BOOK III Chapter 10 What Regime is Best

Chapter 10

I. Introduction: The Question of the City's Authoritative Element

1. The Debate on Authority
   • Aristotle raises the question of what should be the authoritative element in the city.
   • The options include:
     • The multitude (the people, the majority)
     • The wealthy
     • The respectable (those of high moral character or virtue)
     • The best individual (the one who is most excellent in virtue)
     • The tyrant (an absolute ruler)
   • Each option presents certain difficulties and challenges for governance.

II. The Multitude as the Authoritative Element: Challenges

1. Injustice of Majority Rule
   • If the poor majority rules and uses its power to distribute the wealth of the minority among themselves, this would appear to be unjust.
   • The justification given by the majority would be: "It was resolved by those in authority."
   • Aristotle questions whether this type of redistribution constitutes the extreme of injustice, as it would destroy the city if one part (the majority) plunders another part (the wealthy minority).
   • Justice, which preserves the city, cannot be the cause of its destruction, so this action cannot be just.
2. Comparison to Tyranny
   • Aristotle points out that under this assumption, actions carried out by a tyrant would also be considered just, because like the multitude, the tyrant uses force and superiority to take what he wants.
   • He questions whether such a logic, which justifies the actions of the majority or a tyrant on the basis of power, can be consistent with true justice.

III. The Wealthy Minority as the Authoritative Element: Challenges

1. Injustice of Wealthy Rule
   • Aristotle considers whether the wealthy minority should rule.
   • If they act in the same way as the multitude and plunder the possessions of the poor, can this be just?
   • If the wealthy rob the poor, this would be as unjust as when the poor rob the wealthy.
   • Aristotle concludes that both forms of rule—the rule of the multitude and the rule of the wealthy—are bad and unjust when they involve plundering and self-interest.

IV. The Respectable as the Authoritative Element: Challenges

1. Deprivation of Honors
   • Aristotle asks whether it would be better for the respectable (those who are virtuous or morally excellent) to rule.
   • If the same virtuous individuals always hold political office, this would necessarily deprive others of political prerogatives and honors, as political offices are considered to be honors in the city.
   • This would lead to an unfair monopoly on power, where a select group continuously rules over others.
2. Problem of Unequal Distribution of Offices
   • The deprivation of political prerogatives is unjust because it denies the majority access to honors (i.e., political offices), making governance exclusive to a small group.

V. The Best Individual as the Authoritative Element: Challenges

1. Rule of the Best Individual: More Oligarchic?
   • Aristotle considers the possibility of the best individual ruling, someone who is superior to all in virtue.
   • However, he argues that this is even more oligarchic, since more people would be deprived of political power when only one individual holds authority.
   • This form of rule would make governance even more exclusive, concentrating power in the hands of one person.
2. Human Fallibility and Passion
   • Another argument against having a single best person rule is that humans have passions and weaknesses, which might lead to biased or unjust decisions.
   • Relying on one individual to govern, especially when influenced by passions, could result in arbitrary rule.

VI. The Rule of Law: A Possible Solution?

1. Law vs. Man as the Authoritative Element
   • Aristotle suggests that perhaps it is better for the authoritative element to be law rather than a man.
   • Laws, in contrast to humans, do not have passions or personal biases.
   • However, even this solution presents challenges because laws themselves can be oligarchic or democratic, depending on how they are designed and applied.
2. Implications of Law's Nature
   • Whether the laws are oligarchic or democratic would still result in the same problems previously mentioned (injustice, exclusion, and unequal distribution of power).
   • Therefore, the mere application of law without consideration of its content and justice would not resolve the fundamental issues Aristotle has identified.

VII. Conclusion: No Simple Answer to the Question of Authority

1. Complexity of Finding the Authoritative Element
   • Aristotle shows that there is no easy solution to the question of what should be the authoritative element in the city.
   • Each possible ruling group—the multitude, the wealthy, the respectable, the best individual, or even the law—presents difficulties when considered in practice.
   • The challenge is to find a balance between justice, virtue, and the distribution of political power that avoids the extremes of both plundering by the majority and monopolization of power by the few.

This chapter of Aristotle's Politics explores the question of who should rule in the city, considering the pros and cons of different potential ruling elements: the majority, the wealthy, the virtuous, or the best individual. Aristotle highlights the injustices and dangers associated with each group holding power exclusively and hints at the potential importance of law as a moderating force, though he remains skeptical about its ultimate efficacy.