ARISTOTLE
Reader's Note: My apologies, I attempted to find the first English translation of Politics, provided by one Adam Islip in 1598, though I could not uncover an available edition! The primary copy from which I read can be viewed in the hyperlink title.
BOOK I: The Household
DEFINITION AND STRUCTURE OF THE STATE
It is therefore erroneous to maintain, as some do, that a statesman, a king, a household manager, and a master, and a master of slaves are the same.
…i.e. of male and female for the sake of procreation; and this union arises not from an arbitrary decision, but because human beings, like other animals and the plants, have a natural urge to leave behind them a reproduction of themselves.
Among barbarians, it is true, females and slaves rank together.
The household, therefore, is an association established by nature for the supply of men’s everyday needs.
…results first in the village; and the most natural form of a village appears to be that of a family colony consisting of children and grandchildren, whom some describe as ‘milk-fellows’.
When several villages unite so as to form a single association large enough to be almost if not wholly self-sufficient, that association has reached the level of a state.
I have now made it clear that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. He who is stateless by nature and not just by change is either subhuman or superhuman…for being naturally without a state, he is a lover of war and may be compared to an unprotected piece in a game of draughts.
He [mankind] alone has any notion of good and evil, of justice and injustice; and an association of living beings possessed of this gift makes a household and a state.
A man who cannot live in society, or who has no need to do so because he is self-sufficient, is either a beast or a god; he is no part of a state.
HOUSEHOLD MANAGEMENT
PARTS 2. SLAVERY
…and the primary or simplest elements of a household are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children, giving rise to three relationships – despotic, marital, and parental.
If follows, therefore, (1) that an article of property is an instrument for maintaining life, (2) that property is an aggregate of such instruments, (3) that a slave is an animate article of property. It also follows (4) that the class of assistants as a whole is an instrument presupposed by all other instruments.
We have thus discovered the nature and capacity of a slave: (1) he who, though remaining a human being, is by nature not sui juris but belongs to another, is by nature a slave; (2) he is said to belong to another who, though remaining a human being, is also an article of property; (3) an article of property is an instrument of action and separable from its possessor.
For that some should rule and others be subject is not only necessary but expedient; some are marked out from birth for subjection, others are born to rule.
Every living thing is composed, in the first place, of soul and body…whereas in natures that are more or less permanently corrupt the body may often appear to rule over the soul, because they are in an evil and unnatural state.
The soul rules the body in the first of these ways; intellect governs the appetites as a statesman or a king.
Again, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior; one rules and the other is ruled – a principle which necessarily extends to all mankind.
But the use made of slaves differs little from that made of tame animals: the physical energy of both helps to supply their master’s needs.
…slaves may have the bodies or the souls of freeman.
Clearly, then, some individuals are by nature free, others by nature slaves; and for these latter slavery is both expedient and right.
The Greeks accordingly reject the term ‘slave’ as applicable to Greeks, and confine it to barbarians.
People who talk like that are in effect distinguishing slave and free, noble and ignoble, on the basis of good and evil. They think that, as men and beasts beget offspring of their own species, so a good man will spring from good stock. But this is what nature, though she may intend it, often fails to accomplish.
Therefore, when the relation of master and slave is founded in nature they are friends with a common interest, but when it is based upon nothing but law and force the opposite is true.
A master is so called, not because of any knowledge he may have but because he has a definite character; and the same holds good of slaves and freemen.
As the proverb says, ‘there are slaves and slaves, masters and masters’; but these branches of knowledge are all alike servile.
But the art of acquiring slaves – acquiring them justly, I mean – differs from that of a master as well as from that of a slave; it is a species of hunting or warfare. So much, then, for the distinction of master and slave.
THE ART OF ACQUISITION
…the art or science of household management is not identical with that of acquisitions; for one (clearly the former) uses material (household goods) furnished by the other.
The laziest of all mankind are pastoral nomads, who lead a leisured life and obtain their sustenance, without any trouble, from domestic animals…
Since nature makes nothing purposeless or in vain, it is undeniably true she has made all animals for the sake of man…the art of war is a natural subdivision of the art of acquisition…
…riches are a collection of instruments for use in the household or in the state.
Exchange is possible in every case: it is of natural origin, arising from the fact that some men have too much and others too little for their needs. From this we may safely conclude that retail trade is not naturally a part of the art of acquisition…
Now exchange on such a basis is not contrary to nature, nor any part of the art of acquisition, for it helps to satisfy men’s natural requirements.
