ASSIGNMENT -ARISTOTLE’S CLASSIFICATION OF STATES.

SUBMITTED TO- Dr. Ved Prakash Sharma

Assistant Professor , H.P. NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SUBMITTED BY-

SUNIDHI

1ST YEAR BA LLB

1020220155

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to take this opportunity to offer my sincere gratitude to my academic supervisor, Dr Ved
Prakash Sharma, Assistant Professor (Political Science), Himachal Pradesh National Law
University, Shimla. Without his kind direction and proper guidance, this study would have never
come to fruition.

I am also greatly indebted to Himachal Pradesh National Law University’s e-library resources for
providing me with the necessary online subscriptions in order to conduct this research which helped
me in making this assignment, especially in these trying times when the physical resources of the
library are inaccessible.

Last but not the least; I would want to thank everyone who guided me throughout the process of
making this study a successful venture..

2|Page
 DECLARATION

I, SUNIDHI solemnly declare that the project report is solely based on my own work carried out
with due care and diligence during the course of study under the supervision of Dr. Ved Prakash

I truly assert that the statements made and the conclusions drawn are hereby an outcome of my
research work. I further certify that-

I. The work contained in the report is original and has been done by me under the general
supervision of my professor.

II. The work has not been submitted to any other Institution for any degree/diploma/certificate
in this university or any other University of India or abroad.

III. The guidelines provided by the university were followed in writing the report.
Whenever any material was used like data, theoretical analysis, text or other materials from other
sources, due credit has been to the same in the text along with furnishing their details for further
references

3|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENT

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………..…..

 DECLARATION……………………………………………………...

 TABLE OF CONTENT……………………………………………….

 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………….....

 FORMS OF GOVERNMENT………………………………………………………….

 BASIS OF CLASSIFICATION OF
STATES………………………………………………………………

 ARISTOTLE CYCLE OF POLITICAL CHANGE………………

 CRITICISM………………………………………..

 CONCLUSION………………..…………………………………….

 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………

4|Page
 INTRODUCTION

Politics in its defined form becomes affirmed by the ancient Greek world. The ancient Greeks
didn’t know the difference between social and political life. The distinction didn`t exist, because the
ancient Greeks bartered all under policy. The word policy comes from the ancient Greek word
"polis" and from it created another word "politeia" which refers to a life style and "a general thing
of all citizens". "Bios politikos" or practical life was related to life in community with other people.
The definition of man as a political being (physei zoon politikon) comes from Aristotle. Aristotle
declared this community described as a community of people who live in the patterns of the
common good and justice, and that which are associated is speech (logos) and work (praxis). They
faced one another. The conversation was lofty speech, a policy was sublime teachings. Aristotle's
most important work in the field of political philosophy is his book "Politics". He speaks about the
ideal polis. Polis indicates an ancient town which is also the state. Aristotle believes that one needs
to climb on the hill and until his view reaches that`s his state. The purpose of such a state is a happy
life. His idea of a happy life is actually the backbone for understanding the modern concept of the
state.

“Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some
good; for mankind always acts in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all
communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and
which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest
good.

Some people think that the qualifications of a statesman, king, householder, and master are the
same, and that they differ, not in kind, but only in the number of their subjects. For example, the
ruler over a few is called a master; over more, the manager of a household; over a still larger
number, a statesman or king, as if there were no difference between a great household and a small
state. The distinction which is made between the king and the statesman is as follows:

When the government is personal, the ruler is a king; when, according to the rules of the political
science, the citizens rule and are ruled in turn, then he is called a statesman.”Why the state did is
the best solution for the communion of men? Aristotle believes that man by nature must live in the
community because he was a political creature or zoon politikon. Those who can`t live in the
community are either God or the beast.

Aristotle believed that questions of the state, how it should be organized, and how it should pursue
its ends, were fundamental to the achievement of happiness. His text Politics is an exploration of
different types of state organizations and tries to describe the state which would ultimately lead to
the most fulfilled citizens.

In contrast to a little bit of utopian standpoint offered by Plato in his teachings about the state or
politeia where rulers aren`t “in love with power but in virtue”, Aristotle's teaching on the same
subject seems very realistic and pragmatic. In his most important writing in this field called
"Politics", Aristotle classified authority in the form of two main parts: the correct authority and
5|Page
moose authority. In this sense, correct forms of government are

➔ basileus
➔ aristocracy
➔ politeia
These forms of government are based on the common good. Bad or moose forms of government are
those that are based on the property of an individual or small governmental structures and they are:
➔ tyranny,
➔ oligarchy
➔ anarchy

Also, Aristotle's political thinking is not separate from the ethical principles so he states that the
government should be reflected in the true virtue that is "law" or the "golden mean

6|Page
 FORMS OF GOVERNMENT

Aristotle argued that there were six general ways in which societies could be organized under
political rule, depending on who ruled, and for whom they ruled.

