BOOK 6 Chapter 8 Appendix

Aristotle’s Treatment of Offices in Politics VI, Chapter 8 vs. Politics IV, Chapters 14, 15, and 16

I. Introduction: The Role of Offices in Aristotle’s Political Thought

1. Offices as Essential for Governance:
   • In Politics VI, Chapter 8, Aristotle provides a detailed account of the necessary offices for the survival and good governance of a city, emphasizing how they vary depending on the size, complexity, and type of regime.
   • In Politics IV, Chapters 14, 15, and 16, Aristotle categorizes the offices into deliberative, general, and adjudicative offices, explaining their roles and functions within different regimes (democracy, oligarchy, etc.).
2. Purpose of Comparison:
   • The comparison highlights Aristotle’s holistic approach to political offices, showing how the practical division of duties in Politics VI complements the broader theoretical discussion of office categories in Politics IV.
   • It explores how the specific duties outlined in Politics VI fit within the broader categories of deliberative, general, and adjudicative offices described in Politics IV.

II. The Deliberative Offices (Politics IV, Chapter 14) vs. Deliberation in Politics VI, Chapter 8

1. Deliberative Offices in Politics IV, Chapter 14:
   • Aristotle categorizes deliberative offices as those responsible for making decisions on public matters.
   • These offices decide important matters such as war and peace, alliances, laws, and executive decisions related to public welfare.
   • Aristotle emphasizes that deliberation can take different forms depending on the regime type:
     • Democracy: Deliberation is done by the people in an assembly.
     • Oligarchy: Deliberation is done by preliminary councils or select groups.
2. Deliberative Authority in Politics VI, Chapter 8:
   • In Politics VI, Chapter 8, Aristotle references the office that convenes the authoritative element of the regime and organizes deliberation, which is essential for decision-making.
   • In democratic regimes, this office is often called a council, responsible for introducing and reviewing laws before they are submitted to the popular assembly for final approval.
   • In oligarchic regimes, the preliminary council plays a similar role but deliberation is restricted to a small group of elite citizens.
3. Comparison:
   • Both accounts recognize the importance of deliberation in governing, but Politics IV offers a theoretical framework for how deliberation is structured based on the regime, while Politics VI discusses practical considerations, such as which officials convene these deliberative bodies and how this process differs depending on the city’s size and complexity.
   • Politics VI introduces the mechanisms of deliberation, such as convening councils and creating procedures to ensure effective governance, whereas Politics IV focuses on the scope and role of deliberative bodies in political life.

III. The General Offices (Politics IV, Chapter 15) vs. the Necessary Offices in Politics VI, Chapter 8

1. General Offices in Politics IV, Chapter 15:
   • Aristotle defines general offices as those that are responsible for day-to-day administration and deal with practical tasks related to the city’s infrastructure, economy, and security.
   • General offices vary based on the regime and include:
     • Military offices: Commanders of the cavalry, infantry, and naval forces.
     • Public finance: Offices related to treasury management, market regulation, and property maintenance.
     • Maintenance of public works: Such as road-building, fortification, and ensuring public order.
2. Necessary Offices in Politics VI, Chapter 8:
   • Aristotle in Politics VI, Chapter 8 emphasizes the necessity of a wide range of practical offices:
     • Market superintendents: To oversee trade and commerce.
     • Town managers and field managers: To ensure orderliness in both urban and rural areas, maintain roads and buildings, and resolve property disputes.
     • Revenue collectors and treasurers: To manage public finances.
     • Military officials: Responsible for defending the city during peace and war, overseeing cavalry, naval forces, and other military divisions.
3. Comparison:
   • Both Politics IV and Politics VI address general offices related to public finance, infrastructure, and military organization, but Politics VI provides a detailed enumeration of the specific duties of each office, showing how these offices must function in relation to one another.
   • In Politics IV, the focus is more on the principles governing these offices based on different regime types, while Politics VI focuses on how these offices are practically implemented and combined or separated based on the city's size and resources.
   • Politics VI provides practical solutions for dealing with the burden of office-holding, such as dividing tasks between different officials to reduce resentment and improve efficiency, which is not elaborated in Politics IV.

IV. The Adjudicative Offices (Politics IV, Chapter 16) vs. Legal and Judicial Offices in Politics VI, Chapter 8

1. Adjudicative Offices in Politics IV, Chapter 16:
   • Adjudicative offices are responsible for resolving disputes, handling legal cases, and ensuring that the law is enforced justly.
   • Aristotle differentiates adjudicative offices based on the type of regime:
     • In democracies, many citizens serve as jurors, deciding legal cases.
     • In oligarchies, legal adjudication is reserved for the elite or those with a certain level of wealth.
   • There are also specialized courts for certain matters (e.g., civil cases, criminal cases, and disputes over contracts or property).
2. Judicial and Legal Offices in Politics VI, Chapter 8:
   • Politics VI outlines specific offices responsible for legal administration:
     • Offices that oversee the registration of private agreements and judicial decisions, ensuring that legal processes are properly documented.
     • Offices responsible for enforcing judgments and guarding prisoners.
     • Aristotle emphasizes the need to divide legal responsibilities (e.g., separating the offices that determine guilt from those that enforce punishment to reduce public resentment).
3. Comparison:
   • While Politics IV provides a framework for the adjudicative function across regimes (e.g., who can serve as judges or jurors), Politics VI is concerned with practical governance, especially in the management of legal records and enforcement.
   • Both texts stress the importance of judicial offices in maintaining order and justice, but Politics VI is more focused on the division of duties to reduce resentment and ensure efficiency in law enforcement.
   • In Politics VI, Aristotle introduces the idea of rotating officials and assigning separate tasks to reduce the odium associated with enforcing judgments, which adds a practical layer to the more theoretical discussion in Politics IV.

V. Integration of Sacred and Administrative Offices in Politics VI, Chapter 8 vs. General Categories in Politics IV

1. Sacred Offices in Politics VI, Chapter 8:
   • In Politics VI, Aristotle discusses the importance of offices connected with divine matters, such as priests and officials overseeing sacred buildings and public sacrifices.
   • These offices play a vital role in the religious life of the city, ensuring that religious obligations are fulfilled and that the city’s cultural identity is preserved.
2. Integration of Sacred Offices in Politics IV:
   • In Politics IV, Aristotle does not emphasize the sacred offices as a separate category but acknowledges that religious and civic life are intertwined in both democratic and oligarchic regimes.
   • Sacred offices are more implicitly discussed in relation to the overall governance structure, especially in terms of cultural and traditional continuity.
3. Comparison:
   • In Politics VI, Aristotle provides a more explicit account of the role of sacred offices, which were treated more indirectly in Politics IV.
   • The practical role of religious officials in managing public sacrifices and maintaining sacred sites is fully detailed in Politics VI, which integrates these functions into the city’s overall administration.
   • In contrast, Politics IV focuses more on the broader role of governance, with the religious element being more implicit in the discussion of public life.

VI. Conclusion: The Relationship Between Theoretical and Practical Discussions of Offices

1. Politics IV: A Theoretical Framework:
   • In Politics IV, Aristotle offers a categorical breakdown of offices according to their functions (deliberative, general, adjudicative) and how these offices fit within different regimes (democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy).
2. Politics VI: Practical Administration:
   • Politics VI provides a pragmatic approach to the administration of the city, discussing the specific roles and duties of each office and offering insights on how they can be combined or separated depending on the city’s size and resources.
3. Integration of Theory and Practice:
   • Politics VI builds on the theoretical framework of Politics IV by offering practical examples of how these offices function in real-life governance.
   • Both books work together to show how political theory informs the practical administration of a city, with Politics IV offering a conceptual structure and Politics VI providing a practical guide for organizing offices in different types of regimes.

---

Video Explanation

Video Explanation Not Yet Available.

BOOK 6 Chapter 8 Returning to the Offices and what Offices suit what regime

Chapter 8

Offices Necessary for the Administration of a City

I. Introduction: The Importance of Offices for a City (1321b-1322a)

Aristotle begins by emphasizing the importance of clearly defining the various offices within a city. These offices are essential for both the survival and the good governance of the city.

1. Necessity of Offices:
   • A city cannot function without certain necessary offices for its basic existence.
   • Additional offices related to order and good administration are required to ensure the city is governed in a refined and orderly manner.
2. Office Numbers Based on City Size:
   • The number and type of offices depend on the size of the city: smaller cities require fewer offices, while larger cities need more.
   • Aristotle notes that certain offices can be combined in smaller cities but should be separated in larger ones.