When countries began to rely more and more upon foreign sources for their needs, importing what they lacked and exporting their own surpluses, money inevitably came into use.
…and so men agreed to emply among themselves, for the purposes of mutual exchange, something of intrinsic use and easily applicable to everyday requirements, such as iron, silver, or some other metal.
The emergence of retail trade from the use of coin has led many to suppose that the art of acquisition is principally concerned with money-making, and that its function is to discover from what sources money may be best accumulated.
Some, however, maintain that coinage is a sham – unnatural, a mere convention – on the grounds (1) that those who use it have only to substitute another form of currency and it immediately becomes worthless, and (2) that it is of no use as an alternative to any of the necessaries of life…
Quite right, too; for the natural art of acquiring wealth in the shape of natural riches, which is a part of household management, is a different thing from retail trade.
From this point of view, therefore, it might be said that all wealth must have a limit; but experience shows the opposite to be true, for those engaged in acquisition increase their hoard of currency indefinitely.
As I have said, the art of acquisition is twofold: one form is a part of household management, the other is retail trade. The first of these is both necessary and commendable; but the other, which is a mode of exchange, is rightly censured as being an unnatural procedure whereby men profit at one another’s expense.
MARITAL AND PATERNAL AUTHORITY
The male is naturally more fitted to command than the female (except where there is a miscarriage of nature), the elder and full-grown than the younger and less mature.
The rule of a father over his children is monarchial; for it is based upon love and seniority in years, which is the specific nature of kingly rule.
VIRTUE IN RULERS AND RULED
It is clear, then, that household management is concerned more with men than with inanimate things; with human excellence than with the excellence of property, which we call wealth; and with the virtue of freemen than with that of slaves.
If both are expected to possess a noble nature, why should one of them invariably govern and the other invariably obey?
Since the child is imperfect, his virtue is obviously not relative to himself but to the fully developed human being and to the latter’s guiding authority. The virtue of a slave is likewise relative to his mater.
Again, while the slave exists as such by nature, this is not so of the shoemaker or other artisan. Manifestly, then, it is from the master qua master that the slave must derive the kind of moral virtue which he ought to possess. They are mistaken, therefore, who would not have us reason with a slave, but only command him; for slaves are in more need of instruction than are children.
Every household is part of a state…
BOOK II: Proposed Ideal Constitutions
THEORETICAL SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT
The members of a state must either have (1) all things in common, or (2) some things in common and some not, or (3) nothing in common.
…whether a state is more likely to be well conducted if its members hold everything possible in common, or if some things are excepted from common ownership.
Plurality is of the very nature of a state, which, as it progresses towards unity, is gradually transformed into a family and thence into an individual.
A household is more self-sufficing than an individual, a state than a household; but a state comes into existence only when the community is large enough to be self- sufficing.
Men think principally of what is their own, and if they have the common interest at heart it is only to the extent that they are personally concerned therein.
The fraternal spirit is commonly recognized as the greatest good of states, preserving them from sedition; and Plato himself praises nothing so highly as the unity of the state, which he and mankind in general take to be the result of that spirit.
If there is a disproportion between toil and reward, those who work hard in return for little will inevitably bear a grudge against those who receive or consume a great deal but do little by way of compensation.
In these states every man has his own property, but he places part of it at the disposal of his friends and shares the use common; and it is the special business of the legislator to make the necessary arrangements to that end.
It is evidently better, therefore, that property should be subject to private ownership, but its use common; and it is the special business of the legislator to make the necessary arrangements to that end.
Self-love in the sense of selfishness (like love of money in the sense of avarice) is rightly deplored; but some partiality for such things as oneself, property, etc., is almost universal.
To lend a helping hand, or to do a kindness, to one’s friends or guests or companions is a source of infinite satisfaction; but it is possible only when one has private property.
We find, as a matter of fact, that quarrelling is most frequent among those who possess and enjoy all things in common. It may seem that few men disagree in consequence of owning common property, but that is simply because there are not nearly so many of them as there are private owners.
Well, then, if the guardians are not happy, who will be? Certainly not the artisans or the masses in general.
But Plato fails to tell us whether or not the farmers and artisans are to have any share in government, and whether or not they too are to possess arms and be liable for military service.
One is never justified in making an assumption that lies outside the bounds of possibility.
