Aristotle divides the forms of government on two grounds: the number of rulers, specified according to property characteristics, and the purpose (moral significance) of government. From the point of view of the latter, forms of government are divided into “correct”, in which those in power have in mind the common benefit, and “incorrect”, where only their own benefit is in mind. By the number of rulers - one ruler, the rule of the rich minority and the rule of the poor majority.
Aristotle considers the correct forms of government to be those in which the goal of politics is the common good (monarchy, aristocracy, politics), and incorrect those where only own interests and the goals of those in power (tyranny, oligarchy, democracy).
The correct system is a system in which the common good is pursued, regardless of whether one, a few or many rule:
Monarchy (Greek Monarchia - autocracy) is a form of government in which all supreme power belongs to the monarch.
Aristocracy (Greek Aristokratia - power of the best) is a form of government in which supreme power belongs by inheritance to the clan nobility, the privileged class. The power of the few, but more than one.
Polity - Aristotle considered this form to be the best. It occurs extremely “rarely and in a few.” In particular, discussing the possibility of establishing a polity in contemporary Greece, Aristotle came to the conclusion that such a possibility was small. In a polity, the majority rules in the interests of the common good. Polity is the “average” form of the state, and the “average” element here dominates in everything: in morals - moderation, in property - average wealth, in power - the middle stratum. “A state consisting of average people will have the best political system» .
An incorrect system is a system in which the private goals of the rulers are pursued:
Tyranny is a monarchical power that has in mind the benefits of one ruler.
Oligarchy - respects the benefits of wealthy citizens. A system in which power is in the hands of people who are rich and of noble birth and form a minority.
Democracy is the benefit of the poor; among the incorrect forms of the state, Aristotle gave preference to it, considering it the most tolerable. Democracy should be considered a system when the freeborn and the poor, constituting the majority, have supreme power in their hands.
Deviation from monarchy gives tyranny, deviation from aristocracy - oligarchy, deviation from polity - democracy, deviation from democracy - ochlocracy.
The basis of all social upheavals is property inequality. According to Aristotle, oligarchy and democracy base their claim to power in the state on the fact that property is the lot of a few, and all citizens enjoy freedom. The oligarchy protects the interests of the propertied classes. None of them have any general benefit.
Under any government system general rule should serve the following: no citizen should be given the opportunity to excessively increase his political force beyond proper measure. Aristotle advised to monitor ruling officials so that they do not turn public office into a source of personal enrichment.
Deviation from law means a departure from civilized forms of government to despotic violence and the degeneration of law into a means of despotism. “It cannot be a matter of law to rule not only by right, but also contrary to law: the desire for violent subordination, of course, contradicts the idea of law.”
The main thing in the state is the citizen, that is, the one who participates in court and administration bears military service and performs priestly functions. Slaves were excluded from the political community, although, according to Aristotle, they should have constituted the majority of the population.
Aristotle in different jobs represents the relative value of these forms differently. In Nicomachean and Ethics, he declared that the best of them was monarchy, and the worst of the “correct” forms was polity. The latter was defined as a state based on property differentiation of citizens.
In “Politics” he considers polity to be the best of the “correct” forms. Although the monarchy here seems to him “the original and most divine,” at present, according to Aristotle, it has no chance of success. In the fourth book of “Politics,” he connects the form of government with their “principles” (principles): “the principle of aristocracy is virtue, oligarchies are wealth, democracies are freedom.” The polity must unite these three elements, which is why it must be considered a true aristocracy - the rule of the best, uniting the interests of the wealthy and the poor. The perfect form of government - polity - is a variant of majority rule. She combines best sides oligarchy and democracy, this is the “golden mean” to which Aristotle strives.
Only persons with average income are recognized as citizens. They participate in the national assembly and elect magistrates. In the decision of many important issues the main role belongs to the magistrates, and not to the popular assembly.
A pure form of polity is rare, for it requires a strong middle class that would prevail over both extremes (rich and poor) or over one of them, so that opponents of the system remain in the minority. Most of the existing states are polities, but not pure ones. They need to strive for balance between opposing elements.
