The Best Regime

[Originally written on 20 March 2007]

The governing body of a nation exerts tremendous influence over the lives of its citizens. Consequently, determining the best political regime is a worthwhile undertaking because, in effect, it leads to a determination as to which governmental system will ensure the best possible existence for a nation and its people. In contemporary western culture, it is an effectively embedded belief that democracy is the supreme form of government. Plato and Aristotle, however, espouse theories contradicting this viewpoint. Their conclusions are difficult for proponents of contemporary western political culture to accept, but they are nonetheless worthy of close examination and contemplation. The development of a cohesive and efficient system of classifying regimes is a necessary endeavor, and the preeminent consideration in determining which regimes are most ideal must be the level of justice they embrace. Justice is rightfully the primary consideration employed by both Plato and Aristotle in their respective systems of regime classification.

In The Republic, Plato presents, through Socrates, his construction of the ideal polis, or city-state, with meticulous prescriptions of its formulation. Such authoritarian dictations are necessary, Socrates believes, in order to ensure the most efficient management of the city and the most just social order for its population. In this city, philosopher-kings must rule, for Socrates believes that only philosophers can truly possess knowledge, and thus are the only individuals capable of ruling a city justly. Aristocracy, thus, is the most desirable form of government. Human nature will over time provoke the degradation of this just aristocratically-ruled city into four lesser regimes. According to Socrates’ classification, tyranny is the worst form of government, as the tyrannical man acts only in his own interest and not for the good of the city. His decisions are derived from passion rather than reason, and he is thus the antithesis of the philosopher-king. Socrates describes the gradual crumbling of the just city, rendering his own model as an inefficient means of achieving perpetual justice. First, the rulers will be consumed by their greed, desiring to own property and acquire wealth. This will result in the evolution of the just polis into a timocracy in which the rulers distribute all the land and property in the city among themselves and construct a feudal system in order to acquire wealth through the enslavement of the producing class.

Subsequently, the ruling class will become so enamored with money and the prospect of wealth that the timocracy will degrade into an oligarchy in which inclusion in the ruling class is based entirely on one’s wealth. This is undesirable, according to Socrates, because it will result in the empowerment of unfit rulers, the creation of a permanent impoverished under-class, and the virtual abandonment of the principle of specialization, which Socrates asserts as the foundation of a just society. The impoverishment which consumes the city in the oligarchy will lead to revolution by the poor, who will create a democracy in which every individual is afforded an equal share of ruling in the city. In this city, Socrates asserts, positions of power are assigned without regard to merit and the principle of specialization is abandoned entirely, with the people free to do what they choose and not restricted to their own trades. Finally, democracy, in which the people enjoy the most freedom, will descend into tyranny, in which the people enjoy the least. Demagogues will play upon the tensions between the poor and rich factions of the democratic city, and conflict will ensue. Following the conflict one individual will come to power and establish a militant, authoritarian society. The tyrannical man lives a wretched life, consumed by his unnecessary desires and living in constant fear of losing his power and doing everything necessary, regardless of how unjust, to preserve it.

Aristotle’s system of regimes differs from Plato’s in both its complexity and its objective. Aristotle, unlike Plato, is not seeking the most just regime, but rather the most possible just regime. This objective facilitates a more pragmatic and complex analysis of the regimes. Further, Aristotle’s focus also rests upon the preservation of the regime, unlike Plato who holds a generally pessimistic view of the regimes, believing that the most just city will ultimately denigrate into the vilest. Kingship, according to Aristotle, is the “first and most divine” of the regimes and therefore the most ideal, followed by aristocracy and polity. On the other side of the spectrum, the undesirable regimes are democracy, oligarchy and tyranny. Like Plato, Aristotle regards tyranny as the vilest of regimes.

Both systems of regimes are compelling. Even in contemporary political culture tyranny is regarded as the worst form of government, and so its classification as such by both Plato and Aristotle is entirely accurate. As a product of western culture, however, I am inclined to disagree with Plato’s classification of democracy as the worst regime next to tyranny. Democracy is bred not out of an insatiable human desire for wealth and power, as Plato asserts, but ironically because of a human desire for progress and advancement. Since Plato’s classification of regimes is based partially upon adherence to the principle of specialization it can be asserted that his ideal regime, an aristocracy ruled by philosopher-kings, depends greatly upon the restriction of human freedom and progress. Inherent in this theory is the assumption that humans are naturally ignorant and incapable of self-government, and that freedom and justice are mutually exclusive concepts. His ignorance of the concept of the individual, unshakable confidence in the wisdom of the elite class of rulers, and distrust of the general population leads him to the fallacious conclusion that humans cannot be trusted to act justly. Justice, at its best, can reinforce freedom. Justice is not an end in itself. Restriction of human discovery and progress through authoritarian measures is not just, and thus, Plato’s conclusions about democracy are inherently flawed. While Aristotle is slightly more sympathetic to the democratic philosophy, his conclusions are easily subject to similar criticism. Humans have unsavory desires and impulses which must be quelled, and an efficient social contract calling for shared responsibilities and community harmony can achieve this. However, in modern history democratic societies have made the most progress because arbitrary restrictions are not placed on their freedom. These societies are free to advance and progress. The people have a share in determining the destiny of their nation. Their judgment is not infallible, but neither is the judgment of one ruler or an elite group of rulers. Democracy is not inconsistent with the concept of justice; indeed, at its best, it is the regime most capable of upholding it.