Introduction
Plato and Aristotle are among the most influential philosophers to have written on various topics. These topics range from ethics to general academic inquiry. Their work played a crucial role in laying the groundwork for other philosophers and scholars to make important advances in various theories. These scholars have provided work that has been argued among scholars for over 2 millennia with regard to which questions should be answered and how they should be answered (Lintott, 2017).
Political philosophy is one of the most important aspects of their arguments. Systematic political thought was initiated by Plato in ancient Greek society and progressively advanced in subsequent thought by Aristotle. Both of these theories are deeply rooted in the respected philosopher’s ethical theories. Their concern is majorly about the best types of government and how the different constitutions should be structured to achieve the ideal society. Although Plato and Aristotle have the same thoughts with regard to order and society, his thoughts are starkly different from those of Aristotle.
Plato’s Political Philosophy
When looking at Plato’s philosophic city, it is quite difficult to distinguish its impracticality without lowering the aims of politics. Politics aims to bring together society to a common consensus on the rational common good (Skidmore-Hess et al., 2017). Plato’s Republic is a masterpiece of insight and political feeling. Following ideas in Statesman and Laws detail a ruthless approach to enacting political ideas. He was of the opinion that society is only governable when the members are classified into social groups. The highest group would then rule the other people in society through implementing laws and providing justice in the state.
Plato’s beliefs are majorly based on the order that political organizations with the correct and scientific formations would be able to govern society. Interpretation of these doctrines would be done by the authority in its entirety. This form of leadership is impractical because the rulers would form an elite group that is not responsible for the mass of people it leads.
Impracticality of Plato’s Philosophic City
Politics is aimed at creating an open society where consensus decisions are used to govern society. Plato’s high moral standing was negated by his thoughts in this regard because his idea of politics suggested the suppression of an open society and embracing totalitarianism. In a totalitarian state, no one is permitted to oppose the state, which is contrary to the fundamental tenets of politics. Such states permit no form of freedom and the main aim is always to subordinate all aspects of people’s lives to the state. Even though Plato was focused on making the best political setting for society, he put aside freedom and inclusion. Overall, Plato focuses on creating an ideal and just city that could be governed by whichever means were necessary to get the best outcomes.
Plato’s philosophic city is impractical and cannot be separated without downgrading the ideas of politics because the fate of the state stays with the ruling class (Cliff, 2020). The ruling class is looked at as a bunch of herdsmen that should ensure that the human cattle remain in line as much as possible. These elements would therefore mean that the ruling class has a monopoly on virtues and other rights, such as the right to carry arms and receive training as they need it. The ruling class is also excluded from economic activities and earning money. Besides, there is a continual propaganda to unify the intellectual capacity of the ruling class with the aim of molding them into a common unit.
As such, there is no space for innovation in fields such as education and legislation (Lecoutre, 2020). His thoughts also point to the requirement that the state should be self-sufficient, at least economically. Economic autarky is almost inevitable for this kind of government lest the rulers become dependent on traders or become traders themselves. These options would undermine the rulers’ power and general stability of the state.
Aristotle’s Political Philosophy
Aristotle views the role of a politician as that of lawgiving and that of framing the appropriate constitution for the state. As soon as the constitution is in place, the political leader should take the initiative to keep it in place, implement necessary reforms, and prevent any factors that could undermine the political system. For Aristotle, a citizen is the person who has the right to participate in deliberative state actions and proceedings.
He gives an example of an Athens’ citizen who has the right to attend the council, sit on juries, and attend the assembly (Jokim, 2020). He moves on to define a constitution which is the way of defining the offices of the city state in the sovereign office. The governing bodies are defined in the constitution: the people in a democracy, and the select few in an oligarchy. Aristotle proposes various constitutional forms, including polity, which is a mixed constitution by the middle class of citizens.
Stability of the Middle Constitution
In the polity form of constitution, which is judged to be the most stable, the citizens have a common and more inferior sense of virtue. A polity combines the features of democracy and oligarchy such that the people have a say in the decision-making process and at the same time, a few people look after the state to ensure law and order. This is the best form of constitution because a variation of the same is that which is controlled by a middle class that stands between the rich and the poor.
Those citizens who possess things in moderation are most likely to obey the rule of reason compared to the rich and poor, who are most likely to act in an unfair or unjust way towards their fellow citizens. Besides, the wisdom possessed by this group of people could be pooled to form a better city compared to being ruled by one wise person who might be subject to compromise in some situations. The reasoning for using a polity approach is that it is the exact middle between the extreme side of the rule of the rich (oligarchy) and the rule by the poor (democracy) (Hoipkemier, 2018). The middle constitution is more just and rational compared to the other forms of constitutions. Overall, a city governed by a polity constitution will have a more inclusive society as the diverse classes will allow the people to participate in public affairs.
Conclusion
To sum up, Aristotle’s political approach is different from Plato’s approach in the sense that Plato’s approach is not applicable in the ideal society. This impracticality is compounded by the division and classism that his theory proposes. For instance, resorting to totalitarianism would mean that the state has no more free will. On the other hand, Aristotle’s polity approach is the most suitable and is considered the least harmful of the other perverted forms of government. A polity ensures that there is a balance between the extremes of oligarchy and the downsides of democracy.
References
Cliff, R. D. (2020). John Sallis, Ed. 2017. Plato’s Statesman: Dialectic, Myth, and Politics. Albany: SUNY. 326pp. PLATO JOURNAL, 20, 213–223. Web.
Hoipkemier, M. (2018). Justice, Not Happiness: Aristotle on the Common Good. Polity, 50(4), 547–574. Web.
Jochim, J. (2020). From Tyrannicide to Revolution: Aristotle on the Politics of Comradeship. American Political Science Review, 114(4), 1266-1279.
Lecoutre, F. (2020). Plato, a totalitarian? A twentieth-century controversy. Revue de metaphysique et de morale, (3), 403-421.
Lintott, A. (2017). The theory of the mixed constitution at Rome. In Cicero and Modern Law (pp. 269-285). Routledge.
Shuster, A. L. (2011). The Modes of Theorizing in Aristotle’s Politics. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44(03), 611–618. Web.
Skidmore-Hess, D., Ellison, J., & Sherrod, C. (2017). Policy Point–Counterpoint: Is Democracy the Best Form of Governance? Aristotelian vs. Platonic Thought. International Social Science Review, 92(2), 19.