Those in the first row he referred to as “true forms” of government, while those in the second row
were the “defective and perverted forms” of the first three.
The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many,
govern with a view to the common interest; but governments which rule with a view to the private
interest, whether to the one, or the few, or of the many, are perversions.
Tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in
view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all.

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and Politics Plato’s pupil, Aristotle, could have asked his teacher,
whether it really was true that any oligarchy would be better than any democracy only on the
grounds that the democratic ruler is lazy and self serving by definition? Aristotle’s critique on
Plato’s philosophy, presented in Politics, is centered around the idea that the attainment of the good
life is dependent on human nature and that helping to realize this goal is the ideal telos of all forms
of government. In this section Aristotle’s character virtues and civic virtues are examined first, and
after that Aristotle’s forms of government are briefly listed. Finally that is described, how the
ruler’s character has an effect on the determination of the form of government within the state he or
she is governing. Virtues of character originate from habits (ēthikē). The character virtues (incl.
courage, friendliness, temperance etc.) direct action.

Through habituation and education, the mimetically learned practices become stable, i.e. a person
attains a virtue by practice. They are not necessarily permanent, as the person can through practice

7|Page
affect his or her virtues. Each virtue is accompanied by two corresponding vices, the first of which
is lack of said virtue, whereas the second is excess of that virtue.

E.g. lack of courage means cowardice and excess of courage means foolhardiness. The “golden
mean” between the two vices is viewed by Aristotle as the ideal state in case of most of the virtues.

The aggregation of character virtues accompanied with the vices direct the action of the person. For
example a sort of character, who were proficient in the virtue of courage, could run into a burning
building and save a pet trapped inside, whereas a person who would lack that virtue would not. The
deepest nature of human action according to Aristotle is the ability to commit to choices, while
informed of the alternative courses of action. He calls this process of making informed choices
prohairesis.

Equipped with suited virtues and right reasons (orthos logos), a person's action following informed
choices is directed at the correct ends. Practical reason (phronēsis) belongs to the group of
intellectual virtues. It refers to correct choices made, meaning the selection of courses of action that
are in accordance with the golden mean. When a person, who is well equipped with practical
reason, is confronted with a situation requiring moral choice, is this individual able to select the
course of action through deliberation, which leads to the best possible outcome.

In the cases, in which this person happens to be a ruler of a state, the goal of his or her action is not
only his or her own well-being, but that of the entire community. To rephrase, virtuous behavior
according to practical reason means making choices in accordance with the golden mean in action,
i.e a virtuous ruler would make the best choices required by the political situation. In addition to
character virtues and practical reasons, virtues of the citizen are distinguished as their own group in
Aristotle’s theory. They are described to be such that when mastered, the citizen can do the task of
his or her class without difficulty: farmers are able to farm, craftsmen are able to craft, builders are
able to build and soldiers succeed in their campaigns.Aristotle expects more from the rulers than he
does from the other classes: First of all, they are supposed to know the position of the subjects.
Second, whereas the subjects are not necessarily expected to act according to practical reason, good
governance demands phronēsis from its executives.19. Finally, the ruler is expected to have suitable
character virtues fitting the task. In order to be a good ruler, he or she has to be a good person as
well. Only then is it possible that the form of the government the ruler is in charge of is not a
corrupted one.

Because the aggregate political action of the citizens form the political action of the state, is the
state best equipped to provide good life to its citizens, when the citizens direct their action to be in
accordance with the ends of the state.

Similarly, as in the case of a virtuous individual, the action of the state, correctly organized is
directed at its ideal goal. When a statesman – with proper upbringing and exercise of the virtues – is
able to commit the right choices, can he or she direct the political action of his or her state toward
its ideal mode, one advancing good life. This state-wide well-being – happiness or flourishing
(eudaimonia) – is the highest goal of Aristotle’s political theory. Keeping in mind the goal of
eudaimonia and the character-directed ability to make decisions of the person who is responsible its
attainment, it can be understood, why Aristotle demanded from the ruler the requirements of
upbringing and education as well as suited character traits in addition to technical or poiesis-type
8|Page
mastery of his or her profession. Life in accordance with moral action is simultaneously political
action as well.

The final example of Plato-criticism done by Aristotle mentioned here is that in contrast to the
theory of the former, quantity of rulers does not have an effect on the quality of the state in the
theory of the latter. I.e. a state being governed by its people does not automatically mean that it
would be corrupted, or that a state governed by a single individual would be extremely good or bad.
According to Aristotle, if there happen to be a lot of rulers, it does not indicate that the government
would function better or worse than in cases, where there is only one. Additionally as distinct from
Plato’s linear series of worse and worse governments, Aristotle’s forms of government do not have
a preset order of change.