At the same time, Aristotle is not against democracy as such, he is against its deformed form, when the people or the government do not obey the law.
Aristotle pays a lot of attention to changes in the forms of the state as a result of violent or peaceful coups. The cause of coups is a violation of justice, the absolutization of the principle underlying various forms of government. In democracy, this is the absolutization of equality. Having recognized it in relation to citizenship, extreme democracy assumes that people are equal in all respects. Oligarchy, on the contrary, absolutizes inequality.
Aristotle also connects revolutions with social contradictions. When there are few rich and many poor, he argues, the former oppress the latter, or the poor destroy the rich. The strengthening of one of the classes, the weakness of the middle class is the cause of revolutions.
Aristotle gives advice on how to strengthen different forms of government. But he considers the best way to ensure stability to be the establishment of a polity, a mixed system, and the strengthening of the middle class.
Aristotle quite clearly pursues the idea that politics is, first of all, the state, and the sphere of the political is the sphere state relations(“state communication”, communication between “political people” regarding the conduct of public affairs) and public administration. Aristotle's views were largely associated with the underdevelopment of the political sphere, which, naturally, still lacked the complexity and ramifications of the modern political system, including the system of separation of powers, and the complex party and electoral system, supranational structures
The real basis for building Aristotle’s political model is the city-polis, where there is still no clear division of the functions and elements of the state and society. Each citizen of the polis appears in two guises, roles: both as a private person who is part of the city community, and as a participant in state-public life, influencing the process of management and decision-making.
Despite the fact that during this period the themes of the origin and nature of the state and state life, the nature of public administration and state communication (intrastate relations) constantly come into contact with social problems relating to individuals, social strata and groups, the world of politics is primarily the area of state governing citizens or subjects.
The Stagirite believes that slavery exists “by nature,” because some people are designed to command, while others are meant to obey and follow the instructions of the former.
It cannot be said that Aristotle’s socio-political concept, despite the fact that it adequately reflected existing social relations, was extremely limited.
Aristotle's politics is a descriptive science, the creator of which sought to give the politician practical orientation, helping to make political institutions and the state structure in general as stable and permanent as possible.
Aristotle also puts forward the idea of division of powers in the state into three parts:
a legislative body in charge of matters of war, peace, alliances and executions; official body; Judicial authority.
After analyzing various projects of the state system, Aristotle moves on to consider the state systems that actually existed in his time and were considered good - Lacedaemonian, Cretan, Carthaginian. At the same time, he is interested in two questions: firstly, to what extent these devices approach the best or move away from it; secondly, whether there are any elements in them that contradict the intent of the legislators who established them. At the beginning of his study of the types of government systems, Aristotle examines the question of the state in general. First of all, he analyzes the concept of citizen, from time to time turning to the practice of Greek city policies. Aristotle's scheme may seem artificial if we do not take into account the fact that all six terms used by the author of the Politics to designate different types of government systems were in use among the Greeks in the 4th century. BC. In “Politics”, to designate a political system in which power is in the hands of the majority - “average” people who have a certain small qualification and govern the state in the interests of all citizens, Aristotle uses the term “polity”. In this broad sense, the term “polity” appears many times in Politics.