…a man should have that amount of property which will enable him to live temperately but liberally, if only because temperance and liberality are the only praise worthy habits attaching to the use of property.
At present, no matter how large the citizen body, property is so distributed that no one is destitute; but if it is made indivisible, as in the Laws, the surplus population, however large or small, will get nothing. One would indeed have thought it even more necessary to limit reproductive intercourse than to limit property.
Some, in fact, hold that the best constitution is a mixture of all existing schemes. This is why they admire the Spartan regime. It is a compound, they say, of oligarchy, monarchy, and democracy; the kings form the monarchial, the council of elders the oligarchical element, while democracy is represented by the ephors, who are chosen from among the people. But according to the Laws, the best constitution should be a compound of democracy and tyranny, which either cannot be called constitutions at all, or which are, at best, the worst of all.
There is also danger in the election of magistrates from a body of candidates which has itself been elected…
Some hold that the regulation of property is the most important item in any such program, because it is always the pivot of revolutionary movements.
Phaleas…was the first to propose equal distribution of landed property among all the citizens of the state.
For if the children become too many for the property, the law will have to be abrogated; quite apart from which, it is undesirable that many should descend from wealth to property, because such people are almost certain to foster revolution.
The common people are driven to rebellion by inequality of property; educated men become restive when office is equally distributed.
As a matter of fact, the greatest crimes are due to excess rather than to want.
Hence the first step towards reform is not so much to equalize property as to train conscientious people not to desire more, and to prevent the baser sort from getting more.
Hippodamus of Miletus
He favored only a threefold division of the laws, corresponding to the three subjects of legal action which he distinguished, viz. assault, damage, and homicide.
He would have all magistrates elected by the people, i.e. by the three classes mentioned in (1) above; and those so elected were to watch over the interests of the public, of aliens, and of orphans.
But how can those who have no direct share in the government be loyal citizens?
For in politics, as in other arts, it is impossible to write down every rule with absolute precision; legal enactments must be general in scope, but actions are concerned with particulars.
Law has no power to secure obedience other than that of habit.
EXISTING FORMS OF GOVERNMENT
It is agreed that leisure is an essential of every well-ordered state: the citizens must be free from the necessity of supplying their own day-to-day requirements.
In such a state it is inevitable that wealth is too highly prized, especially if the men are dominated by their womenfolk, as is so with most militaristic and warlike races, except the Celts and a few other who openly favor homosexual intercourse.
The legislator, wishing the Spartans to be as numerous as possible, encouraged his citizens to produce as many children as they could. Yet it is obvious that, granted a high increase in the birth-rate, a proportionate distribution of land will force many such children into poverty.
They have far too much license, whereas the rest of the citizens are subject to a discipline so stern that they find it intolerable and escape from the law into the secret indulgence of sensual delights.
Nor is it desirable that men should offer themselves for election; the worthiest should be obliged to take office whether they like it or not.
Yet of all human cravings, ambition and avarice are, I should say, the most powerful motives of crime.
Most of the land is owned by the citizens, who accordingly turn a blind eye to one another’s contributions.
Another habit of the Cretan nobles is to create factions among the common people and their own friends; to erect, on that basis, as many monarchies; and then to quarrel and fight among themselves. What is this but the temporary abolition of the state and dissolution of the body politic? A state in this condition is in mortal danger, for their enemies can then attack her at will.
It generally considered that magistrates should be chosen not only for their merit but also for their wealth, because no one can rule satisfactorily without the leisure derived from easy circumstances.
Even though one must have regard to wealth for the sake of leisure, it is a bad thing that the greatest offices, such as those of the suffetes and generals, should be purchasable.
Again, it seems to be very bad policy to allow an individual to hold several offices, as the Carthaginians do. ‘One man, one job’ is a maxim every legislator should bear in mind; nobody should be expected to mend shoes as well as play the flute.
Although the Carthaginians have a constitution which is in effect oligarchical, they manage to avoid the perils of oligarchy by encouraging the spread of wealth.
Notes on Solon and Other Legislators
Among other enactments, he gave them laws regulating the procreation of children, which are known at Thebes as the Laws of Adoption.
One statute peculiar to himself [Pittacus] enacted that anyone who committed a crime whilst under the influence of drink should be more severely punished than if he had been sober. Since men are more prone to violence in drink than when sober, he disregarded the excuse that might be urged in favor of a drunkard, and considered expediency alone.