An aristocracy can become a tyranny, or an oligarchy can form into a polity etc. Instead of this, the
political telos of the state, and whether the state helps its citizens or only its rulers in achieving
eudaimonia, decide the quality of the government. Monarchy, aristocracy and especially polity are
the better options, where the state serves its citizens. The mean between oligarchy and democracy
called polity is closest to an ideal state in Aristotle’s theory. In it the benefits of the state would
equally benefit the rich and the poor. Tyranny, oligarchy and democracy are the defacements of the
previous three types of government, in which the benefit of the ruler(s) takes priority. When the
beneficial end-state of the polis is being pursued, the actions of its citizens are directed toward the
common good, which means also that the character traits of the citizen’ are impeccable. As for the
ruler this means that to be able to govern successfully, he or she has to have a balanced set of
virtues as part of a groomed character.Acting accordingly, the behavior of the ruler manifests as
actuality (energeia), which is its own end. Telos determines the form of government, but as noted
before the ruler can via practice e affect that, whether the most beneficial end is also the end of the
state, which he or she governs. If the form of government’s determination according to the natural
end of the state and the changing of forms of government through direct influence of the virtues of
the ruler seem to contradict each other, is a likely explanation to this found from the principle of
teleology, which is occasionally followed in Aristotle’s political theory. Just in Politics his
argumentation is based on the assumed truth of the principle in the three first books of the treatise,
while in books IV, V and VI are more grounded on the effective cause (implying causality) on the
state. The remaining books from book VII forward are again preoccupied with the principle of
teleology. As result, there are two interpretations of how the virtues of character have an effect on
the political level. If the determination of the form of government is looked at as part of nature, in
the teleological context, the process of the determination appears as follows:

(1.) the telos of the state is either eudaimonic or not.

(2.) The quantity of the rulers is either a group, a family or a single individual.

(3.) Depending on the two previous variables the form of government is either beneficial (polity,
aristocracy or monarchy) or corrupted (democracy, oligarchy or tyranny).

(4.) The type of the government reveals, whether the ruler or rulers have or lack the necessary traits
of character that are required for successful governance. On the other hand, if it is assumed that
along with Politics IV-VI, that the rulers practice actively their virtues and are able in this way to
decisively bring about a change in the form of government, for example through a revolution, is the
9|Page
form of government determined in this way:

(1.) That, whether the ruler has all the required character traits to run a beneficial government,

(2.) determines which end is the state pursuing: the well-being of all its citizens or of its rulers only.

(3.) The chosen end of action determines that, whether the resulting form of government is
beneficial or corrupted.

(4.) This end and the quantity of the rulers reveal the final form of the government. Summary
Character virtues held by the ruler(s) have an effect on the political level in both Plato’s and
Aristotle’s cases. In the former case the character of the ruler determines the form of government
directly, whereas in the latter case – depending on the weight given to the principle of teleology –
either the impact of the character traits of the ruler are held decisive, or certain requirements are
placed on the rulers of states that strive for telos associated with the better forms of government

10 | P a g e
Aristotle’s classification of states is thus based on two principles :

(1) The number of persons who exercise supreme power;

(2) The ends seek to serve self-interest or benefit the community.

Aristotle’s Cycle of political change

Aristotle not only gave a classification of states or governments, but also tried to examine their
development and cycle of change. According to him, changes in all forms of government have
occurred as a natural process because the forms of government spin like the wheels of a cycle.

In his words: “The first governments were kingdoms; probably because of this, back in the days
when cities were small, there were few people with outstanding virtues. They became kings
because they were made benefactors, and therefore only virtuous people could be granted benefits.
But when many peers emerged against the superiority of one, they formed the Commonwealth and
instituted a constitution. The ruling class soon fell into disrepair and was enriched by the treasury.
Wealth became a way of honor, and so the oligarchies grew.

They went to tyranny and tyranny in democracy. The lust for profit in the ruling classes has always
contributed to reducing their numbers and thereby strengthening the masses. In the end, the masses
turned against their masters and founded democracies. "

From this statement by Aristotle it emerges that a monarchical war was first established in society
and the highest person in society was elected king. After a while, when the kings began to use the
masses for their own selfish ends, tyranny was established.

The people did not long tolerate this type of government and gave sovereign power to several
intellectuals. This is how the aristocracy was created. Over time, the character of the aristocracy
deteriorated and an oligarchy was established. But for a long time the people could not tolerate a
government whose purpose was only to benefit the ruling class. When the opportunity arose, the
citizens on the whole successfully rebelled against this power and established a political state, with
sovereign power passing into the hands of a large part of the population.