II. Offices Related to Market and Property Supervision (1322a)

Aristotle outlines several key offices that deal with the oversight of the market and the city’s property.

1. Market Superintendence:
   • Market oversight is a crucial office, tasked with supervising trade and ensuring orderliness in transactions.
   • Cities rely on buying and selling for their self-sufficiency, and the market office ensures that necessary goods are exchanged smoothly.
2. Town Management:
   • Another important office is that of town management, which oversees public and private property, as well as the maintenance of roads and buildings.
   • This office handles issues related to property boundaries and the repair of decaying infrastructure.
3. Division of Town Management Duties:
   • In larger cities, the tasks of town management are often divided among several officials, each responsible for specific areas like wells, walls, and harbor guards.
4. Field Management:
   • Similarly, there is a field management office responsible for overseeing properties and orderliness in the countryside.
   • These officials are called "field managers" or "foresters" in some cities.

III. Offices for Managing Revenue and Legal Matters (1322a)

In addition to overseeing the market and property, other offices are crucial for managing city finances and legal affairs.

1. Revenue and Treasury:
   • Another important office is the one responsible for receiving, guarding, and distributing the city’s common funds.
   • These officials are called “receivers” or “treasurers”, managing the city’s financial resources.
2. Registration and Legal Supervision:
   • An office dedicated to registering agreements and legal judgments is also necessary.
   • This office handles the initiation of lawsuits and ensures that all legal matters are properly recorded, with officials sometimes called “recorders”, “sacred recorders”, or “supervisors”.

IV. The Office Responsible for Enforcing Punishments and Guarding Prisoners (1322a-b)

Aristotle discusses the challenging but necessary office responsible for enforcing judgments and guarding offenders.

1. Enforcement and Prison Management:
   • There is an office responsible for enforcing punishments against those found guilty and for guarding prisoners.
   • This office is particularly difficult because it involves dealing with unpopular tasks, which can lead to resentment.
2. Division of Responsibilities:
   • To reduce the odium (hatred) that comes with enforcing punishments, Aristotle suggests that different officials should handle different aspects of the process.
   • For example, those responsible for determining guilt should not be the same officials who carry out the punishment.
3. Guarding Prisoners:
   • The office of guarding prisoners should be separate from the office of enforcing punishments.
   • In Athens, this task was handled by a group called the “Eleven”, and Aristotle suggests a similar separation in other cities.

V. Military Offices for the Defense of the City (1322b)

Aristotle emphasizes the need for military offices responsible for the defense and security of the city.

1. Offices for City Defense:
   • Cities need officials to supervise the defense of gates, walls, and other strategic points, especially in times of war.
   • These officials manage the scrutiny and organization of citizens for defense purposes.
2. Military Commanders:
   • Larger cities may have separate military offices for different groups such as cavalry, light-armed troops, or naval forces.
   • These officials are called “generals,” “cavalry commanders,” or “admirals”, depending on their area of responsibility.

VI. Financial Auditing and Scrutiny Offices (1322b)

Aristotle discusses the importance of financial oversight and the auditing of city accounts.

1. Auditors and Accountants:
   • Since many offices handle large sums of common funds, a separate office should be responsible for auditing and scrutinizing financial accounts.
   • These officials ensure that city finances are properly managed and call those responsible for public funds to account.
2. Separation from Other Offices:
   • Auditors should not be involved in any other aspects of administration to maintain their impartiality.
   • These officials are referred to as “auditors,” “accountants,” or “scrutinizers” in different cities.

VII. Authority Over the Deliberative Body (1322b)

Aristotle identifies the office that has authority over the final disposition of public matters and oversees the city’s governing council.

1. Preliminary Councillors and Councils:
   • There is an office responsible for preparing and introducing measures to the city’s deliberative body.
   • In some cities, this office is called the “preliminary councillors,” while in others it is known as the “council,” particularly where the people hold authority.
2. Supervision of Deliberations:
   • This office plays a key role in presiding over the city’s authoritative decisions and convening the ruling body.

VIII. Offices Related to Sacred Matters (1322b-1323a)

Aristotle turns to the offices that manage religious and sacred matters within the city.

1. Priests and Sacred Officials:
   • Cities require officials responsible for the supervision of religious affairs and sacred buildings.
   • These offices ensure the maintenance and preservation of temples, sacred sites, and religious activities.
2. Celebration of Public Sacrifices:
   • Another key religious office is responsible for the celebration of public sacrifices, which are not assigned to the priests.
   • These officials are often called “kings” or “presidents,” depending on the city.

IX. Summary of Necessary Offices (1323a)

Aristotle concludes by summarizing the types of offices that are necessary for the administration of a city.

1. Types of Offices:
   • The necessary offices include those related to divine matters, military affairs, financial management, market regulation, property oversight, and legal matters.
   • Additionally, there are offices for registering agreements, punishing offenders, guarding prisoners, and auditing officials.
2. Offices for Leisurely and Prosperous Cities:
   • Cities that enjoy greater leisure and prosperity may have additional offices such as those responsible for the management of women, children, and public spectacles.

X. Conclusion: The Political Nature of Offices (1323a)

Aristotle concludes the chapter by categorizing offices based on their political character.

1. Types of Election Offices:
   • Offices responsible for overseeing elections to authoritative positions include law guardians, preliminary councillors, and councils.
   • Law guardians are associated with aristocracy, preliminary councillors with oligarchy, and councils with democracy.
2. Final Overview of Offices:
   • Aristotle provides a final review of the many types of offices that are critical for the functioning and stability of both democratic and oligarchic regimes.

Summary of Key Points:

• Necessity of Offices: A city requires a range of offices to handle everything from basic survival needs (e.g., market regulation and property maintenance) to more complex administrative functions (e.g., military defense and religious oversight).
• Variety of Offices: Offices vary depending on the size and wealth of the city, with larger cities requiring more specialized and separate offices.
• Religious and Military Oversight: Proper governance includes offices responsible for sacred matters and military defense, ensuring the city’s cultural and physical security.
• Financial and Legal Accountability: Offices for auditing and legal enforcement are crucial to prevent corruption and maintain justice.
• Political Influence: Different types of offices reflect the political structure of the city, with certain offices aligning with aristocratic, oligarchic, or democratic regimes.

---

Video Explanation

Video Explanation Not Yet Available.

BOOK 6 Chapter 7 How to Make Oligarchies Endure

Chapter 7:

The Role of Different Multitudes and Military Forces in Oligarchy

I. Introduction: The Four Parts of the Multitude and Military Forces (1321a-b)

In this chapter, Aristotle explores the relationship between the different classes of the populace and the military forces in shaping oligarchies. He examines how different social groups and their alignment with certain military roles contribute to either strengthening or weakening the oligarchic regime.

1. Four Classes of the Multitude:
   • Farming class: Represents landowners, those who cultivate the land.
   • Working class: Comprises skilled laborers who perform manual work.
   • Merchant class: Engages in trade and commerce, generating wealth through business.
   • Laboring class: Includes manual laborers and those performing the most basic forms of work.
2. Four Parts of the City’s Military Forces:
   • Horse-rearing element: Wealthy citizens who can afford to maintain cavalry forces.
   • Heavy-armed element: Consists of citizens able to afford armor and weapons, typically from the wealthier classes.
   • Light-armed element: Comprised of lightly armed soldiers, usually poorer citizens.
   • Seafaring element: Made up of sailors and naval personnel, mostly from the lower classes.

II. Military and Social Conditions that Shape Oligarchies (1321a)

Aristotle identifies how different types of military forces align with social classes, and how these alignments shape the nature of oligarchies. Each type of military force corresponds to a different level of wealth, which in turn determines the political structure of the regime.

1. Horse-rearing and Oligarchy:
   • Cavalry is a military force typically supported by wealthy citizens who can afford the expense of maintaining horses.
   • In regions where horse-rearing is prominent, oligarchies tend to be stronger because the ruling class possesses both wealth and military strength.
   • The preservation of oligarchies in such regions often derives from the strength and organization of the cavalry.
2. Heavy-Armed Troops and Oligarchy:
   • Where the population is wealthy enough to support a heavy-armed force (hoplites), oligarchies are also likely to be robust.
   • The heavy-armed force consists mostly of well-off citizens, but not as wealthy as those in the cavalry.
   • These oligarchies are less exclusive than those relying on cavalry but still dominated by the wealthier classes.
3. Light-Armed and Naval Forces: Democratic Tendencies:
   • The light-armed troops and naval forces are composed of poorer citizens, which creates tension with oligarchies.
   • In places where these forces are large and well-organized, the oligarchs often lose out in factional struggles because the light-armed multitude can effectively contend against the wealthier classes.

