Political Science Project

Topic: Aristotle’s view on governance

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Ms. Aditi Dubey Riddhi Agarwal
Assistant Professor of Political Science Roll no- 22240
RGNUL, Punjab
 INTRODUCTION
The main objective of Aristotle was to think about the structure of government. He needed
everyone to be able to recall his method of power, thus it is crucial that what is simple to
obtain. Aristotle is regarded as the founder of political science since he developed ideas on
the ideal government, revolution, slavery, nationality, and circumstances of government, as
well as the theory of the golden mean and constituents.

Aristotle was the first sincere scientist in history as well as the most famous and greatest
philosopher who has ever lived. He contributed innovative ideas to every branch of
philosophy and science. He realized the wide range of scientific fields and found out how
they related to one another. For what he called polity, which is a state where the wealthy and
the poor respect each other's privileges and are the best qualified, Aristotle supported a form
of legitimate democracy.

The controversy over who should hold the city's highest office is the cornerstone of
Aristotle's book on political science. Aristotle asserts that the city is a natural whole that
progressively develops from natural but embryonic interactions like the self-governing family
in the opening chapters of his Laws.

One of Plato's overzealous disciples, Aristotle, has been hailed as the founder of political
science. His political theories—including those relating to the social character of people, the
rule of law, uprising, nationalism, and constitutionalism—have remained to be of great
importance to political specialists.

Aristotle proves that "man is a party-political animal" by claiming that the only way to live a
happy life is to be a citizen of a state. Aristotle defends the structure of private property,
condemns excessive entrepreneurship, and defends the arrangement of bondage in a
dishonorable manner while discussing the financial relationships inside a city-state.

He notices that a city’s economy, state's population, class distribution, and other factors
greatly influence what it needs. He examines the various variations of states and structures
and offers numerous broad compliments. The shared resentment between the affluent and the
poor is the utmost tautness in any polity. A strong middle class thereby maintains a condition
of equilibrium and acts as a deterrent to deceit and dominance. The three branches of public
administration are deliberation, which oversees the state's important political decisions,
policymaking, which controls its daily operations, and jurisdictive, which manages its legal
matters.

A strong middle class thereby maintains a condition of equilibrium and acts as a deterrent to
deceit and dominance. The three branches of public administration are deliberation, which
oversees the state's important political decisions, policymaking, which controls its daily
operations, and jurisdictive, which manages its legal matters.

Aristotle suggests education, temperance, and thoroughness as ways to maintain form. It is

possible to maintain the prosperity of both the affluent minority and the poor majority by
giving both groups unequal amounts of authority. Any affluent individual would have more
party political ability in such a scenario.
 ARISTOTLE’S VIEWS ON POLITICS
The main task of political science is to study the role of politicians or statesmen. One of the
most important tasks for a politician is as a lawgiver. This involves forming laws, customs,
institutions, etc. Also, the laws need to be changed from time to time so as to cope with
changing times. Legislative science is responsible for this, and according to Aristotle, it is
more significant than politics as it is practiced in regular political action like the passage of
decrees.

Politician man is being compared to a craftsman by Aristotle. This comparison is not apt as
politics in the strict sense is legislative science which is practical knowledge, while crafts like
architecture or medicine are productive in nature. The relationship stays true, however, to the
extent that the politician establishes, maintains, and enforces a legal system founded on
universally accepted values. The four causes—material, formal, efficient, and final—that
contribute to the development of an object like a cup are covered by Aristotle. For the
purpose of comprehending this analogy, this remark is crucial.

Four kinds of factors can be discussed to explain the city-state’s existence. It is a particular
type of community (koinônia), which is a group of components with certain shared purposes
and interests. As a result, it consists of components, which Aristotle refers to in various
situations in different ways: as houses, economic classes (such as the affluent and the poor),
or demes (i.e., local political units). However, in the end, the city-state is made up of
individual residents who, along with natural resources, serve as the "material" or "equipment"
from which the city-state is constructed (see III.1.1274a38-41) (see VII.14.1325b38–41).