BOOK III: State and Citizen
CITIZENSHIP
What is a Citizen?
...a constitution is simply an arrangement of those who inhabit a state, that is to say, of the citizens who compose it in the same way as to the several parts of any other whole.
The picture of a citizen now begins to emerge more clearly: (a) he who has the right to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of a particular state is said to be a citizen of that state; (b) a state is, broadly speaking, a group of such persons large enough to be self-sufficing.
The doubt in such cases is, not who is, but whether or not he who is actually a citizen ought to be one; and then again, whether one who ought not to be a citizen is one at all, for what ought not to be is equivalent to what is unreal.
What is the State?
But democracies may likewise be founded on violence, in which case we shall have to admit that the acts of a democracy are neither more not less acts of the state in question than are those of an oligarchy or a tyranny.
Remember, the state is an association, an association of citizens within the framework of a constitution; and therefore when the form of government changes and becomes something different, the state inevitably loses its identity.
Civic Virtue
Although each member of a state is expected to discharge his function properly, and requires virtue in order to do so, the state cannot consist entirely of good men. Therefore, since all the citizens cannot be alike, civic and moral virtue cannot be identical. All must have civic virtue, for only so can the state be perfect; but all cannot possibly have moral virtue, unless we assume that in the good state all the citizens must necessarily be good.
Indeed, some hold that the very education of a ruler differs from that of a subject; and we do in fact see that the sons of kings are taught riding and the art of war.
Since, then, it is occasionally held (a) that the ruler and the subject should have different kinds of knowledge, and (b) that the citizen should have both kinds of knowledge, and share in both, the inference is immediately clear.
The good man, therefore, the statesman, and the good citizen certainly should not learn the crafts of their inferiors, except occasionally and for their own advantage; otherwise there will cease to be any distinction between master and slave.
Ruling and obeying are two different things, but the good citizen ought to be capable of both; civic virtue consists in knowing how to govern like a freeman and how to obey like a freeman.
A man would be looked on as a coward if his courage were no more than that of a brave woman, and a woman would seem forward if she were no more modest than a good man; indeed their respective functions in household management are different, for the man’s duty is to acquire, and the woman’s to look after what he has obtained.
Qualifications for Citizenship
If mechanics, who may not hold office, are to be included, there will be citizens who can never attain that virtue of ruling and obeying, which is proper to a good citizen. On the other hand, if mechanics are not citizens, what is their status?
The ideal state will not recognize a mechanic as a citizen; but where he is recognized as such our definition of civic virtue will not apply to every citizen, nor indeed to all who are merely free man…
…for the life of a mechanic or laborer is incompatible with the practice of virtue.
In certain democracies, for example, a man is a citizen by virtue of his mother’s citizenship, although his father is an alien.
But as the birth-rate increases, first the children of a male or female slave are disqualified; then those of a citizen mother and an alien father; and ultimately the privilege is confined to those whose fathers and mothers are both citizens.
But where persons are excluded from office by underhand means, the privileged classes are out to deceive their fellow men.
…prove that in some states a good man and a good citizen are the same, but in others different. Even when they are the same it is not every citizen who is a good man, but only the statesman and those who have or may have, singly or jointly with others, the conduct of public affairs.
CLASSIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONS
We see men clinging to life even at the cost of great suffering, which goes to show that they find in life a natural sweetness and happiness.
But the rule over a wife and children, and over the household gernerally, which we call household management, is exercised manily for the benefit of the ruled or for the benefit of ruler and ruled alike.
Those forms of government which have regard to the common good are right constitutions, judged by the norm of absolute justice. But those which take account only of the rulers’ interest are all perversions, all deviation forms; they are despotic, whereas the state is a society of freemen.
The terms ‘constitution’ and the ‘the government’ mean the same thing; and the government, which is the supreme authority in every state, must be in the hands on one, or of the few, or of the many.
The rule of an individual, when it looks to the common good, is known as kingship; the rule of a few, when it fulfills the same condition, is called aristocracy; but when the citizens as a whole govern the state for the common benefit of all alike, we describe this form of government by the generic name ‘polity’.
Hence in a polity the fighting men have supreme power, and those who possess arms are the citizens.
When one intends making a philosophical study of any science, with an eye to something more than practical considerations, one ought not to overlook or omit the slightest detail – one must uncover the whole truth.