III. Strategies to Maintain Oligarchic Power (1321a-b)

Aristotle suggests several strategies that oligarchies can use to preserve their power, especially in the face of conflict with democratic forces composed of light-armed and seafaring troops.

1. Combining Forces:
   • To counter the strength of the popular light-armed and naval forces, oligarchies should learn from skilled generals who know how to combine cavalry and heavy-armed forces with a light-armed force.
   • This strategic combination of forces helps oligarchies maintain military superiority over the democratic elements of society.
2. Training the Younger Generations:
   • Oligarchies should focus on training young citizens in the use of auxiliary and light arms from an early age.
   • By incorporating some of the youth into the light-armed forces, oligarchies can create a balanced military structure that prevents factional struggles from favoring the democratically aligned forces.

IV. Inclusion of the Multitude in Governance (1321b)

Aristotle discusses the possibility of giving a share in governance to the multitude, while maintaining the oligarchic nature of the regime. He highlights different approaches used by various cities to incorporate non-elite citizens without undermining the oligarchic structure.

1. Inclusion Based on Wealth:
   • In some oligarchies, only those who meet certain wealth assessments are allowed to participate in governance.
   • This ensures that the ruling class retains control, while giving the wealthier members of the multitude a stake in the regime.
2. Theban Model: Temporary Abstention from Work:
   • In Thebes, those who wished to take part in governance had to abstain from manual labor for a certain period of time.
   • This model allowed for broader participation in politics, but required a demonstration of commitment and stability by refraining from labor for a set duration.
3. Massilia’s Merit-Based System:
   • In Massilia, officials determined who was fit to hold office, whether from within the ruling body or from outside it.
   • This system allowed the multitude to participate, but only those deemed capable by the ruling class were granted the opportunity.

V. Balancing Public Services and Power (1321b)

Aristotle stresses the importance of attaching public services to the most authoritative offices in oligarchies, to ensure that the wealthier citizens, who hold power, are viewed favorably by the people.

1. Public Services as a Condition for Office:
   • Those who hold the most authoritative offices in the oligarchy should be required to perform public services as part of their role.
   • By contributing to the public good, the wealthy rulers can justify their privileged positions and gain the goodwill of the people.
2. Symbolic Sacrifices and Festivals:
   • Upon entering office, officials should make magnificent sacrifices and hold public festivals, contributing to civic life.
   • These acts serve both as a public display of generosity and as a means of building support for the regime, as citizens benefit from the festivities and the city is beautified with statues and public works.
3. The Role of Memorials:
   • Notables should leave behind memorials of their public expenditure, such as statues or buildings, which remind the populace of their contributions.
   • This practice helps to foster a sense of loyalty among the people, as they associate the oligarchic rulers with the prosperity and adornment of the city.

VI. Criticism of Modern Oligarchies (1321b)

Aristotle offers a critique of contemporary oligarchies, arguing that they often fail to follow the practices necessary for their preservation and instead adopt behaviors similar to democracies.

1. Oligarchies Seeking Spoils and Honor:
   • Aristotle criticizes the rulers of modern oligarchies for being more interested in seeking personal gain from office rather than serving the public good.
   • This attitude leads to instability, as the people perceive the ruling class as self-serving and corrupt.
2. Comparison to Small Democracies:
   • Aristotle remarks that modern oligarchies are more akin to small democracies, where rulers seek spoils and honors rather than governing with the long-term interests of the regime in mind.
   • This behavior undermines the very principles of oligarchy, leading to factional struggles and potential collapse.

VII. Conclusion: Establishing and Preserving Democracies and Oligarchies (1321b)

Aristotle concludes the chapter by summarizing the key points on how oligarchies and democracies can be established and preserved, emphasizing the need for balance, inclusion, and strategic governance.

1. Balance of Forces:
   • Oligarchies should ensure that their military forces are well-balanced, incorporating both cavalry, heavy-armed troops, and light-armed elements.
   • This prevents factional struggles and ensures that the ruling class can maintain control over the military forces.
2. Inclusion of the Multitude:
   • To preserve stability, oligarchies should consider including the multitude in governance, whether through wealth assessments, merit-based selection, or temporary abstention from labor.
   • This inclusion ensures that the people have a stake in the regime without undermining the oligarchic structure.
3. Public Service and Generosity:
   • The wealthier rulers should perform public services and engage in civic festivals, ensuring that the populace sees them as benevolent leaders.
   • Such practices help to build loyalty and prevent the rise of resentment or factionalism.

Summary of Key Points:

• Military Forces and Oligarchy: Different social classes align with different military forces, shaping the strength and structure of oligarchies. Cavalry and heavy-armed troops strengthen oligarchies, while light-armed and naval forces align with democratic elements.
• Strategies for Preservation: Oligarchies can preserve their power by balancing military forces, training younger citizens in military arts, and incorporating strategic elements from the light-armed forces.
• Inclusion of the Multitude: To avoid instability, oligarchies can incorporate broader participation from the multitude through wealth-based, merit-based, or temporary labor-abstention systems.
• Public Services and Memorials: Public services and civic displays of generosity by the wealthier rulers help to maintain support for the oligarchy, ensuring that the people feel a connection to the regime.
• Criticism of Modern Oligarchies: Aristotle criticizes contemporary oligarchies for being more focused on personal gain than on the preservation of the regime, leading to instability and factional conflict.

---

Video Explanation

Video Explanation Not Yet Available.

BOOK 6 Chapter 5 How to Make Democracies Endure

Chapter 5:

Preserving and Stabilizing Democracy

I. Introduction: Preservation Over Establishment (1320a)

In this chapter, Aristotle emphasizes that the most important task of the legislator is not merely to establish a regime, but to ensure its long-term preservation. The goal is to create stable democratic institutions that last, rather than regimes that collapse under internal pressures.

1. Legislator’s Focus:
   • The main task is not just instituting a regime but ensuring its preservation.
   • Governing for a few days or short periods is easy, but the challenge is to maintain stability over time.
2. Ensuring Longevity:
   • Regimes should be designed to last for the longest period, not just to maximize democratic or oligarchic control in the short term.
   • Stability depends on avoiding the causes of regime destruction and promoting laws (both written and unwritten) that prevent instability.

II. Causes of Instability and Legislative Solutions (1320a)

Aristotle identifies several causes of instability in democracies and offers practical legislative solutions to counter these issues.

1. Confiscations and Public Suits:
   • Problem: Popular leaders often use confiscations through the courts to gain favor with the people, leading to instability.
   • Solution: Property confiscated in public cases should not be added to public wealth but rather designated as sacred. This reduces incentives for unjust prosecutions and promotes fairness in the judicial process.
2. Reducing Frivolous Public Suits:
   • Problem: Frivolous lawsuits, particularly against the notables, destabilize the regime.
   • Solution: Impose heavy penalties on those who prosecute frivolously, ensuring that legal action is used for justice rather than political manipulation.

III. Managing Assemblies and Courts in Large Democracies (1320a-b)

In larger democracies, managing the number and frequency of assemblies and court cases is key to preserving the stability of the regime, especially where resources are scarce.

1. Challenges of Large Democracies:
   • In democracies with large populations, many citizens find it difficult to attend assemblies without pay.
   • When there are no external sources of revenue, the notables (wealthy) bear the burden through taxes, confiscations, and corruption in courts—these measures often lead to regime collapse.
2. Solutions for Poorly Financed Democracies:
   • Reduce the number of assemblies: Hold fewer assemblies to lessen the financial burden on the state and the wealthy.
   • Shorten court proceedings: Courts should convene for a limited number of days, making it easier for the wealthy to participate without significantly disrupting their private affairs.
3. Payment for Participation:
   • Poor citizens should receive pay for attending court and assembly, but the wealthy should be exempt to prevent financial strain.
   • This system benefits the state by ensuring better judgments from those who cannot afford to neglect their personal affairs for long periods.

IV. Managing Surplus Revenues in Democracies (1320b)

Aristotle stresses that financial stability is crucial for maintaining democracy. He outlines how surplus revenues should be managed to prevent instability and support the poor without creating a dependency on constant handouts.