They used it for the common good: “When politics became perverse, it was replaced by democracy.
Democracy degenerates and people rebel against it and democracy disappears. Once again the
people elect the warrior-statesman as their administrator and the monarchy is established. This is
how the Aristotelian cycle of political change turns.

11 | P a g e
 Criticism of Aristotle's classification
The cycle of political change given by Aristotle is fully supported by the history of the Greek city-
states. There are several examples in modern history that prove that anarchy in a democracy is
being overturned by a military dictator. For example, General Ayub Khan in Pakistan, Colonel
Nasser in Egypt, Gursell in Turkey, and Ne Win in Burma have ended anarchy in democracy.
Despite all this, the classification given by Aristotle was criticized as follows:

(1) Aristotle's classification is unscientific and quantitative:

It is argued that its classification is not based on any scientific principle, since the quantitative
rather than the qualitative aspect is of paramount importance. But this criticism does not justify the
fact that Aristotle, a student of Plato, could not ignore his spiritual aspect. He emphasized the
purpose of the state along with its classification. Burgess correctly said that Aristotle's
classification is spiritual rather than numerical.

(2) Aristotle makes no distinction between state and government:

Doctor Criticizing Aristotle's classification, Garner said: “Aristotle does not distinguish between
state and government, so his classification is a classification of states, while governments should
be. This criticism of Aristotle is unjustified because the distinction between state and government
is a modern concept. According to Burgess, Aristotle's classification is logical and best when his
words "state" and "sovereignty" are replaced by government and power, respectively. "

(3) Aristotle's classification does not cover all modern forms of government:

According to Seeley and Leacock, Aristotle could not imagine modern "land states". Its
classification is from small city-states, not from large states. If its classification is accepted, we
must classify absolute, constitutional, elective and hereditary monarchy in the same category.

This will lead to similarities between the monarchies in Saudi Arabia and the UK, although they are
not the same thing. In addition, modern forms of government are of parliamentary, presidential,
unitary and federal types. Aristotle's classification does not include or explain these forms of
government.

(4) Democracy is not the worst form of government:

According to Aristotle, democracy is the worst form of government, and he used it as a rule of the
masses. This type of condition prevailed in Greece during the time of Aristotle, but not in our time.
Today the term democracy is used in a good sense and is considered the best form of government.

(5) The Aristotelian cycle of change does not correspond to the development of the modern
state:

The cycle of political change given by Aristotle applies only to Ancient Greece and Rome, but not
to modern states. For example, the dictatorship of the Communist Party was established after the
absolute monarchy in Russia. In Germany, after the First World War, Kaiser Wilhelm II was
12 | P a g e
overthrown and democracy was established.

Democracy also failed in Germany and a dictatorship was founded. After World War II, Hitler's
dictatorship was ended and democracy was restored in one part of the country (West Germany).

(5) There is no place for mixed forms of government in Aristotle's classification:

Modern governments are mixed governments. For example, Britain is a monarchy, and the
government in this country is unitary and parliamentary. India has a federal, parliamentary and
democratic government. The United States is democratic, and the government in this country is
presidential and federal. These forms of government have no place in Aristotle's classification.

(6) Aristotle's classification does not apply to ideocracy or theocracy:

According to Blunchley, Aristotle's classification does not apply to ideocracy or theocracy, since in
this type of government, sovereignty is ascribed to God or another superhuman being or idea.
People in authority are substitutes or deputies of God on this earth.

(8) Aristotle's classification has also been criticized for the distinction between aristocracy and
oligarchy, while modern political thinkers do not attach importance to this distinction. It is also
impossible to tell where the aristocracy ends and politics begins.

13 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

For Aristotle, the organization of people into states with governments was a key component of their
achieving happiness and satisfaction in life.

It is clear then that a state is not a mere society, having a common place, established for the
prevention of crime and for the sake of exchange. These are all conditions without which a state
cannot exist; but all of them together do not constitute a state, which is a community of well-being
in families and aggregations of families, for the sake of a perfect and self-sufficing life.

The best way to organize the state is the one that creates the most happiness for its citizens (not an
easy problem, of course). For Aristotle, the polity, the ideal democracy, met this criteria — it
allowed for the development of virtues that support the common interest, and limited the emphasis
on wealth, allowing for the development of a desirable middle class.

Happiness, whether consisting in pleasure or virtue, or both, is more often found with those who are
most highly cultivated in their mind and in their character, and have only a moderate share of
external goods, than among those who possess external goods to a useless extent but are deficient in
higher qualities.

14 | P a g e
 REFERRENCE

1) https://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/articles/classification-government-sccording-
aristotle/308

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

3) O.P GAUBA

4) https://www.drishtiias.com/blog/aristotles-views-on-state-man-and-government

15 | P a g e