In relation to both, we have the right to pose the question: do they belong to the realm of good wishes, to the realm of political dreams, or do they have some kind of practical orientation? Let's start with conditionally exemplary device . It, according to Aristotle, is suitable for all policies. This system, which is not presented by a philosopher as ideal, but acceptable and feasible, does not require citizens to have virtues that exceed the capabilities of ordinary people; he is not designed for an upbringing that corresponds to the most brilliant natural gifts and favorable external circumstances. It provides citizens with a happy life, since with it there are no obstacles to the implementation of virtue. This situation, according to Aristotle, occurs where the middle layer of citizens quantitatively exceeds the rich and poor combined, or at least one of these layers. About polity, Aristotle says that it occurs rarely and among a few. Indeed, such a system was rarely observed in the Greek states. However, it cannot be considered something that existed only in Aristotle’s imagination. In the fifth book there are references to the real existence of polity. In Tarantum, Aristotle notes, around the time of the end of the Persian Wars, democracy was established, which grew out of polity. In general terms, it speaks of coups d'etat, as a result of which oligarchies, democracies, and polities are established. In Syracuse, soon after the victory over the Athenians, the demos was replaced by a democratic system. In Massalia, as a result of changes in the laws regulating the filling of positions, the oligarchy became close to the polity. There is also a general reference to the collapse of the polity. This list shows that, although Aristotle found few examples of an “average” structure in the past and present - much less than examples of democracy, oligarchy, monarchy, aristocracy - nevertheless, polity for him is not a utopia, since it can exist and existed in historical reality. After all that has been said, Aristotle’s remark that, contrary to the established custom of not wanting equality, but either striving to rule or patiently enduring his subordinate position, a certain single husband showed himself to be a supporter of the “average” structure, acquires special significance. This passage is usually understood in the sense that Aristotle found in the past in one of the Greek policies a statesman who introduced an exemplary device, in the philosopher’s opinion. In accordance with this generally accepted interpretation, they searched in different policies and in different eras for the “only husband” whom Aristotle had in mind. Then, this husband exercises hegemony in the Greek world, and does not dominate any one Greek polis. Finally, in the words of Aristotle one can hardly discern a message that this single man introduced into practice the “average” state structure, especially since he independently decided to introduce it. So, the only husband is a contemporary of the philosopher, holding hegemony over all of Greece. It is most natural to see Alexander the Great in him. He “allowed himself to be persuaded” to introduce a “middle” system in the Greek states. Isn’t Aristotle hinting that the young Macedonian ruler heeded his teacher and, at least in words, agreed to contribute to the introduction in the Greek city-states of that device, the advantages of which Aristotle justified to him in his lectures and conversations?
After all, the “middle system” is, according to Aristotle, the only one in which internal strife is excluded.
Summing up the results of our discussion about the “average” system in the light of Aristotle, we can conclude: polity, the “average” state structure, the support of which should be citizens of average income, was of not only theoretical interest for Aristotle. Placing his hopes on the Macedonian king, Aristotle believed that he had reason to look at his conditionally exemplary system as the future of the Greek city-states.
Two latest books“Politics” contains a presentation of a project for the best government system, in which citizens lead happy lives. The writing of such projects was not an innovation in Aristotle’s time: the philosopher had predecessors, whose theories are discussed in the second book of the Politics. As can be seen from the words of Aristotle, as well as from the well-known works of Plato, the authors of the projects, setting out to build an ideal city-state, did not really care about the practical implementation of their proposals. Such projects did not satisfy Aristotle. Expounding his doctrine of the ideal system, he proceeds from the fact that this doctrine does not contain anything unrealizable.
The prerequisites for creating an exemplary, best policy, according to Aristotle, are a certain number of population, a certain size of the territory, and a convenient location relative to the sea. Craftsmen and merchants are excluded from the number of full citizens, since the lifestyle of both, Aristotle claims, does not contribute to the development of virtue, and a happy life can only be a life in accordance with virtue. The organization of land tenure must provide citizens with food and at the same time the opportunity to amicably provide their property for the use of other citizens. The entire civilian population should participate in sissitia, i.e. public meals. It is proposed to divide all land in the state into two parts - public and private. One part of the public land will provide funds to cover the costs of religious worship, the other - for sissies. The division of privately owned land into two parts should be done so that each citizen has two plots of land - one near the borders, the other near the city. When considering issues directly related to government, Aristotle refrains from going into great detail. He insists that a state can achieve good organization not through luck, but through knowledge and a conscious plan.
The ideal political system described in “Politics” is generally close to what was called aristocratic in the previous presentation. According to Aristotle, full citizens lead a lifestyle in such a polis that promotes the development of virtue and, therefore, ensures a happy life for the state.
Let us turn to Aristotle's first wish regarding the founding of a polis - the choice of a good location, a certain number of citizens. Both were real problems not for Greece, where new policies did not arise; the problem of choosing a location for a city with a certain number of inhabitants existed in the East during the time of Alexander the Great. Aristotle, presumably, associated the possibility of realizing his socio-political ideals with the East.