1. The Problem with Surplus Distribution:
   • Popular leaders often distribute surplus revenues to the people, who then demand more, creating a cycle of dependency—what Aristotle refers to as the "punctured jar."
2. Sustainable Financial Support:
   • Instead of distributing surplus randomly, Aristotle argues for accumulating surplus over time and providing meaningful support to the poor.
   • Long-term Solutions: The revenues should be used to help the poor acquire land, start a business, or engage in farming. This creates self-sufficiency, reducing poverty and stabilizing democracy.
3. Equitable Distribution:
   • If it’s not feasible to distribute to everyone, funds should be distributed to citizens based on tribes or divisions within the city, ensuring fairness over time.
   • The wealthy should contribute through taxes to fund essential meetings, while being exempt from unnecessary public duties.

V. Examples of Effective Redistribution Practices (1320b)

Aristotle provides examples of how redistribution policies and systems in other cities have preserved democracy by keeping the people engaged and financially stable.

1. Carthaginian Model:
   • The Carthaginians preserve the goodwill of their citizens by sending some of them to subject cities, giving them wealth and influence. This practice spreads prosperity among the populace and prevents unrest.
2. Tarentine Practices:
   • In Tarentum, the notables make their wealth available for use by the poor, thus fostering goodwill and ensuring that the poor do not feel alienated from the regime.
3. Personal Responsibility of the Wealthy:
   • The wealthy should take responsibility for dividing the poor among themselves, providing them with the means to engage in productive labor. This reduces poverty and stabilizes the political system by creating economic opportunity.

VI. Institutional Structure in Democracies (1321a)

Aristotle concludes by discussing how democracies should be structured to ensure that all citizens feel involved in governance while still maintaining efficiency and competence.

1. Double Form of Offices:
   • Offices should be created in a dual structure: some positions filled by election and others by lottery.
   • Elections ensure that the most capable individuals govern, while lottery selections provide an opportunity for broader participation by the populace.
   • By combining election and lot, the system can balance competence with inclusivity.
2. Dividing Responsibilities:
   • In some cases, the same office can be split between two individuals, one chosen by election and the other by lot. This ensures that governance is effective while also allowing for popular participation.

VII. Conclusion: Summary of Democratic Preservation (1321a)

Aristotle closes the chapter by reiterating the importance of creating sustainable systems for democracy. Preserving democracy is not just about giving the people power; it is about ensuring long-term stability through balanced laws, equitable distribution of resources, and the involvement of capable leaders.

1. Balancing Interests:
   • The best way to preserve a democracy is through balancing the interests of the poor and the wealthy, ensuring that no group feels alienated from the regime.
2. Inclusive but Competent Governance:
   • By mixing electoral and lottery-based office appointments, democracies can maintain both inclusivity and competence, ensuring long-term survival of the regime.

Key Points to Remember

• Preservation Over Establishment: The legislator’s primary concern is to ensure the regime lasts, not just to establish it.
• Financial Stability: Surplus revenue should be used for sustainable poverty relief, not short-term handouts.
• Reduced Assemblies and Courts: Fewer, shorter meetings reduce the financial burden on the wealthy while allowing the poor to participate.
• Balanced Participation: Democracies should combine elections and lotteries to ensure both competence and broad citizen involvement.
• Examples from Other Cities: Carthaginian and Tarentine practices offer models for preserving stability through economic redistribution and inclusive governance.

This chapter offers Aristotle's detailed strategies for preserving democratic regimes, focusing on balancing financial burdens, ensuring competent governance, and fostering inclusion to avoid instability and collapse.

---

Video Explanation

Video Explanation Not Yet Available.

BOOK 6 Chapter 4 The Other Varieties of Democracies

Chapter 4

I. Introduction to the Best Form of Democracy (1318b)

Aristotle begins by identifying four types of democracy, focusing on the best form, which he describes as the first and oldest. This form is ideal for societies where the populace is composed of farmers and herders.

1. The Best Democracy:
   • The most favorable form of democracy is one that can arise where the majority of people are engaged in farming or herding.
   • Farmers and herders make up the best citizens for this democracy because their occupations prevent them from seeking wealth or power in politics.
2. Qualities of a Farming Society:
   • Due to their lifestyle, farmers do not have the leisure time to hold frequent assemblies.
   • Since their focus is on work and sustenance, they are less likely to desire or pursue political power or wealth from office.
3. Contentment and Stability:
   • Farmers and herders are more inclined to be satisfied with basic governance, as long as they are allowed to work and retain their property.
   • As a result, they are willing to endure regimes like ancient tyrannies or oligarchies if those regimes do not interfere with their work or wealth accumulation.

II. Electing and Governing in the Best Democracy (1319a)

The best form of democracy ensures that governance is conducted by the most capable individuals, while the populace maintains some degree of oversight.

1. Election and Auditing:
   • Citizens, while perhaps not holding office themselves, participate in the election process and auditing of officials.
   • This limited participation satisfies the people's desire for political involvement without giving them full control over governance.
2. Division of Power:
   • The best individuals, based on assessments or qualifications, are chosen to hold office, ensuring that governance is conducted by capable and respectable citizens.
   • Those who rule are prevented from becoming corrupt because they are accountable to the people, who retain auditing powers.
3. Restraint and Moderation:
   • The best democracy ensures that even those in power are constrained by the law, preventing them from acting on personal whims.
   • This restraint benefits the whole system by protecting against the potential flaws of human nature.

III. Institutional Laws Supporting the Best Democracy (1319a)

Aristotle emphasizes the importance of property laws that maintain a stable and balanced society of farmers and herders.

1. Legislation on Land Ownership:
   • Laws that restrict land ownership to certain limits help maintain a balanced distribution of wealth, ensuring that the majority of citizens remain engaged in farming.
   • Ancient laws prohibited the sale or borrowing against land allotments, ensuring that citizens retained enough land to meet the requirements for citizenship.
2. Examples of Useful Legislation:
   • Aristotle points to laws from ancient societies, such as those of Oxylus and the Aphytaeans, which maintained land division and protected the farming class.
   • These laws ensured that even the poorest citizens had enough resources to participate in political life and citizenship.

IV. Other Forms of Democracy Based on Different Classes (1319b)

Aristotle contrasts the ideal farming-based democracy with other forms of democracy based on different social classes.

1. Herdsmen as Citizens:
   • Herdsmen, like farmers, are also well-suited to democracy because of their physical fitness and self-sufficiency.
   • Their lifestyle prepares them for military service, making them valuable citizens in a democratic regime.
2. Inferior Classes in Other Democracies:
   • In contrast, democracies that rely on merchants, workers, and laborers are less ideal because these citizens are primarily focused on profit.
   • Their frequent presence in the marketplace allows them to participate more actively in assemblies, but their interests are less aligned with the common good.

V. Practical Considerations for Establishing a Decent Democracy (1319b)

Aristotle discusses practical methods for establishing a democracy that functions well despite the different elements in society.

1. Geographical Considerations:
   • In areas where the countryside is far from the city, it is easier to create a balanced democracy, as the rural population is less likely to dominate assemblies.
   • Assemblies should include the rural populace, as their absence can lead to an unbalanced and less effective democracy.
2. Progressive Deviation in Democracies:
   • Democracies gradually deviate from the ideal as more inferior classes are granted citizenship.
   • The final and most degenerate form of democracy occurs when all citizens, regardless of merit, are allowed to participate, leading to instability.

VI. Dangers of Over-Extending Citizenship and Popular Rule (1319b)

Aristotle warns of the dangers associated with excessive inclusion of citizens and the resulting instability in a democracy.

1. Unrestrained Inclusion:
   • Popular leaders often extend citizenship too far, including not just legitimate citizens but also bastards and those with only partial citizenship qualifications.
   • This strategy strengthens the lower classes but creates tension with the notable and middling citizens.
2. Instability from Excessive Numbers:
   • When the lower classes become too numerous, they disrupt the balance of the regime, causing dissatisfaction among the notables and ultimately leading to factional conflict.

VII. Tyrannical Elements in Popular Rule (1320a)

Aristotle concludes by discussing the tyrannical tendencies that can emerge in a democracy if certain elements are allowed to dominate.

1. Lack of Control Over Certain Groups:
   • Democracies that fail to impose proper control over slaves, women, and children often degenerate into disorderly rule.
   • The permissive nature of such regimes, where citizens are allowed to live without restraint, undermines the stability of the democracy.
2. Disorder and Moderation:
   • Allowing citizens to live without moderation appeals to the majority, but it ultimately weakens the regime, leading to chaos and instability.