The city constitution states its formal reason (politeia). The constitution, according to
Aristotle, is "a particular arrangement of the citizens of the city-state" (III.1.1274b32–41). He
also refers to a community's constitution as "the shape of the compound" and makes the case
that the community's ability to remain constant across time is dependent on its constitution
(III.3.1276b1–11). The constitution is like the soul of living beings rather than a written
document. Consequently, the constitution also refers to the residents' "style of life"
(IV.11.1295a40–b1, VII.8.1328b1–2). A minority of the local people who have full political
rights are citizens in this country (III.1.1275b17–20).

The city-ruler, the state is also a necessary cause for its existence. According to Aristotle, a
society of any kind can only be considered orderly if it possesses a governing element or
power. The constitution specifies this governing concept and establishes standards for
political authorities, notably the sovereign office (III.6.1278b8–10; cf. IV.1.1289a15–18). But
more importantly, there needs to be a good reason for a city-state to have its constitution in
the first place. According to Aristotle, "the one who originally founded [the city-state] is the
cause of very significant benefits" (I.2.1253a30–1). Evidently, this individual established the
constitution as the lawgiver (nomothetês), comparable to Lycurgus of Sparta or Solon of
Athens. Aristotle likens a legislator, or a politician more broadly, to an artisan (dêmiourgos),
such as a weaver or shipbuilder, who shapes raw materials into a finished product
(II.12.1273b32–3, VII.4.1325b40–1365a5).

Aristotle's Politics is dominated by the idea of ultimate cause from the first few words:

It is obvious that every community aims at some good since we can see that every city-state
is a form of community and that every community was founded for the sake of some good
(since everyone acts in favor of what they believe to be good), and the community that has
the most authority among all and includes all the others aims highest, that is, at the good with
the most authority. The city-state or political community is what is referred to as this.
[I.1.1252a1–7]

He says that the city-state comes into existence for a good life. The book politics focuses on
good life or happiness.

In conclusion, a city-state is a material cause (i.e., matter-form) combination of a specific

population (i.e., citizen-body) in a specific area and a constitution (formal cause). The goal of
the city-state is outlined in the constitution, which is created by the lawgiver and
administered by politicians who act as artisans (efficient cause) (final cause, IV.1.1289a17–
18). The hylomorphic analysis of Aristotle has significant practical ramifications for him. Just
as a craftsman should not attempt to impose a form on a material that is unsuited (for
example, by building a house out of sand), the legislator should not enact or amend laws that
go against the nature of the people who will be governed by them. As a result, Aristotle
disapproves of utopian ideas such as Plato's Republic's notion that all citizens should share in
the ownership of children and property. Given that "people devote the greatest attention to
their own property, less attention to what is common, or only as much care as falls to them to
offer attention," this is contrary to this (Pol. II.3.1261b33–5). Aristotle also cautions against
haphazard political innovation since it may have the negative side-effect of eroding citizens'
habit of abiding by the law (II.8.1269a13–24).

STUDY OF SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONS

"The excellent lawgiver and the real politician" are to be guided by political science
(IV.1.1288b27). It must research a variety of difficulties pertaining to its subject field, much
like any full science or art. Constitutions of similar types are studied in political science
(1288b21–35): The best constitution is first and foremost the one that is "most according to
our prayers with no external impediment," followed by "the best constitution under the
circumstances," "for it is probably impossible for many persons to attain the best
constitution," and "the best constitution based on a hypothesis": "for [the political scientist]
ought to be able to study a given constitution," and finally, "the best constitution."
Aristotelian political science not only considers the best constitution, but also the second-best
constitution or even worse political systems since this may be the closest to total political
justice that the lawgiver can attain given the circumstances.

According to Aristotle's "ideal constitution," every citizen will have moral virtue and the
means to put it into practise, leading to an excellent existence and total pleasure (see
VII.13.1332a32–8). Because "one should call the city-state joyful not by looking at a section
of it but at all the residents," every citizen will be able to vote and own property.
(VII.9.1329a22–3). Additionally, a universal educational system will be implemented for all
residents because they all share the same goal (Pol. VIII.1).