There is oligarchy where the reins of government are held by men of property, and conversely there is democracy, where power is in the hands of the poorer classes rather than of the well-to-do.
Few men are well off, whereas all have a share in freedom; and it is upon the grounds of wealth and freedom respectively that the oligarchical and democratic parties lay claim to power.
DEMOCRACY, OLIGARCHY, AND DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
…justice is thought by the democrats to mean equality; so it does, but only for equals – not for all. Oligarchs, on the other hand, believe that justice means inequality; so it does, but only for unequals – not for all. Both sides overlook the relation of justice to persons, and thereby go astray…Justice is relative to persons as well as to things; and a just distribution…implies the same ratio between the persons receiving as between the things given.
But the state exists for the sake of a good life, and not for that of life as such; otherwise slaves and brute beasts might constitute a state – which they cannot in fact do, because they have no share in true felicity and the exercise of free will.
It is evident therefore that any state deserving of the name must concern itself with the promotion of virtue.
The state is an association of families and groups of families in a good life, for the sake of a perfect and self-sufficing existence, although this cannot be achieved unless the members dwell in a single place and intermarry.
…those who contribute most to an association of this kind have a greater share in the state than those who are equal (or even superior) to them in freedom or nobility of birth, but inferior as regards civic virtue, or than those who surpass them in wealth but are outstripped by them invirtue.
…Surely it is unjust for the poor, on the strength of mere numbers, to divide among themselves the possessions of the rich. ‘Of course not,’ you may say; ‘the supreme authority wills it and therefore it is just.’ To which I reply, that if this is not the acme of injustice, what is?
Otherwise every act of a tyrant must be just; for he uses his superior strength only to oppress others, in the same way as the masses would oppress the wealthy.
The offices of state are recognized as honors, and if they are permanently held by the same group of men, the rest will be deprived of them.
What extent of sovereignty should be assigned to freemen, or the general body of citizens, who are not rich and have no claim to the reward of personal merit?
In almost every art and science there is a class corresponding to these last, and we credit them with the ability to judge quite as well as the practitioners. The same principle would seem to hold good in the matter of elections, for a sound choice can be made only by those having the requisite knowledge?
Now to elect magistrates and to audit their accounts are the most important duties…
…laws must be adapted to constitutions, and not vice versa; in which case the right forms of government will inevitably have just, and the deviation forms unjust, laws.
It is the superior artist who deserves the superior instrument.
Those who hold positions of this kind must be freemen and taxpayers: a state can no more consist entirely of poor men than of slaves. But if wealth and free birth are necessary elements, so too are justice and valor; without the former qualities a state cannot exist at all, and without the latter there can be no good life.
…what if the good, the rich, the well born, and other citizen groups are all living together in a single state: will they, or will they not, agree as to who should govern?
…what is right is to be interpreted as what is equally right; and what is equally right is that which benefits the whole state and advances the common good of its citizens.
…in an ideal state they are those who are able and willing to rule and to obey with the virtuous life as their aim.
A man of such pre-eminence will suffer injustice if he is reckoned as no more than the equal of men who are so far inferior to him in virtue and political capacity; he must be counted rather as a god among men.
…democratic states instituted the procedure known as ostracism; equality is their principal aim, and therefore they used to ostracize those whom they considered too influential through their wealth, their popularity, or some other political advantage.
KINGSHIP
Five forms of Kingship
Kings rule according to the law and over a willing people, but tyrants over unwilling subjects; and so the former are protected by their subjects, the latter against them.
…the kingship of the heroic age, which was exercised over willing subjects but limited to certain functions…the barbarian type, hereditary and despotic, but constitutional…so-called dictatorship, an elective tyranny…the Spartan type, which is in fact an hereditary generalship held for life.
Absolute Kingship
No ruler, on the other hand, can dispense with the general principle of law; and law, which wholly dispassionate, should be preferred to human judgment, seeing that passion is innate in the soul of every man.
…a large body of men is less easily corrupted than the few…
…when men of equal merit appeared in greater numbers, they would no longer tolerate the pre-eminence of one, but desired something in which they might all share and framed a constitution.
But absolute kingship, i.e. the arbitrary and unrestricted rule of a king, is condemned by some theorists who think it altogether unnatural that one man should be sovereign over the whole citizen body in a state which is composed of equals.
He therefore, who would have law rule seems to advocate the exclusive rule of God and Reason; but he who would commit the government to a man adds a brutish element.