Types of Multitudes and Their Influence on Democracy

VIII. Introduction to the Multitudes in Relation to Democracy (1305a-b)

In Chapter 4 of Book 5 (Politics), Aristotle explains how different types of multitudes shape the different kinds of democratic regimes. He argues that democracy is fundamentally shaped by the characteristics of the people who make up the society. Understanding the variety of multitudes allows for a deeper comprehension of how different democracies emerge and function.

1. Multitudes as a Defining Element in Democracies:
   • Aristotle begins by asserting that every form of democracy is determined by the specific characteristics of the multitude that constitutes it.
   • He emphasizes that the different types of citizens shape the character and operation of democratic regimes, leading to variations in how power is distributed and exercised.
2. The Role of the Majority:
   • Democracies are essentially about the majority governing, but the quality and nature of this majority determine the type of democracy that will emerge.
   • The moral, economic, and social characteristics of the multitude influence the way democracy operates, affecting both the stability and justice of the regime.

IX. Types of Multitudes and Their Qualities (1305b-1306a)

Aristotle categorizes the multitude into several groups based on their way of life, economic status, and engagement with public life. He outlines how these groups give rise to different forms of democracy.

1. Farming and Agricultural Multitude:
   • Qualities:
     • Farmers are the most ideal citizens for a stable democracy.
     • They are hardworking, self-sufficient, and not driven by the pursuit of wealth or political power.
     • Their lack of leisure prevents them from constant political engagement, making them content with minimal participation.
   • Impact on Democracy:
     • A democracy based on a farming multitude is moderate and stable because farmers do not seek to exploit political offices for personal gain.
     • They are less likely to challenge the political order as long as they are free to work and retain their land.
     • This type of democracy is characterized by respect for the law and limited ambition for office.
2. Herding and Pastoral Multitude:
   • Qualities:
     • Herdsmen share many traits with farmers, such as self-sufficiency and a connection to the land.
     • They are also physically hardy, living outdoors and accustomed to physical exertion.
     • They engage in minimal political activity, as their lifestyle is focused on the maintenance of livestock.
   • Impact on Democracy:
     • Similar to farmers, herders contribute to a stable and moderate democracy.
     • Their focus on work and their military readiness provide stability and security to the regime.
     • However, their participation in governance is limited, and they prefer minimal political involvement.
3. Craftsmen, Artisans, and Merchants:
   • Qualities:
     • These citizens are engaged in commerce, craftsmanship, or trading, and their lives revolve around economic gain rather than political participation.
     • They frequent marketplaces and urban areas, making them more accessible for political involvement.
     • Their pursuit of profit often outweighs considerations of the common good.
   • Impact on Democracy:
     • A democracy composed primarily of craftsmen and merchants tends to be more focused on economic interests rather than civic virtue.
     • These citizens are likely to attend assemblies and participate actively in politics because their work is centered in the city.
     • However, the focus on profit can lead to a democracy that is less concerned with justice and more prone to corruption and instability.
4. Laborers and the Poor:
   • Qualities:
     • Laborers are those who rely on manual work for their livelihood, often struggling to meet basic needs.
     • They are typically less educated and more concerned with immediate survival than long-term political considerations.
     • Their lack of wealth and property makes them more likely to seek political power as a means of improving their economic status.
   • Impact on Democracy:
     • Democracies dominated by laborers and the poor tend to be the most unstable because these citizens often seek redistribution of wealth through political means.
     • The focus on material gain and the frequent need for assemblies can lead to a more volatile and less moderate form of democracy.
     • Laborers are often easily swayed by demagogues who promise economic benefits, leading to populist and sometimes tyrannical rule.

X. How Multitudes Influence Democratic Institutions (1306a-b)

Aristotle discusses how the specific composition of the multitude influences the structure of democratic institutions, such as assemblies, elections, and offices.

1. Assemblies and Participation:
   • Democracies where the majority consists of farmers or herders tend to have infrequent assemblies, as these citizens are more focused on their work and less interested in politics.
   • In contrast, democracies made up of urban craftsmen and merchants often have frequent assemblies because these citizens are more available to participate and have economic interests tied to political decisions.
2. Elections and Offices:
   • In a democracy where the multitude is composed of farmers, elections may be less frequent, and offices may be limited to individuals who are deemed capable based on merit or assessments.
   • Democracies dominated by laborers and the poor, however, tend to have more frequent elections and broader participation in office-holding, often leading to less capable individuals being placed in positions of power.
3. Justice and Law:
   • The rule of law is more respected in democracies where the multitude is composed of farmers and herders, as these citizens prioritize stability and order.
   • In democracies with a large number of laborers or the poor, the rule of law may be more vulnerable to challenges, as these citizens may push for legal changes that benefit their economic position, potentially leading to injustice and disorder.

XI. The Gradation of Democracies (1306b-1307a)

Aristotle outlines how democracies deviate from the ideal form based on the type of multitude that dominates.

1. Best Form of Democracy:
   • The best form of democracy arises when the multitude consists of farmers and herders, as they are moderate, self-sufficient, and not prone to excessive political ambition.
   • This democracy is stable, moderate, and respectful of the rule of law, with governance resting in the hands of the most capable individuals.
2. Deviations from the Ideal:
   • As the quality of the multitude declines, so too does the quality of the democracy. Democracies dominated by craftsmen, merchants, and laborers are progressively less stable.
   • The focus on economic gain and frequent political participation leads to more factionalism, corruption, and instability in these forms of democracy.
3. The Worst Form of Democracy:
   • The final and most degenerate form of democracy occurs when all citizens, regardless of merit, are allowed to participate equally.
   • In this form, the pursuit of personal gain dominates political life, and the regime becomes prone to demagoguery, instability, and disorder.

XII. Conclusion: Balancing the Multitudes for a Stable Democracy (1307a)

Aristotle concludes by emphasizing the need for a balanced and moderate multitude to create a stable and just democracy.

1. Moderation as Key to Stability:
   • A well-functioning democracy requires a balance between different classes, with the majority being composed of moderate citizens such as farmers and herders.
   • Extreme forms of democracy, where the poor or laborers dominate, lead to instability and injustice.
2. Practical Recommendations for Legislators:
   • Legislators should aim to maintain a balance of power between different groups in society, ensuring that no one class dominates completely.
   • By regulating participation and ensuring that capable individuals hold office, a democracy can remain stable and just, even if it includes a diverse multitude.

Summary of Key Points

1. Multitude as the Basis of Democracy: The type of citizens in a democracy determines its form and quality.
2. Best Citizens for Democracy: Farmers and herders make up the best citizens for a moderate and stable democracy, while laborers and the poor lead to less stable forms.
3. Influence on Institutions: The composition of the multitude affects how frequently assemblies are held, who is elected to office, and how the rule of law is respected.
4. Deviations from the Ideal: As the quality of the multitude declines, so does the quality of the democracy, with the worst form being one where all citizens, regardless of merit, participate equally.
5. Stability through Moderation: A balanced and moderate multitude ensures a stable democracy, and legislators should aim to maintain this balance through regulation and merit-based governance.

Aristotle's Chapter 4 in Politics Book 6 explores the conditions and characteristics that define the best form of democracy, particularly focusing on a farming or herding populace. The best democracy balances power between capable rulers and a content populace, while also ensuring that governance is restrained and moderate. Aristotle emphasizes the importance of proper legislation, limited participation in governance, and the dangers of over-extending citizenship.

This chapter provides Aristotle's framework for understanding how different social groups shape democratic regimes and emphasizes the importance of a moderate multitude for creating a stable, just democracy.

---

Video Explanation

Video Explanation Not Yet Available.

BOOK 6 Chapter 3 How to Set Up Democracies

Chapter 3

I. Introduction: The Question of Equality in Democratic and Oligarchic Justice

• A. Problem of Establishing Equality
  • Aristotle raises a central question about how equality should be established between the poor and the wealthy in the political system. This is critical for defining justice in both democracies and oligarchies.
  • He introduces two approaches for establishing political equality:
    • 1. Wealth-Based Proportionality: One approach could be to divide authority according to the total wealth held by the poor and the rich. For example, if 500 wealthy individuals have as much wealth as 1,000 poor individuals, then political power should be divided proportionally between the two groups.
    • 2. Equal Number of Representatives: Another approach is to assign equal numbers of representatives from both groups (the wealthy and the poor) to oversee elections and the courts, without considering their wealth. This would reflect an emphasis on numerical equality rather than wealth-based proportionality.