Further, the author of “Politics” agrees to consider as full citizens only those who in their youth are warriors, and upon reaching an older age become rulers, judges, and priests. They do not engage in crafts, trade, or agriculture. Referring to the examples of Egypt and Crete, Aristotle proves the possibility of establishing an order in which warriors and farmers represent two different classes. Thus, he obviously answers in advance the objection of those who, based on the laws of a number of Greek states, in particular Athens, could argue that it is the farmers who should be hoplite warriors.
The farmers, whose labor feeds the citizens, according to Aristotle's project, are slaves who do not belong to the same tribe and are not distinguished by a hot temperament (to prevent any danger of indignation on their part). In second place after slaves, barbarians are named as desirable farmers.
Who does Aristotle mean here? He himself tells us the answer to this question elsewhere. People living in Asia, in contrast to the inhabitants of Europe, in his opinion, although they are distinguished by their abilities, are devoid of courage, and therefore live in a subordinate and slavish state. Barbarians, i.e. non-Greeks, according to Aristotle, are slaves by nature. So, favorable conditions to create policies with an exemplary, from Aristotle's point of view, organization, he probably found in Asia.
In the vast expanses conquered by the Macedonian king and his Greek-Macedonian army Persian power the opportunity opened up to spread the Greek forms of political existence, moreover, in a purified, perfect form, as imagined by Aristotle. Aristotle's theory both sanctioned and crowned the practice of Macedonian politics, justifying it on philosophical grounds. The practical implementation of a number of essential points of his political projects gave the philosopher hope of achieving the desired results in the future.
Doubts about the legitimacy of the proposed understanding of Aristotle’s project may arise from the other side: a significant part of the scientists who wrote about Aristotle’s “Politics” consider it early work philosopher, written before Alexander's campaign against Persia. Meanwhile, the proposed interpretation is based on the assumption that Aristotle was engaged in his project, already seeing the beginning of the implementation of his wishes.
When approaching the chronological issue that interests us, we must, firstly, determine in what aspect we are considering it, and secondly, find reference points in the text of “Politics” that can help us understand this issue.
During the time of Aristotle, the polis was experiencing a severe crisis, the symptoms of which were a fierce social struggle within the Greek city-states and a sharp division of the latter into democratic and oligarchic - Aristotle himself states the fact that in most of the polis there is either a democratic or an oligarchic system. Classifying both as “wrong” and at the same time seeing in the policy higher form human unification, Aristotle had to look for a way out of this situation. In his opinion, the Greek city-states, unable to establish a perfect form of government in themselves and in other city-states, could hope to get out of the impasse in which they found themselves only thanks to outside help. The same force (the Macedonian king), which would be capable of establishing proper order in Hellas itself, as Aristotle believed, would help the Greeks settle in the former possessions of the Persian kings and establish new policies there with an unconditionally exemplary government structure that had all the desired properties.
Aristotle, of course, saw the enormous political changes in the world that were taking place in his contemporary era, but they interested him only to the extent that they could influence the future fate of the highest, from his point of view, political organization- Greek polis.
Aristotle agrees to consider only those who are warriors in their youth and, upon reaching an older age, become rulers, judges, and priests, as full citizens. They do not engage in trade, crafts, or agriculture.
The farmers, whose labor feeds the citizens, are slaves who do not belong to any tribe and are not distinguished by a hot temperament (to prevent any danger of rebellion on their part). In second place after slaves, barbarians are named as desirable farmers. Although they are distinguished by their abilities, they lack courage, and therefore live in a submissive and servile state. Barbarians are by nature slaves.
In the vast expanses of the Persian state conquered by the Macedonian king, the opportunity opened up to spread Greek forms of political existence, moreover, in a purified, perfect form. Aristotle's theory both sanctioned and crowned the practice of Macedonian politics, justifying it on philosophical grounds. The practical implementation of a number of essential points of his political projects gave the philosopher hope of achieving the desired results in the future.