However, the lawmaker must be happy with crafting a viable constitution if, as is the case
with the majority of current urban-states, the populace lacks the abilities and resources
necessary to achieve perfect pleasure (Politics IV.11). A polity (where citizens have a lower,
more common grade of virtue) or hybrid constitution is frequently the second-best style of
governance (combining features of democracy, oligarchy, and, where possible, aristocracy, so
that no group of citizens is in a position to abuse its rights). According to Aristotle, a large
middle class that is situated between the wealthy and the poor should be in charge of city-
states that fall short of the ideal. It is "easiest to observe the rule of reason" for those who
enjoy the benefits of fortune in moderation (Politics IV.11.1295b4–6). As a result, they are
less likely than the affluent or the impoverished to treat their fellow residents unfairly. The
middle ground between the extremes of oligarchy (government by the wealthy) and
democracy which is a constitution based on the middle class (rule by the poor). "It is clear
that the medium [constitution] is the best since it is the least prone to the faction: when the
middle class is large, there occur factions and conflicts among residents least frequently"
(IV.11.1296a7–9).

In Politics III.11, Aristotle makes the argument for popular rule while classifying democracy
as an aberrant government (although the best of a rotten bunch), a point that has caught the
interest of contemporary democratic theorists. The main argument is that even though the
many may be inferior when looked at separately when they gather together, they may end up
being superior to the virtuous few. Because if everyone had a certain amount of moral
excellence and practical intelligence, they might combine their moral resources and make for
better rulers than even the most learned person. The "jury theorem" of Condorcet and other
approaches to "the wisdom of the crowd" appears to be foreshadowed by this reasoning.

Furthermore, even flawed constitutions must be studied by political scientists. According to

Aristotle, "the politician should also support existing constitutions" since "to modify a
constitution is no less a work [of politics] than it is to construct one from the beginning"
(IV.1.1289a1–7). Political scientists should also be aware of the political dynamics that might
destabilize an established government. Aristotle bemoans the excessive utopianism and
disregard for the practical responsibilities of a political thinker displayed by his forebears. He
is not a Machiavellian, though. The ideal constitution continues to be used as a standard by
which to assess current structures.
 CLASSIFICATION OF CONSTITUTION BY
ARISTOTLE
The notion of categorizing the constitutions is not a recent one. The classification of
constitutions is done on many criteria. For the very first time, Aristotle used a scientific
approach to categorize the constitution. His categorization is based on research of 158 ancient
global constitutions. According to the position of sovereign authority and the objective or
purpose that the power was oriented toward, he has categorized the constitution.

True or normal states are those that cultivate the good life for everyone. Perverted states are
those that stray from that goal. The following table provides an illustration of his
categorization.

Aristotle’s Classification of constitutions

Pure Form Seeking Perverted form

Rule / Form of
the common common welfare
Constitution
welfare ignored

Rule by one Monarchy Tyranny

Rule by few Aristocracy Oligarchy

Rule by many Polity Democracy

From the chart, it is clear that Aristotle classified constitutional systems primarily according
on where the centre of the state and its boundaries were.

Monarchy is a kind of single-person rule that prioritizes the welfare of the people. It turns
into tyranny when the monarchy becomes self-serving. Aristocracy is when a select few
individuals rule for the benefit of all.

However, an aristocracy can become an oligarchy when its leaders act only in their own self-
interest and disregard the needs of the general populace. When it is fair and promotes the
benefit of all, the policy is viewed by many as the government. However, democracy or
ochlocracy results when they govern in accordance with their own class interests.
Aristotle also discussed the cycle through which governments come and disappear.
Aristocracy eventually superseded tyranny, which emerged when monarchy become
perverse.

IDEAL STATE ACCORDING TO

ARISTOTLE
Aristotle acknowledges the limitations of Plato's ideal condition whereas Plato declares it to
be excellent for all time. Aristotle, like his teacher, too favours monarchy. But he is adamant
that the law, not a philosopher monarch, should be in charge.