II. Competing Views of Justice: Popular vs. Oligarchic Perspectives

• A. The Popular View of Justice
  • According to Aristotle, in a democracy, justice is understood as whatever is decided by the majority. This perspective assumes that decisions made by the larger group (numerically) are inherently fair, since the majority represents the common interests of most citizens.
• B. The Oligarchic View of Justice
  • In contrast, in an oligarchy, justice is based on the decisions of those with greater property. Oligarchs believe that those who contribute more wealth to society should have greater decision-making power. This view assumes that wealthier citizens are more capable of making informed decisions and therefore deserve more influence.
• C. Flaws in Both Perspectives
  • Aristotle criticizes both the democratic and oligarchic views of justice as inherently unequal and unjust:
    • 1. Oligarchic Injustice: In an oligarchy, if justice is determined solely by wealth, then it would be just for the wealthiest individual to rule over everyone else, which would resemble tyranny. This extreme inequality undermines the common good.
    • 2. Democratic Injustice: On the other hand, in a democracy, the majority (often composed of the poor) could act unjustly by confiscating the wealth of the rich minority. This would violate property rights and lead to social instability.

III. Aristotle's Proposal for a Balanced System of Equality

• A. The Need for a Middle Ground
  • Aristotle argues that true equality must be found in a way that balances the interests of both the rich and the poor. Neither group should have total authority, as both extremes lead to injustice.
• B. Mixed Justice Based on Both Groups
  • Aristotle proposes a more balanced form of justice that takes into account both the numbers of individuals and their property:
    • 1. Shared Authority: Decisions should be made by a majority that represents both the rich and the poor. This means that resolutions made by either the wealthy or the poor alone should not be considered authoritative.
    • 2. Combining Majorities: If each group (the rich and the poor) supports opposing resolutions, the decision supported by the majority of both groups should be considered just. This requires that both numerical equality (from democracy) and wealth-based influence (from oligarchy) are taken into account.
• C. Example of Mixed Justice
  • Aristotle provides an example: if there are 10 wealthy citizens and 20 poor citizens, and their votes are divided, with six wealthy and fifteen poor citizens on one side, while four wealthy and five poor citizens are on the other side, the side with the greater assessment of wealth and numbers should prevail. In this case, the decision supported by the six wealthy and fifteen poor citizens would be just because it combines both numerical and wealth-based majorities.

IV. Resolving Equality When Votes Are Split

• A. The Problem of Tied Votes
  • Aristotle acknowledges that in some cases, the votes may be equally split between the two sides. This raises the question of how to resolve such a deadlock. He notes that this is a common issue in existing political systems, especially when the assembly or the courts are evenly divided.
• B. Methods of Breaking a Tie
  • Aristotle suggests that in the event of a tie, some form of random selection, such as resorting to lot, may be necessary to resolve the decision. This method ensures that neither side dominates purely because of numerical or financial strength.

V. The Difficulty of Achieving True Justice and Equality

• A. The Challenge of Persuasion
  • Aristotle concludes by reflecting on the difficulty of achieving true justice and equality. Although it is easier to understand the concept of balanced justice, persuading individuals to accept and implement it is a much harder task.
• B. The Self-Interest of the Powerful
  • Aristotle observes that those who are in a position to aggrandize themselves (those with wealth and power) are often reluctant to support true equality. The inferior—those with less wealth and power—are typically the ones who seek justice and fairness, while the dominant groups tend to resist changes that would reduce their authority.

Summary of Major Themes

1. Equality in Democracy and Oligarchy: Aristotle explores two competing views of equality—democratic and oligarchic. While democracies seek equality through numerical majority, oligarchies emphasize wealth as the basis for political power. Both systems have inherent flaws.
2. Balancing Interests of Rich and Poor: Aristotle advocates for a mixed system of justice that balances the interests of both the rich and the poor. In this system, political decisions are based on a combination of numerical majority and wealth-based assessment, ensuring that neither group dominates unfairly.
3. The Role of Lot in Tied Decisions: When political decisions are equally split, Aristotle suggests using random selection, such as drawing lots, to break the tie. This prevents either side from gaining undue advantage in cases of deadlock.
4. Challenges of Implementing Justice: While Aristotle identifies the theoretical basis for achieving justice and equality, he acknowledges the practical difficulties of persuading the wealthy and powerful to accept these principles. The self-interest of dominant groups often hinders the realization of true equality in political systems.

Aristotle's discussion in this chapter addresses the delicate balance required to create a fair and just political system that accounts for both numerical equality and wealth-based influence. Aristotle tackles the challenge of establishing equality within political systems, focusing on democratic and oligarchic contexts. He presents two main approaches for achieving political equality: wealth-based proportionality, where authority is divided based on the relative wealth of different groups, and equal representation, where each group, regardless of wealth, has an equal number of representatives.

Aristotle critiques both the democratic view, which prioritizes the majority's decision, and the oligarchic view, which favors the wealthy, as each leads to forms of injustice—democratic systems might unfairly infringe on property rights. At the same time, oligarchies could resemble tyranny due to extreme wealth-based dominance. Aristotle proposes a mixed justice system that combines numerical and wealth-based considerations to address these issues. This system would require decision-making processes to balance the interests of the rich and the poor, ensuring that neither group has disproportionate influence. For situations where votes are tied, Aristotle suggests using random methods like drawing lots to prevent any single side from having undue power. While Aristotle provides a theoretical framework for achieving justice, he acknowledges the practical difficulties in convincing the powerful to accept such balanced principles, as their self-interest often impedes the realization of true equality.

---

Video Explanation

Video Explanation Not Yet Available.

BOOK 6 Chapter 2 The Features of Democracy

Chapter 2

I. Introduction: Freedom as the Foundation of Democracy

• A. The Principle of Freedom
  • Aristotle begins by identifying freedom as the central premise and guiding principle of democratic regimes. He notes that in popular discourse, democracy is often synonymous with freedom, and it is commonly asserted that only in a democracy do individuals truly partake in freedom.
  • Two Aspects of Freedom:
    • 1. Rotation of Rulers: One aspect of freedom, according to Aristotle, is the ability of individuals to both rule and be ruled in turn. This rotation of governance ensures that everyone has an equal opportunity to hold authority, which aligns with the democratic notion of fairness.
    • 2. Living as One Wishes: The second aspect of freedom is the ability to live as one pleases. Aristotle highlights that this freedom of lifestyle is regarded as a hallmark of democracy, as it contrasts with the life of a slave, who is not able to live according to personal desires.

II. The Democratic View of Justice and Equality

• A. Democratic Justice Based on Numerical Equality
  • Aristotle explains that the concept of justice in democracy is based on equality of number, rather than equality based on merit. In a democracy, every citizen is considered equal in terms of participation, regardless of their abilities or contributions.
  • Authority of the Majority: This principle of numerical equality leads to the idea that the majority must have authority, since they represent the greater number of citizens. As a result, the decisions made by the majority are seen as just and final, regardless of the minority’s opinions. Thus, in democracies, the poor tend to have more power than the wealthy, simply because they are more numerous.
• B. Equality and Freedom as Democratic Ideals
  • Aristotle explains that for democracies, equality is a central value, particularly when understood as equality of participation. Everyone, regardless of social class or merit, should have an equal share in political authority.
  • Freedom and Non-Subjection: Aristotle connects this idea of equality with freedom, noting that freedom in a democracy also means not being subject to the will of others. In this sense, democratic freedom involves the right to participate equally in ruling and being ruled, thus avoiding domination by any one individual or group.

III. Democratic Institutions and Their Characteristics

• A. Popular Features of Democratic Governance
  • Aristotle outlines several key features that are characteristic of democratic regimes:
    • 1. Election from Among All Citizens: In a democracy, any citizen should be eligible to hold office, reflecting the democratic ideal of equal participation.
    • 2. Rotation in Office: The democratic system emphasizes the rotation of officials, meaning that all citizens take turns ruling and being ruled.
    • 3. Selection by Lot: Offices that do not require specialized knowledge or expertise are often assigned by lot rather than election, to ensure fairness and equal opportunity.
    • 4. Minimal Property Requirements: Offices are generally not restricted by wealth or property qualifications, or if they are, the requirements are kept to a minimum, so that as many citizens as possible can participate.
    • 5. Term Limits: Democratic regimes often limit how long an individual can hold office, with most offices being of short duration to prevent the concentration of power.
    • 6. General Jurisdiction: In democracies, all citizens or a large portion of them participate in making judicial decisions, especially concerning matters of great importance such as audits or decisions about the regime itself.
• B. Role of the Assembly and Council
  • 1. Authority of the Assembly: The assembly plays a crucial role in democratic regimes. It often holds authority over all or most matters, with decisions being made by the collective will of the people.
  • 2. Importance of the Council: The council is another important institution, though its power varies depending on whether the people receive pay. If citizens are paid for participation in governance, more power tends to shift directly to the people rather than to the council. In cases where there is insufficient pay, the council has more authority.
• C. Payment for Public Service
  • A key feature of democratic regimes is the provision of pay for participation in governance. Pay allows citizens, especially the poor, to engage in public duties without being financially disadvantaged.
    • 1. Pay for the Assembly, Courts, and Offices: In an ideal democratic system, pay is provided for all citizens who participate in the assembly, courts, and public offices.
    • 2. Partial Pay: If full pay is not possible, it is at least provided for the most important roles, such as those in authoritative positions or where common meals are shared.