Aristotle’s method of politics as a science is a method of analysis, because “every matter must be examined in its basic, smallest parts,” which in relation to politics means analyzing the state, finding out what elements it consists of. It is also necessary to study the actually existing forms of political structure and the social projects created by philosophers, being interested not only in the absolutely best forms of government, but also in the best possible ones. The justification for such research is, as Aristotle emphasizes, the imperfection existing forms political life.
Aristotle defines the state as “a form of community of citizens using a certain political structure,” while the political system is “the order that underlies the distribution of state powers.”
The political structure presupposes the rule of law, defined by the philosopher as “dispassionate reason”, as “those reasons for which those in power must rule and protect this form state life against those who violate it."
Aristotle distinguishes three parts in the political structure: legislative, administrative and judicial. Speaking about the composition of the state, Aristotle emphasizes its multi-part nature and the dissimilarity of the parts to each other, the difference in the people who make it up - “a state cannot be formed from identical people,” as well as the difference between families in the state.
But the most important thing in a state is the citizen. The state consists precisely of citizens. Noting that each political system has its own concept of the citizen, Aristotle himself defines the citizen as one who participates in court and government, calling it " absolute concept citizen." Aristotle, apparently, wants to say that it is true for all political systems; the difference between them is not so much in the concept of a citizen, but in what sections of the population are allowed to judge and govern there. In addition, citizens bear military service and serve the gods.So, citizens are those who perform military, administrative, judicial and priestly functions.
There is a patriarchal theory of the origin of the state of Aristotle. And since the power of the householder in relation to his wife and children, as noted, is monarchical, then the first form of political structure was a patriarchal monarchy.
However, a patriarchal monarchy is not the only form political structure. There are many such forms. After all, every state is a complex whole, consisting of dissimilar parts with their own ideas about happiness and the means of achieving it, and each part of the state strives for power in order to establish its own form of government. The peoples themselves are also diverse. Some succumb only to despotic power, others can live under tsarist rule, and for others a free political life is also necessary, the philosopher believes, meaning the last peoples only Greeks. When the political system changes, people remain the same. Aristotle does not understand that man is not an ahistorical phenomenon, but the totality of all public relations, a product of its era and its class. Classifying the types of political structure, the philosopher divides them according to quantitative, qualitative and property characteristics. States differ primarily in whose hands the power is in the hands of one person, a minority or a majority. This is the quantitative criterion. However, one person, a minority, and a majority can rule “rightly” or “wrongly.” This is the qualitative criterion. Moreover, the minority and the majority can be rich and poor. But since usually the poor are in the majority and the rich are in the minority, the division based on property coincides with the quantitative division. Therefore, there are only six forms of political systems: three correct ones - kingdom, aristocracy and polity; the three wrong ones are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. Monarchy is the oldest form of political structure, the first and most divine form, especially absolute monarchy, which is acceptable if available in the state most excellent man. Aristotle claims that a person who is superior to all people, as it were, rises above the law, he is a god among people, he is the law himself and it is ridiculous to try to subordinate him to the law. Speaking against ostracism, usually used in ancient democracies against such people as a means of anti-tyrannical protection, Aristotle argues that “such people in states (if they happen to be, of course, which rarely happens) are their eternal kings,” what if such a person ends up in state, then “all that remains is to obey such a person.”
However, in general, an aristocracy is preferable to a monarchy, because in an aristocracy, power is in the hands of a few with personal dignity. Aristocracy is possible where personal dignity is valued by the people, and since personal dignity is usually inherent in the noble, they rule under the aristocracy. In a polity (republic), the state is governed by the majority, but for the majority, the philosopher claims, the only virtue common to all of them is military, therefore “the republic consists of people who bear arms.” He does not know any other democracy. These are the correct forms of government. Aristotle acknowledges them all to some extent. He also finds an argument in favor of the third form by asking whether the majority has an advantage over the minority, and answers it positively in the sense that although each member of the minority is better than each member of the majority, on the whole the majority is better than the minority, for although there everyone pays attention to only one part, all together - they see everything.