When a whole family, or some individual, happens to be of such outstanding merit that he surpasses all the rest, the it is just that they or he should enjoy kingly power over all.
BOOK IV: Interior Constitutions
A: MORPHOLOGY OF THE STATE
Subject-matter of Political Science
The science of politics…which form of government is best in the absolute sense and what qualities that form must have in order to approximate most closely to the idea…which form of government is suited to particular states…how a state may be constituted under any given conditions – how it is originally formed, and how, once in existence, it may be longest preserved…for most political writers, however sound their views in other respects, are unpractical.
If any change of government is needed, it must be one which the citizens in question will be both able and ready to accept as evolving naturally from their present system.
Tyranny, therefore, is the worst, and farthest removed from a ‘right’ form of government; oligarchy, being far removed from aristocracy, is the next worst; democracy is the most tolerable.
…he ranked the good form of democracy as the worst of all good forms, and the vad form of it as the best of all the bad.
Varieties of Constitution
Democracy and Oligarchy
It is better, therefore, to call democracy a form of government in which the free-born are sovereign, and an oligarchy one in which the wealthy rule.
No, you have democracy when government is in the hands of a free-born and poor majority, but oligarchy when it is in the hands of a rich and high-born minority.
Homer says that ‘the rule of many is not good’; but whether he refers to this collective rule, or to the rule of many individuals, is uncertain.
…democracy may be a genuine form of government; but this particular system, under which everything is regulated by decree, is not even a democracy in any true sense of the word, for no decree can be a general rule.
Aristocracy
…good man is absolutely identical with the good citizen…magistrates are chosen on a basis not only of wealth but also of moral worth.
Polity
Polity may be described generally as a fusion of oligarchy and democracy…
Those tending more towards oligarchy are known as aristocracies, because culture and breeding are usually associated with wealth…
But there is no rule of law where the laws themselves, however good, are not properly obeyed.
In point of fact, however, there are three grounds upon which it is possible to claim an equal share in the mixed form of government: free birth, wealth, and merit.
Here, accordingly, the method appropriate to an aristocracy or a polity is to take one element from each – choice of magistrates by vote from oligarchy, absence of property qualification from democracy.
A properly fused polity should at once manifest both democratic and oligarchical elements, and yet seem as if it contained neither. It should owe its stability to its own intrinsic strength and not to external support; and its intrinsic strength should be due not to the goodwill of a majority….
Tyranny
It is consequently a regime of force, because no freeman is prepared to tolerate such government.
The Best Constitution in Normal Circumstances
If I was right when I said in the Ethics that a happy life is one lived in freedom without impediments, and that goodness consists in a mean, it follows that the best way of life is a mean, a mean which can be attained by everyone.
The net result is that while one class is unable to rule, but only to obey life slaves, the other is incapable of obedience and can only rule as a master rules his slaves. Thus you get a state consisting not of freemen, but of masters and slaves, the former contemptuous and the latter envious.
They do not, like the poor, covet their neighbors’ goods; nor do others covet theirs, as the poor do those of the rich; and since they neither plot against others, nor are themselves plotted against, they live out their lives in safety.
Blessed the state, therefore, whose citizens own property sufficient for their needs but in moderation.
Democracies are generally safer and more permanent than oligarchies because they have a middle class which is more numerous and enjoys a larger share in government than under an oligarchy.
Factions arise, the rich fall foul of the poor, and victorious party, no matter which it may turn out to be, refuses to establish a constitution founded on justice and equality; it considers political supremacy as the prized of victory, and sets up a democracy or an oligarchy as the case may be.
Appropriate Constitutions
Let us begin by assuming a general principle common to all governments, viz. that the part of a state which desires the permanence of the constitution should be stronger than the part which does not.
Where the number of the poor outweighs the superior quality of the other side, there will naturally be a democracy…
Where the rich and the notables excel in point of quality more than they fall short in point of quantity, there will be an oligarchy…
Where the middle class outnumbers both or only one of the extremes, a durable polity can be established.
Methods of Framing Constitutions
All constitutions have three elements…is the deliberative, concerned with public affairs…the executive…the judicature.
(b) The Executive
…the size of the population ensures a plentiful supply of eligible candidates for office, and thereby enables some offices to be held by the same person at very long intervals or only once in his lifetime. Besides being possible, it is desirable that this should be so; for a task is always carried out more efficiently when the man responsible can give it his undivided attention.