IV. Defining Features of Democracy by Contrast with Oligarchy

• A. Democratic Opposition to Oligarchy
  • Aristotle contrasts democracy with oligarchy, which is defined by the concentration of power among the wealthy, well-born, and educated. In democracies, the opposite values are celebrated:
    • Lack of Birth: Nobility of birth is irrelevant or even disdained in a democracy.
    • Poverty: Poverty is not seen as a disqualifier for holding office; indeed, the poor have significant authority due to their numerical advantage.
    • Vulgarity: In contrast to the refined tastes valued in oligarchies, democracies embrace the ordinary and common.
• B. Elimination of Life Tenure
  • Another key feature of democratic regimes is the rejection of lifetime offices. Democracies do not allow any office to be held for life, and if any offices have remained from previous regimes with life tenure, they are either abolished or transformed so that officials are chosen by lot rather than election.

V. Conclusion: Equality as the Defining Principle of Democracy

• A. Justice and Equality in Democracy
  • Aristotle concludes by reaffirming that the defining principle of democracy is equality, particularly equality in participation. The ideal democratic system ensures that no one class, particularly the poor, has more authority than another, and all citizens share in power equally.
• B. Balance of Power Between Rich and Poor
  • For democracy to function effectively, there must be a balance in which the poor do not dominate the wealthy, nor do the wealthy hold undue authority over the poor. This balance, based on numerical equality, is what creates a sense of both freedom and justice in democratic regimes.

Summary of Major Themes

1. Freedom as the Basis of Democracy: Aristotle emphasizes that freedom is the core principle of democratic governance. This freedom is expressed both through the ability of citizens to rule and be ruled in turn, as well as through the freedom to live as one pleases.
2. Equality of Participation: Democratic justice is founded on numerical equality—the idea that all citizens should have an equal share in governance, regardless of merit or social status. This principle ensures that the majority, often the poor, holds authority.
3. Institutional Features of Democracy: Key institutional features of democracies include the election of officials from among all citizens, rotation of office, selection by lot, and minimal property requirements. These institutions ensure broad participation and prevent any individual or class from holding power for too long.
4. Opposition to Oligarchy: Democracy is characterized by its rejection of the oligarchic values of wealth, birth, and education. Instead, it embraces poverty, vulgarity, and the common citizen, ensuring that no office is held for life and that power is distributed equally.
5. Justice Through Equality: Aristotle concludes that true democracy is defined by a balance of power between the rich and the poor, where neither class dominates, and all citizens have equal authority. This balance creates a regime that is both just and free.

---

Video Explanation

Video Explanation Not Yet Available.

BOOK 6 Chapter 1 How to Make Democracies Endure

Chapter 6:

Oligarchy and Its Preservation

I. Introduction: Parallels Between Oligarchy and Democracy (1321a)

Aristotle begins by drawing parallels between the structuring of oligarchies and democracies. The preservation of oligarchies, like democracies, depends on combining different elements, especially considering the oppositional nature of the two regimes.

1. Opposite Elements of Oligarchy and Democracy:
   • Oligarchies, like democracies, should be composed by blending opposite elements to create a balanced and stable regime.
   • The key difference is that where democracies thrive on inclusion, oligarchies focus on restricting participation based on wealth or merit.
2. Types of Oligarchy:
   • Aristotle identifies different types of oligarchies, ranging from moderate to extreme, each with its own needs for stability and preservation.
   • The first and best type of oligarchy is the one most closely aligned with a balanced "regime" (a blend of oligarchic and democratic principles).

II. The First and Best Type of Oligarchy (1321a)

The first and most well-blended oligarchy is the one that incorporates more inclusive elements, making it closest to a constitutional regime, rather than a strict or extreme oligarchy.

1. Balanced Participation:
   • In this type of oligarchy, there is a distinction among citizens based on their economic assessments (wealth).
   • The lesser assessments allow citizens to participate in necessary or lower offices, while the greater assessments permit them to hold more authoritative positions.
2. Open to a Larger Group:
   • Participation in this form of oligarchy is not completely closed off. Anyone meeting the assessment qualifications can participate in the regime.
   • This inclusion of wealthier citizens ensures that a significant portion of the population can engage in governance, creating a balanced oligarchy.
3. Selection of the Best:
   • The regime selects individuals from the "better" part of society (the wealthier and more capable) to be sharers in the governance of the state.
   • This blend of oligarchic rule maintains stability because it incorporates a wider base of citizens while ensuring that governance remains in the hands of the most capable.

III. Tightening the Qualifications in Oligarchies (1321a)

Aristotle suggests that the next level of oligarchy, while similar to the first, tightens the qualifications for citizenship and participation in governance, gradually increasing the exclusivity.

1. Increased Restrictions:
   • As the oligarchy becomes more exclusive, the qualifications for participation become stricter, excluding a greater portion of the population.
   • The regime still maintains stability by selecting from the wealthier and more capable citizens, but fewer individuals are included in governance compared to the first type of oligarchy.
2. The Role of Merit:
   • In more exclusive oligarchies, merit based on wealth and influence becomes the primary criterion for political participation.
   • The regime is thus less democratic but still more stable than more extreme forms of oligarchy.

IV. The Extreme Oligarchy: Tyrannical and Oppressive (1321a)

The final and most extreme form of oligarchy is highly exclusive, oppressive, and requires the greatest defense to ensure its survival. This type corresponds to the most extreme form of democracy, which Aristotle compares to a tyranny.

1. Tyrannical Oligarchy:
   • The most extreme type of oligarchy is highly restrictive and tyrannical, allowing only a very small elite group to participate in governance.
   • This regime is marked by harsh control and extreme measures to maintain its rule, as it faces constant threats from those excluded from power.
2. Need for Greater Defense:
   • Because this oligarchy is highly exclusive and oppressive, it faces more internal threats and requires significant defense mechanisms to maintain its stability.
   • Aristotle compares this to how a diseased body or a poorly crewed ship requires more care and attention to survive compared to a healthy body or a well-functioning ship.
3. Vulnerability to Errors:
   • Just as unhealthy bodies and weak ships cannot withstand even small mistakes, extreme oligarchies are prone to collapse under minor disturbances due to their inherent instability.
   • The more exclusive and extreme the oligarchy, the more fragile it becomes, requiring constant vigilance and defensive measures.

V. Preservation of Oligarchies Through Proper Arrangement (1321a-b)

Aristotle concludes by emphasizing that while democracies rely on large populations for their stability, oligarchies must preserve themselves through proper arrangement and governance.

1. Contrast with Democracy:
   • In democracies, large populations help preserve the regime because the majority rules. This is the antithesis of oligarchy, which is based on rule by the few.
   • In oligarchies, merit (usually in the form of wealth or social status) determines participation, not sheer numbers.
2. Well-Arranged Oligarchies:
   • For an oligarchy to survive, it must be well-arranged, meaning that its institutions and laws must be carefully designed to prevent internal conflict and to manage external threats.
   • A well-organized oligarchy ensures that those in power are competent and that there is enough support from the lower classes to prevent rebellion or unrest.
3. Avoiding Instability:
   • Properly arranged oligarchies avoid the pitfalls of extreme exclusivity and oppression by ensuring that governance is carried out by capable leaders and that the masses are not entirely alienated from power.
   • The key to preserving oligarchies lies in balancing exclusivity with enough inclusion to prevent revolt, while also maintaining a strong defense against internal and external threats.