As for the incorrect forms of political structure, Aristotle sharply condemns tyranny, arguing that “tyrannical power does not agree with human nature.” “Politics” contains the famous words of the philosopher that “there is no more honor for the one who kills the thief, but for the one who kills the tyrant,” which later became the slogan of the tyrant fighters. In an oligarchy, the rich rule, and since the majority in the state is poor, it is the rule of a few. Of the irregular forms, Aristotle gives preference to democracy, considering it the most tolerable, but on the condition that power there remains in the hands of the law and not the crowd (ochlocracy). Aristotle tries to find transitions between forms of political structure. An oligarchy, subordinate to one person, becomes a despotism, and when it dissolves and weakens, it becomes a democracy. The kingdom degenerates into an aristocracy or polity, polity into oligarchy, oligarchy into tyranny, tyranny can become democracy.
The political teaching of a philosopher is not only a description of what is, as he understood it, but also an outline of what should be. This was already reflected in Aristotle’s division of the forms of political structure according to quality, as well as in the way the philosopher defined the purpose of the state. The purpose of the state is not only to perform economic and legal functions, preventing people from inflicting injustice on each other and helping them satisfy their material needs, but to live compassionately: “The purpose of human society is not just to live, but much more to live happily."
According to Aristotle, this is possible only in the state. Aristotle is a consistent supporter of the state. It's for him - " perfect form life", "environment of a happy life". The state, further, supposedly serves the "common good". But this applies only to the correct forms. So, the criterion of the correct forms is their ability to serve the common good. Aristotle claims that monarchy, aristocracy and polity serve the common good, tyranny, oligarchy and democracy - only the private interests of one person, minority, majority, respectively. For example, “tyranny is the same monarchy, but having in mind only the benefit of one monarch.”
That is why Aristotle’s “Politics” is a most valuable document both for the study of the political views of Aristotle himself, and for the study of ancient Greek society of the classical period and the political theories that had their support in it.
Aristotle summed up the development of philosophical thought from its beginning in Ancient Greece up to and including Plato; he created a differentiated system of knowledge, the development of which lasted over one and a half thousand years. Aristotle's advice did not stop the degeneration of Greek statehood. Having fallen under the rule of Macedonia, Greece was no longer able to restore freedom and soon submitted to Rome. But Aristotle's contribution to the history of political thought is very great. He created a new methodology for empirical and logical research and summarized a huge amount of material. His approach is characterized by realism and moderation. He perfected a system of concepts that humanity continues to use to this day.
1. The problem of classifying forms of government.
How many and what forms of government have existed in human history? To answer this controversial question, you need to correctly select the criteria that distinguish one form of government from another. Comparative analysis of forms of government is a condition for their successful classification. A form of government is a type of structure of supreme power in a country. From the history of philosophy there are several attempts to create such a classification.
2. Aristotle's classification.
This classification is set out in Aristotle's book Politics. This classification was entirely borrowed by Aristotle from Plato, but Aristotle was able to present it in a more systematic form.
Table 3.
Aristotle named six forms of government, which are distinguished in accordance with two criteria :
· Number of ruling persons.
· Assessment of forms of government.
A kingdom is a form of government in which, in which one prominent person has power, this hero surpasses everyone around him and becomes above the law, he is a god among people, he is a law unto himself. Royal power rests on the dignity, benefits and power of the king. All kings achieved their power thanks to great feats, for example, King Codrus saved the Athenian state from the slavery that threatened it, King Cyrus freed the Persians from the yoke of the Medes, King Alexander the Great conquered the vast territory of the Persian kingdom. An example of a king is Emperor Napoleon, who was a great conqueror, although at the end of his life he lost the war, lost his throne and died in captivity on the distant island of St. Helena.
Tyranny is a form of government in which one person has power and abuses his position for selfish gain. . Most of the tyrants emerged from demagogues who gained the trust of the people by denigrating the nobles. In our opinion, examples of tyrant-demagogues are Lenin, Trotsky and Hitler. Stalin was a tyrant, but he was not a demagogue, because... was a poor speaker, spoke Russian poorly and with a strong Georgian accent, had an angry character and a fear of public speaking due to an inferiority complex. Zhirinovsky is a good demagogue, but, fortunately for us, he failed to become a ruler and a tyrant. Kings can become tyrants if they violate their fathers' covenants and strive for despotic power. Other tyrants appropriate unlimited power, having first been chosen for the highest positions in free elections.