Following are the features of an ideal state according to Aristotle:

1. In his perfect world, the law is supreme. impersonal application of the law was being
favored by Aristotle, which embodies the knowledge of society throughout the years.
2. It is a moral organization that seeks to improve people’s moral character and advance
everyone's good and joyful lives.
3. property with private ownership but shared usage.
4. The division of labor in Aristotle's ideal society involves slaves working in
agriculture, residents working in the trade, and citizens participating in politics.
5. The city-state of a reasonable size is Aristotle's ideal polity. Population growth should
be controlled.
6. It should be self-sufficient and free from any hostile intentions toward other nations.
7. There should be six classes: priests, administrators, a warlike class, the leisure class,
the agricultural class, and the craftsmen class. Only those four have citizenship rights.
8. Since the middle class possesses the dual attributes of obedience and command, it
tends to bring stability.
 GOOD GOVERNANCE: CONCEPT AND
ANALYSIS
Children and elderly people who are not in the workforce are "relative" citizens who have not
yet registered. There are also civically degraded citizens as well as citizens in the truest sense
of the word. The latter group depended on the evaluation made in politics and was formerly
noted as such for their involvement in the civil service and in court decisions. This contrast
between the two activities—the court activity, which may be continued indefinitely—and the
other, which is seen as publicly visible but is time- and space-limited as the execution of such
a mandate, is intriguing.

Naturally, such a concept of citizenship required the legitimacy provided by the specific
citizen's parents, who were also citizens but had a certain relativization based on the nature of
the political regime, other than the democratic one to which he belonged.

The person who will be accepted as their leader will come from among these citizens, who
are also city dwellers but somehow primum inter pares. He or she should have been the one
in charge before being legitimised, in order to comprehend those he will rule and be aware of
their aspirations: "The one that is ruled is like the master of flutes and the ruler is the flute
player who uses them," says Aristotle.

Aristotle defines the political system as "the structure of the city in accordance to diverse
roles and notably with that sovereign over all," which is an intriguing and particularly
timeless description. The most prolific philosopher of Western culture gives a clear example:
"In democracies, the sovereign is the people, but conversely, a minority is sovereign in
oligarchies." This means that there is always a function of the state that is "above" all other
functions and that ultimately defines its essence.

The reasons why males associate with one another in the neighbourhood and in the city are
intricate and nuanced in and of themselves. Thus, the first characteristic of man is his social
nature, which gives rise to his initial need to assemble in a group as a society. Then, because
of a propensity for welfare, man finally decides to integrate himself into the urban population.
Man lived in the family association, numerous guilds, and other possibilities that persuaded
him of the value of an association before reaching this higher form of organization—the city.
The attitude of the person who briefly governed these associations before the city's
association was dominant, serving the interests of both the ruler and the ruled. When this
basic rule - the rule of everyone's good - is broken, wicked regimes that are against the
interests of the city, which is by definition "a community of free men," deviate from the city's
proper, public duty.

The discussion of the legislator's place and function in the welfare of the city as proposed by
Aristotle is crucial because it instructs us that the judge, who occupies a position of
leadership within the community, must choose the laws that are most appropriate to achieve
the good of the community.

The practical nature of the issues covered in this monumental work, Politics, is supported by
two extraordinary pillars: on the one hand, constitutions from the author's time and current
ones are analyzed; on the other hand, a true "technology" for crafting the best constitution is
developed from reality-based data. The author concludes that three constitutional systems—
kingship, aristocracy, and polity—deserve evaluation. He also discusses the systems' aberrant
opposites, tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy.

Democracy itself involves a variety of expressions: sometimes it involvement of all

inhabitants in the city’s governance, state's participation that is restricted to only those who
are free, and a third version in which individuals with no income but who are paid to run the
city's affairs.

Aristotle paints a picture of a society dominated by the rule of law and a "middle class." The
influence of that oligarchy, which is defined by fewer but wealthier classes, is next discussed,
followed by the influence of the very few but extremely affluent, which is marked by
succession in the sphere of power.