VI. Summary of Key Concepts in Oligarchic Preservation

Aristotle’s discussion in Chapter 6 highlights how different types of oligarchies, from moderate to extreme, require different methods of preservation. Stability in oligarchy depends on proper balance between inclusion and exclusivity, as well as the strength of the regime's internal and external defenses.

1. Moderate Oligarchies:
   • These are closest to a constitutional regime, blending elements of democracy by allowing a larger portion of the population to participate based on wealth qualifications.
   • They are stable because they balance exclusivity with inclusivity, selecting the best citizens for governance.
2. Tighter Oligarchies:
   • As oligarchies become more exclusive, they require stricter qualifications for participation. While still stable, they are more vulnerable than moderate oligarchies.
3. Extreme Oligarchies:
   • These highly oppressive regimes are prone to instability and require the greatest defense mechanisms to prevent collapse.
   • They are analogous to tyrannical democracies and are fragile due to their exclusivity and harsh control over the population.
4. Preservation Through Proper Arrangement:
   • Oligarchies survive not by sheer numbers but by being well-organized and having strong institutions.
   • A well-arranged oligarchy ensures capable leadership and sufficient support from the lower classes to prevent instability and maintain long-term survival.

VII. Stability and Balance in Oligarchies

Aristotle’s examination of oligarchies in Chapter 6 emphasizes the importance of combining different elements to create a stable regime. While extreme forms of oligarchy are highly vulnerable and require constant defense, more moderate forms that incorporate broader participation from the wealthier classes are more likely to endure. Stability in oligarchies is maintained through proper arrangement, balancing inclusivity with exclusivity, and ensuring competent leadership.

XI. The Concept of Notables (ὀνομαστός) and Their Role in Shaping Different Types of Oligarchy

1. Definition of Notables:
   • In the context of Aristotle’s Politics, notables (ὀνομαστός) refer to the wealthy, influential, or distinguished members of society who play a crucial role in governance.
   • Notables are those with significant social standing, often due to wealth, birth, reputation, or merit, and their involvement in political life is critical for understanding the functioning of oligarchies.
2. Notables as Central to Oligarchy:
   • Oligarchies are defined by rule by the few, and these few are typically drawn from the class of notables.
   • The influence and participation of the notables in governance determine the nature and stability of an oligarchic regime.
3. Role of Notables in Structuring Different Oligarchies:
   • Aristotle categorizes oligarchies based on the degree of inclusion and exclusivity, and notables play a pivotal role in determining the structure of these oligarchies.
   • The different types of oligarchy are shaped by how power is distributed among notables and how they relate to the non-notable classes.

X. The First and Most Moderate Type of Oligarchy: Inclusive Participation of Notables

1. Characteristics of Moderate Oligarchy:
   • In the most moderate form of oligarchy, the notables are those with wealth and merit, but the regime allows a broader base of participation.
   • There is a gradation of assessments, meaning that not all notables are equal in their access to power, but the regime remains relatively open to those who meet certain wealth qualifications.
2. Distribution of Offices Based on Wealth:
   • Lesser assessments: Those who meet lower wealth qualifications can participate in the necessary, lower offices of the regime.
   • Greater assessments: The wealthier notables hold the more authoritative and prestigious offices, ensuring that governance remains in the hands of the most capable.
3. Impact of Inclusive Notables on Stability:
   • This moderate oligarchy blends oligarchic and democratic principles, allowing for greater stability by including a wider portion of the notable class.
   • Notables in this system are more likely to be content with the regime because they retain significant power while avoiding the risks of excluding too many from governance.
4. Balance Between Notables and the Non-Notable Population:
   • The broader inclusion of notables ensures that a large enough portion of the wealthy class participates in governance, reducing the potential for internal conflicts or resentment.
   • The regime remains stable by balancing the interests of the notables with the rest of the population, avoiding extreme exclusion.

XI. The Intermediate Type of Oligarchy: Tighter Restrictions on Participation by Notables

1. Tightened Qualifications for Notables:
   • In this form of oligarchy, the qualifications for participation become stricter, and only wealthier or more distinguished notables are allowed to hold office.
   • The regime still relies on a broader group of notables, but it begins to exclude the lower tiers of the notable class, concentrating power in fewer hands.
2. Stricter Division Among Notables:
   • The gap between the lesser and greater assessments becomes more pronounced. Only those with higher wealth and influence are allowed to take part in the authoritative offices.
   • This tightens the circle of those who can govern, reducing the number of notables who have direct influence over the regime.
3. Potential for Internal Strife Among Notables:
   • While still more inclusive than the most extreme form of oligarchy, this intermediate type can lead to tensions within the class of notables.
   • Those excluded from the higher offices may feel alienated, leading to internal divisions among the wealthy.
4. Impact on Stability:
   • The regime remains relatively stable as it still incorporates a significant portion of the notable class.
   • However, by restricting participation, the oligarchy risks creating resentment among the less wealthy notables, which could destabilize the regime over time.

XII. The Most Extreme Type of Oligarchy: Rule by a Small Elite of Notables

1. Exclusivity of Power in Extreme Oligarchy:
   • In this form, power is concentrated in the hands of a very small group of notables, typically the wealthiest and most powerful individuals.
   • The majority of the population, including many of the notables, are excluded from governance, making this form of oligarchy highly exclusive and oppressive.
2. Notables as a Closed Elite:
   • Only a select few notables, distinguished by extreme wealth or social influence, hold power, leading to an oligarchy that resembles a form of tyranny.
   • The remaining notables, though wealthy, are often excluded from political office and influence.
3. Need for Strong Defense Mechanisms:
   • Because this oligarchy is highly exclusive, it is inherently unstable and requires significant defensive measures to protect itself from internal and external threats.
   • The small ruling class of notables must continuously guard against rebellion from the non-notable population and even from other notables who are excluded from power.
4. Impact on the Broader Notable Class:
   • The excluded notables may become a source of opposition, as they have both the wealth and the influence to challenge the ruling elite.
   • The extreme exclusion of many notables creates a fragile regime, as even minor disruptions can lead to significant instability or collapse.
5. Comparisons to Tyranny:
   • Aristotle compares this form of oligarchy to a tyranny, as it relies on a small ruling class that exercises power over the vast majority of the population, including other notables.
   • The oligarchy’s survival depends on constant vigilance and harsh measures to suppress opposition, both from the non-notable classes and from within the class of notables.

XIII. Preservation of Oligarchy Through the Role of Notables

1. The Importance of Well-Arranged Notables:
   • The key to preserving oligarchy lies in properly arranging the participation of notables in governance.
   • A well-structured oligarchy includes enough notables to maintain stability while ensuring that the most capable and wealthiest individuals hold the most authoritative positions.
2. Avoiding Excessive Exclusivity:
   • Oligarchies that exclude too many notables risk creating internal strife and rebellion, as those excluded from power may seek to challenge the regime.
   • Aristotle suggests that inclusivity within the class of notables is crucial for maintaining stability, as it prevents divisions and ensures broader support for the regime.
3. Balancing Power Among Notables:
   • Successful oligarchies balance the distribution of power among different tiers of notables, ensuring that the regime does not become too concentrated in the hands of a few individuals.
   • By allowing a broader group of notables to participate in governance, the oligarchy can avoid the instability that comes from extreme concentration of power.
4. Merit-Based Governance:
   • Aristotle emphasizes that merit, often determined by wealth and capability, should be the guiding principle for selecting notables to participate in governance.
   • A well-arranged oligarchy allows the most capable notables to govern, ensuring that the regime remains effective and stable.

XIV. Conclusion: The Critical Role of Notables in Shaping and Preserving Oligarchies

1. Notables as the Foundation of Oligarchic Power:
   • In all types of oligarchy, the notables form the foundation of political power. Their wealth, influence, and participation in governance shape the regime’s structure and stability.
2. Varieties of Oligarchies Based on Notables:
   • Moderate Oligarchies: Broad inclusion of notables, with a balance between those with lesser and greater wealth, leads to a more stable and inclusive regime.
   • Intermediate Oligarchies: Tighter restrictions on participation by notables concentrate power but may create tensions within the wealthy class.
   • Extreme Oligarchies: The most exclusive oligarchies, where only a small elite of notables hold power, are highly unstable and prone to collapse.
3. Preservation Through Inclusion and Merit:
   • To preserve an oligarchy, it is essential to include enough notables in governance while ensuring that power is held by those with the most merit.
   • Extreme exclusion leads to instability, while a balanced oligarchy that incorporates broader participation from the notable class is more likely to endure.

---

Video Explanation

Video Explanation Not Yet Available.