BOOK III Chapter 11 Popular Rule Its Nature Excellence

Chapter 11

I. Introduction: The Debate over the Authoritative Element in the City

1. The Question of Rule by the Multitude
   • Aristotle introduces the question of whether the multitude (the many) should have authority rather than the few who are best.
   • While this position is debatable, it holds some truth, raising the possibility that the many, though individually not excellent, might collectively form a better ruling body.

II. Collective Wisdom of the Multitude

1. Collective Strength of the Many
   • The multitude may not be excellent individually, but when combined, they can be better than the few best individuals.
   • Aristotle compares this to a collective meal contributed by many, which can be better than one funded by a single person.
   • Each member of the multitude possesses a part of virtue and prudence, and when these are joined together, they can form a unified entity with greater collective wisdom.
2. Examples of Collective Judgment
   • The many are often better judges of certain matters, such as music and poetry, because they each appreciate different parts.
   • This suggests that collective judgment can be superior, as it brings together different perspectives, just like art brings together separate beautiful parts into a cohesive whole.

III. The Limitations of the Multitude

1. Limits of Collective Rule
   • Aristotle questions whether this collective superiority applies to all multitudes or just to certain kinds.
   • In some cases, Aristotle argues, certain multitudes are no different from beasts, implying that not all groups are capable of effective rule.
   • He acknowledges that there are situations where the multitude lacks the necessary qualities to govern wisely.

IV. Balancing Authority: The Role of the Multitude in Government

1. Risks of Full Authority for the Multitude
   • Allowing the multitude to rule completely—especially over the greatest offices—could lead to injustice and imprudence, as they might act unjustly and make errors.
   • Conversely, excluding the multitude from all offices would lead to dissatisfaction and could fill the city with enemies, as the poor and disenfranchised would feel wronged.
2. Participation in Deliberation and Judgment
   • The solution is to allow the multitude to participate in certain roles, such as deliberating and judging, but not to give them full control over all offices.
   • Aristotle cites the example of Solon, who allowed the multitude to choose officials and audit them, while not allowing them to rule by themselves.
3. Collective Judgment as a Benefit
   • The combined judgment of the multitude, mixed with the contributions of the better individuals, is more beneficial to the city.
   • Just as impure sustenance mixed with pure can make the whole more useful, so the judgment of the multitude, when balanced with the wise, can contribute to good governance.

V. Specialization and Expertise in Governance

1. Authority of Experts
   • Aristotle raises the question of whether those who judge should also be those who practice the relevant art.
   • He argues that just as doctors are best at judging medical matters, and other professionals judge their fields, governance may require specialized knowledge.
2. Different Types of Expertise
   • There are different levels of expertise:
     • The craftsman, who performs the work.
     • The master craftsman, who oversees and improves the work.
     • The educated person, who understands the principles behind the craft.
   • Aristotle argues that it is not just those who practice the craft who should judge, but also those with education and knowledge of the craft.

VI. The Role of Non-Experts in Judgment

1. Participation of Non-Experts
   • Non-experts may not possess the technical skills of professionals, but they still have some knowledge of the works.
   • For example, a household manager can judge the quality of a house better than the builder because they are the user of the house, just as a pilot judges a rudder better than the carpenter who made it.
2. The Role of Users in Judgment
   • In governance, users (those who live under the laws and policies) may have a better sense of what works than the officials who create those laws.
   • This justifies some level of authority for the multitude in matters of judgment and governance, even if they are not experts.

VII. The Structure of Political Authority

1. Collective Authority in the Assembly
   • Aristotle addresses the division of authority in political regimes, where lower-ranked individuals share in the assembly and participate in deliberation and adjudication, while higher-ranked individuals hold the greatest offices (e.g., treasurers, generals).
2. Collective Authority and Political Offices
   • The assembly, council, and courts, being composed of many persons, have a greater collective assessment than the few who hold high offices.
   • This explains why the multitude may rightly have authority over greater matters, even if they do not hold individual political offices.

VIII. The Role of Law in Governance

1. The Supremacy of Laws
   • Ultimately, Aristotle concludes that it is laws—when correctly enacted—that should be the authoritative element in the city.
   • Rulers, whether one person or a few, should have authority only over those matters that the law cannot specify precisely.
2. The Quality of Laws
   • The question of what constitutes a good law remains. Laws vary in quality, being just or unjust depending on the regime from which they arise.
   • Laws enacted according to correct regimes will necessarily be just, while those from deviant regimes will not be.

IX. Conclusion: Laws and Regimes

1. Laws and Regime Types
   • Aristotle argues that laws must be aligned with the regime under which they are enacted.
   • Laws derived from correct regimes are just, while those from deviant regimes are unjust, further highlighting the importance of a well-structured political system in ensuring justice.

In this chapter of Politics, Aristotle discusses the role of the multitude in governance, balancing their potential collective wisdom with their individual limitations. He advocates for a system where the multitude participates in deliberation and judgment, but does not hold complete authority. He concludes with a reflection on the importance of laws in governance, emphasizing that laws must align with the regime to ensure justice.