Undoubtedly, the great thinker was able to emphasize both the advantageous and
disadvantageous features of both oligarchy and democracy thanks to his thorough research of
all their component parts. The design of the perfect constitution has finally been "shaped" by
him thanks to the same comparison analysis. The ideal political community is established by
middle-class citizens, and those governments are likely to be well-managed if the middle
class is vast and stronger if possible than both the other classes or at least than each alone,
Aristotle concluded at the end of this chapter.

Aristotle was able to assert the superiority of this kind of political community and its sound
governance thanks to his experience and knowledge in the field of state theory. This
community's purely economic foundation was symbolized by "the average and sufficient
wealth" of the vast majority of the populace. Democracy and oligarchy, in contrast to this
kind of society, were marked by deviations, disputes, and finally, the dominance of one class
over the other that was exercised only to the former's own advantage. Solon during the period
when he was in power in Athens provided a further justification for not just the theorized that
a ruler from the middle class would make for the finest kind of society and effective
administration that had actually existed, however temporarily.

The city-state is examined in terms of both its qualitative aspects, which include money,
education, and noble birth, and its numeric aspects, which assumed the "superiority of the
many." All citizens have these traits, regardless of the type of established government,
together with the presence of a middle socioeconomic class within the political community,
were both shared characteristics. Political systems, regardless of their nature, shared certain
essential characteristics with other political systems, just as they do now. According to
Aristotle, the "tricks" used to diversify the "political game" but also to increase its
application, such the assembly, the functions, and the tribunals, were the seeds from which
these characteristics were articulated. The presentation of these common elements of political
regimes is referred to in the modern and contemporary era as "the separation of powers," but
this division already existed and was put into practise many centuries before our era, within
those political regimes that were all aware of the existence of the three "bodies.": the
legislative body comes last, followed by the body that conducts deliberations. Beyond the
fact that these "bodies" shared an existence, these political regimes had comparable abilities
that were ascribed to these bodies.

There was undoubtedly a difference between the various political regimes at some point, and
this specificity was provided by the actual methods by which these abilities were used, the
presence or absence of a delicate balance between them, and, last but not least, the
accessibility of some or everyone to positions in these "bodies." Each regime is unique in its
own way, and factors such as the duration of these functions within each "body," the number
of seats, the processes of investiture, and finally the means of access to various functions all
play a part.

Even while Aristotle was examining the characteristics, necessity, and value of the so-called
public functions, there was still room for debate. The issue of function overlap, which is
frequently considered as a goal to be accomplished, was and continues to be related to the
philosophy of the public function. Of course, "the functions' landscape" varied among
regimes, but aside from the basic tasks that every city-state required, each system took care to
develop its own unique functions. The discrepancies resulted from who had the authority to
assign functions, how future occupants of these posts were chosen, and last but not least, how
these procedures were really put into practise.

A lot of focus was placed on the analysis of the judicial body, which might vary based on its
membership, competency, and method of formation. We see the rigorous, specialised setup of
the tribunals—an average of eight—which was unavoidably influenced by the many types of
conflicts that they were obligated to submit to legal proceedings. It is noteworthy that
political courts of justice persist today. According to Aristotle, these courts were so crucial
that they even sparked "changes of political governments." After setting up the distinguishing
characteristics of the regimes to which they belonged, the "judicial body" evolved, leading to
a new configuration that led to judgments of democratic, oligarchic, or aristocratic regimes.

Although same factors may contribute to a regime's stability, common factors may also
contribute to a regime's transition. One significant factor was the absence of a middle class,
which, had it existed, was supposed to "arbitrate" problems between the leading social
groupings.

The individual human component can, in turn, decide the success or failure of the citystate,
the strengthening or even the abolition of a certain system. This specific human aspect also
includes the demagogue, or demagogues, who frequently advocate for the downfall of the
ruling government in the name of pretended principles to which the majority might
momentarily cling. However, such demagogues occasionally run across the boomerang effect
of their own disruptive efforts when people they had exiled come back to power.

