seek to benefit only a few. However, he hints at caution for handing over total control to a city’s citizens.

Aristotle then subdivides the constitutions according to rule by one, a few, or many. Correct constitutions represent kingship (monarchy), aristocracy, and constitutional government (polity). These constitutions protect the common interest. Incorrect constitutions are made up of tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. He refers to the incorrect types as perversions, extreme examples of types of government that do not contribute to good.

Aristotle then examines kingship. The philosopher questions who should rule when several have a stake in the claim. He suggests that the decision should be based upon goodness. If the argument is made that the many have more virtue than the individual, then the decision still must be predicated upon what would benefit the common good the most. Men of outstanding goodness, far superior to everyone else in the city, should be established as king. The philosopher evaluates different forms of kingship and finds that all forms of monarchies present the specific problems of lineage and force. The most beneficial form of kingship is bound in law and limited in power.

Constitutions exist to advance justice, but the varying forms described above hold different definitions of justice. In the case of a democracy, poor citizens believe themselves to be equal to and as important as other social classes. In oligarchies, only the wealthy believe themselves to be important. Aristotle claims that these beliefs do not carry justice far enough. For the philosopher, justice has little to do with equality; instead, justice looks at a larger picture of what is best for all people. For justice to be enacted properly, sovereignty belongs solely to law. People are flawed and seek to advance their own personal well-being. Aristotle holds to the idea that law is divine reason; it is naturally virtuous. While equality does play a role in how justice is served, equality must be proportional, an argument which advances Aristotle’s views as to who does and does not qualify as a citizen as outlined in the theme Political Hierarchies as Natural Forms of Subjugation.