Aristotle’s 6-Fold Classification of Government Scheme
The earliest and most famous classification of government was the typology developed by Aristotle in the fourth century. The classification was based on two criteria: how many people ruled a society (who rules) and whether they acted in the public interest or in their own interest? (in whose interest?).
On the basis of this, Aristotle classified forms of government into six. He distinguished between three legitimate kinds of government—where the ruling authority acts in the interests of all—and three corrupt or perverted forms of government—where the government acts only in the interests of itself or a few.
The Size of the Ruling Class and Degree of Public Involvement
In his book, The Politics, Aristotle classified the forms of government into six using the size of the ruling authority and the extent to which the people are involved or their interests are promoted. It is important to mention that this classification constructed by Aristotle lasted for nearly twenty-five centuries and can be summarized thus:
 |
| Aristotle's Government Scheme |
Aristotle’s Typology of Government
According to this typology, monarchy Aristocracy and politics were considered to be good or legitimate forms of government, while tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy were regarded as perverted or corrupt forms of government.
Monarchy and Tyranny
A monarchy is the government of one person ruling in the interest of all. It is the rule of a king or queen. There are two forms of the monarchical system of government, namely, absolute monarchy and constitution, or limited monarchy. Monarchy is practiced in Jordan, England, Morocco, and most traditional African societies.
Meanwhile, monarchy can degenerate into tyranny, which is the corrupt form in which the single ruler exercises power for the benefit of himself. The governments under Idi Amin of Uganda, Sani Abacha of Nigeria, Mobutu Sese Seko of former Zaire, and Mommar Ghadafi of Libya were dictatorial or tyrannical.
Aristocracy and Oligarchy
Aristocracy, which originated from the Greek word 'Aristos' meaning government of the best, According to Aristotle, it is a good form of government because it involves several people ruling in the interest of all. In practice, it is a government of the rich who use their wealth for the common good of the people or community.
However, this legitimate rule by an elite can decay into oligarchy, the corrupt form in which several people rule in their own interests. It is a form of government in which a few powerful and privileged people rule for their own selfish interests.
Polity and Democracy
Polity is another word for constitutional democracy. Aristotle saw this as the rule of many in the interests of all and the best form of government. All citizens have a voice in selecting leaders and framing laws, but formal constitutional procedures protect rights.
According to Aristotle, polity can degenerate into democracy, which he defined as the rule of many in the interests of themselves, the worst form of government. It is significant to point out at this juncture that democracy is, in the contemporary world, the most desirable form of government. The status that democracy now assumes is different from what it originally was.
Using the Aristotelian criterion of classification, we can identify monarchy, aristocracy, and politics as the 'legitimate forms of government' and tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy as their degenerate or corrupt forms of government, respectively.
Mobocracy
Mobocracy is defined as the rule or dominance of a mob, or 'the mob that rules. It is a system of government that is characterized by violence and disorderliness and predicated on hooliganism. It is important to note that this form of government could prevail in any political system, including democracies, especially the emerging ones, in times of crisis and insurgency.
Merits of Aristotle’s Theory of Government
Aristotle's classification of government boasts several important merits:
- Emphasis on the common good: Aristotle's focus on the well-being of the entire community, not just individual interests, remains relevant in addressing complex social issues. Promoting shared values and collective benefit can foster cooperation and build strong social foundations.
- Importance of virtue and civic participation: His advocacy for virtuous leadership and citizen engagement underscores the importance of ethical conduct and active involvement in shaping society. This encourages responsibility, accountability, and informed decision-making.
- Nuanced approach to forms of government: Aristotle's rejection of a one-size-fits-all solution and his emphasis on tailoring governance to specific contexts remain valuable. Recognizing the influence of factors like culture, population, and economic conditions contributes to designing effective and representative systems.
- Balance between stability and progress: While favoring stability, Aristotle also acknowledged the need for adaptation and change. The concept of a balanced polity aimed to reconcile the need for order with the possibility of evolution, contributing to the development of sustainable models of governance.
- Historical and philosophical value: Aristotle's work laid the groundwork for Western political thought, influencing subsequent philosophers and shaping our understanding of concepts like citizenship, justice, and the purpose of government. Studying his ideas fosters critical thinking and provides valuable insights into the historical development of political theory.
- Continuing relevance for modern debates: Many of Aristotle's concerns, such as balancing individual rights with the common good, ensuring virtuous leadership, and designing stable yet adaptable systems, remain relevant in contemporary political discourse. Engaging with his ideas can enrich our understanding of these ongoing challenges and inform our search for solutions.
Criticism of Aristotle’s Classification of Government
While Aristotle's political theory remains influential, it has faced several criticisms:
1. Exclusion and inequality:
- Focus on "virtuous citizens": Critics argue that Aristotle's emphasis on virtuous citizens excludes marginalized groups such as women, slaves, and foreigners. His conception of virtue excludes these groups, potentially justifying their exclusion from political participation.
- Disregard for individual rights: His focus on the common good could potentially overshadow individual rights and liberties. While some rights serve the common good, others protect individuals from undue government intrusion.
- Economic inequality: Aristotle accepted slavery and economic inequality as natural. This undermines the notion of universal equality and justice, raising concerns about fairness and representation.
2. Practical flaws and contradictions:
- Stability over progress: Critics argue that prioritizing social stability over individual potential and social change can stifle innovation and progress. While stability is important, it shouldn't hinder improvements in governance or individual opportunities.
- Difficulty of identifying "virtuous" rulers: The ideal of government by virtuous leaders is criticized for its impracticality. Identifying and ensuring virtue in leaders is challenging, and relying on such a subjective criterion can lead to manipulation and bias.
- Vagueness of the "mixed constitution": The precise composition and functioning of a polity (Aristotle's preferred mixed constitution) is unclear. Defining the balance between democracy and oligarchy and preventing it from devolving into one or the other remains a major challenge.
3. Modernity and changing values:
- Relevance in contemporary systems: Some argue that Aristotle's models, specifically designed for small city-states with limited populations, are ill-suited for modern nation-states and complex societies.
- Evolution of democracy: Modern democracies have evolved beyond direct citizen participation, incorporating representative systems and safeguards for individual rights. Aristotle's model might not fully embrace these advancements.
- Limited cultural scope: Critics point out that Aristotle's views were shaped by specific Greek ideals and societal structures. His theories might not translate easily to the diverse cultural and political realities of the modern world.
Besides Aristotle's classification, there have been several attempts by political scientists to develop typologies of systems of government using different criteria. Although there is no consensus on how best to classify the various forms of government,.