Even if his vehemence and directly correlated "success" vary from one era to another or from
one human group to another, the demagogue has persisted as a figure in all political regimes.
Aristotle believed that the temporary exercise of the various powers in society was necessary
for a sound constitution and served as a good barrier against the rise of tyranny.

He also made note of the effective methods used by those working to strengthen and maintain
one regime or another to manipulate the populace, including exaggerating local fears,
describing distant threats as imminent, and last but not least, closely observing conflicts or
potential conflicts between various social groups.
Threats to the integrity of political regimes were also widespread; one of the biggest risks
was the corruption of persons in various positions who were frequently suspected of robbing
mutual funds. Aristotle suggested that the wealthy and those who refused to take payment for
their work do the tasks in order to cure the sickness. Aristotle thought it important to
characterize the democratic regime as a decent constitution, established, in his opinion, on the
fundamental concept of freedom, even if he noticed, in a larger degree, the common
components of many political regimes.

Aristotle said that each community member who has chosen the democratic system have the
capacity to both lead and be led, which is the embodiment of freedom. Since the idea's core
was living according to one's own desire, we are practically in the theoretical presence of
ultimate individual freedom.

All other democratic principles—that everyone leads and is led by everyone, that everyone
has free access to every function, that mandates are limited so that anyone could theoretically
obtain one, and that these high functions should be paid for—follow naturally from this one
once it has been established as the fundamental tenet of democracy.

Unquestionably, the legal framework that governed and safeguarded such a community
would guarantee complete equality for all of its citizens. Aristotle returns to his central
question in his book, which is: What is the best sort of constitution, thus capable of ensuring
the pleasure of the city? after presenting and analyzing the many types of constitutions and
their modes of governance in a fair and impartial manner. There is nothing simpler than a
constitution that aspires to secure the happiness of the city and is able to achieve this goal as a
consequence of its operations.

How do you define joy? There is nothing more complex than the solution to this query, given
that both it and the question have thousands of owners. Aristotle knew how to define
happiness for intellectual reasons, and he also managed to offer the real path to happiness in
Politics, Nicomachean Ethics, Metaphysics, and not least in Rhetoric, albeit at various points
in time.

If the city wished to have excellent governance, every action taken by every institution that
made up the state apparatus had to be directed toward making the city happy. We must thus
show the moral aspect of good government in order to comprehend this portion of Aristotle's
philosophy.
CRITIQUE OF ARISTOTLE’S POLITICS
Aristotle describes the many forms of government that he thinks exist in his first book of
Politics. He assigns the good and the bad in each of these governing models. The philosopher
king represents perfect government, according to Aristotle. Monarchies are the highest type
of government. People can easily mingle with the royal family since it is hereditary. The
needs of the country come first in a monarchy over all other considerations. Aristotle defined
tyranny as when a monarchy's honorable leadership becomes bad.

When a state's leadership becomes self-centered, its population suffer and are unable to find
happiness. According to Aristotle, the aristocracy of philosophers is the second-best type of
leadership. Oligarchy develops when this type of governance becomes corrupt. Additionally,
he thinks democracy is the worst type of government. Aristotle said that a polity is a
constitution. According to Aristotle, a government must take into account the stability and
security of its citizens in order to be successful.

Leaders shouldn't work, says Aristotle; the government should take care of their necessities.
They ought to have a place to live and plenty of free time. Thus, they will be able to pursue
virtues. Only monarchies allow for the practise. Aristotle had honourable ideas on
monarchies. There was a brief period of monarchy in the history of the Roman Empire. The
kingdom was well run by the rulers known as the "five excellent empires." The subject matter
was the rule. They avoided the temptation to abuse their laws' unrestricted authority.

