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

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.
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.
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.
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.

Aristotle's Republic – A Study