Commodus succeeded the final of the five as emperor. He got off to a good start by
upholding the monarch's principles. He did, however, progressively turn evil. The citizens of
the empire were dissatisfied with his policies since they were illogical. He began yelling
instructions on a whim, disregarding the qualities of a leader. He was strangled to death in his
bathtub after being murdered. This well-known illustration brings Aristotle's theories to life.
While monarchy is a respectable form of government, it is at its worst when it is corrupt.

The aristocracy, in Aristotle's opinion, is the second-best type of governance. The Roman
Republic existed before the Roman Empire was established. There existed the republican
system of law, which had an incredibly lengthy lifespan of 400 years. Despite the fact that
aristocracy may have been successful throughout this time, it has the flaw that people do not
elect the leaders. But when authority was consolidated, it eventually crumbled. The one, few,
and many should coexist in harmony, according to Aristotle. It combines the best elements of
all six types of governance into one blended form of government. According to him this type
of government would be able to bring stability.

Also Aristotle mentions how state associates with its member and also says that happiness of
the state is crucial. He also talks about welfare of all and not just a particular segment or
strata. He says the a ideal society is achievavle through moral virtues of the citizens that can
be achieved through ideal state. If critically pointed out, Aristotle shows inclination towards
communism and authoritarianism.

But in today’s scenario, democracy is preferred. Because democracy serves as a platform for
the representation of minorities also. The form of government Aristotle prefers will help in
achieving stability but the members of the state also need the security and stability of citizens.
He also proposes the constitution which he calls as ‘polity’ which he sees as the solution to
all kinds of leadership problems. All the forms discussed by Aristotle are present in today’s
world.

Aristotle places a strong emphasis on the moral responsibility and expectation that the state
and its citizens have. Both citizens and a state are necessary for existence.

CONCLUSION
Aristotle, a representative of the rationalist political tradition, argues a sophisticated
definition of citizenship that makes civic participation a tenet of a sound constitution. His
political philosophy is based on naturalistic principles (man must live in society). His method
of dealing with non-normative constitutions is novel. In conclusion, regardless of the type of
government, simply consider its principles and character. In The Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu
retains this lesson.
 Bibliography
“8 Important Features of an ‘Ideal State’ (According to Aristotle).” World’s Largest

Collection of Essays! Published by Experts, 1 Feb. 2013,

https://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/8-important-features-of-an-ideal-state-

according-to-aristotle/113640.

Mijuskovic, olivers Z. Aristotle’s Concept of the State. researchgate, Jan. 2016,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315648262_2_Aristotle’s_concept_of_the_s

tate#:~:text=In%20his%20most%20important%20writing%20in%20this%20field,of

%20government%20are%20based%20on%20the%20common%20good.

Peonidis, Filimon. “Aristotle’s Relevance to Modern Democratic Theory.” Unknown, 1 July

2008,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233647533_Aristotle’s_Relevance_to_Mod

ern_Democratic_Theory.

“Classification of Government Sccording to Aristotle.” Political Science Notes, 12 Aug.

2014, https://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/articles/classification-government-

sccording-aristotle/308.

Middleton, Brian. “Plato & Aristotle: Which Form of Government Is Best?” HubPages, 25

July 2011, https://discover.hubpages.com/politics/Plato-Aristotle-Which-Form-of-

Government-is-Best.

“---.” Political Science Notes, 12 Aug. 2014,

https://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/articles/classification-government-sccording-

aristotle/308.

hip. “A Critique Of Aristotle Politics Paper Example - PHDessay.Com.” Free Essays -

PhDessay.Com, 7 May 2018, https://phdessay.com/a-critique-of-aristotle-politics/.

“Aristotle: Politics.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/aristotle-

politics/. Accessed 17 Oct. 2022.

Miller. Aristotle’s Political Theory. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/.

Accessed 17 Oct. 2022.

“Aristotle.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 27 May 1999,

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aristotle/Political-theory.

politicalscience. “Aristotle Political Ideals - Political Thought.” Political Science, 20 Dec.

2020, https://www.politicalscienceview.com/aristotle-political-ideals/.

Ellis, A. M. wiiliams. The Politics. EduGorilla Community Pvt.LTd, 2021.