Aristotle compares the king and the tyrant and concludes that Tyranny is the most harmful state system for its subjects. The tyrant seeks to increase his wealth, while the king seeks to increase his glory and honor. The king's guard consists of citizens, the tyrant's guard consists of mercenaries. With the help of money, the tyrant hires his guard and leads a luxurious lifestyle. The tyrant wages a fight against the mob - he confiscates weapons, removes the mob from the city by relocating to colonies. On the other hand, the tyrant fights against the nobles, because all conspiracies come from them, they themselves want to rule. The tyrant Periander believed that the ears of corn that rose above others should be cut off - everyone should be executed outstanding people. Coups d'etat occur in tyrannies as a result of the grievances and fear of the subjects of the abuses of the tyrant and as a result of the tyrant's attempts on the property of the subjects. Dion made an attempt on the life of Dionysius the Younger, the tyrant of the city of Syracuse, out of a feeling of contempt for him: he saw that Dionysius was despised by his fellow citizens, and Dionysius was always drunk. Aristotle wrote the famous words: “There is no more honor for the one who kills the thief, but for the one who kills the tyrant.” These words became the slogan of all tyrant fighters and regicides, like Sophia Perovskaya and members of the Narodnaya Volya group, who killed the Russian Tsar Alexander 2, although the latter was a reformer, not a tyrant.
Aristocracy is a form of government in which there is the rule of a minority of citizens, the rule of the best citizens in terms of virtue . Elections of rulers take place in Senate - legislative assembly of aristocrats . You cannot find hundreds of people of noble birth and valor anywhere, but the poor are everywhere. According to Aristotle , aristocracy is the best form of government. In our opinion, this conclusion was absolutely correct only in antiquity, when representative democracy had not yet been invented.
Oligarchy is a form of government where power is in the hands of a few and unworthy citizens - the oligarchs. Types of oligarchies:
· When there is a high property qualification for those who wish to occupy a high position. Property qualification is the minimum limit of a person’s wealth in monetary terms, which allows him to occupy this position. For example, in order to become a Roman senator, the applicant had to have a fortune, the size of which should have been at least 20 thousand sesterces (Roman currency unit). The Roman Senate had two censors who annually assessed the wealth of the senators. Only a very rich man could become a Roman senator.
· When senators fill the shortage of officials through co-optation - recruitment at their own discretion For example, it was through co-optation, and not elections, that Stalin first became a member of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (B) in 1912.
· When a son takes office in place of his father, i.e. the position is inherited.
· When it is not the law that rules, but officials.
The disadvantage of the oligarchy is the discord and indignation of the majority of the population, because this majority does not participate in government, although they are aware of their strength.
Polis democracy or polity is a form of government in which power is in the hands of the majority of citizens, who rule well. Under polity, those who carry heavy weapons have full rights, i.e. only men who belong to the heavily armed infantry (hoplites). Elections take place in people's assembly , positions are sometimes filled by lot. There is no property qualification in elections.
Ochlocracy or, in Aristotle's terminology, extreme democracy is a form of government in which power belongs to the majority of citizens who rule poorly. Ochlocracy (from the Greek ochlos - crowd) is the power of the crowd, rabble, bandits . It has such disadvantages as the disorderliness and anarchic nature of the state system, which causes contempt for it on the part of wealthy people. When democracy degenerates into ochlocracy, then the common people become like a despot. Demagogues know how to flatter the crowd and turn their selfish proposals into laws. Gradually, demagogues gain de facto supreme power. For example, the people's court of Helium unjustly condemned the philosopher Socrates to execution over a trivial matter, obeying the will of the demagogues Anytus and Meletus. It is generally accepted that the crowd is much easier to manipulate than the Senate. The crowd is always prone to admiration of leaders and aggression towards imaginary enemies. Demagogues often make accusations against officials, and the people willingly accept the accusations, so that the importance of all officials is reduced to zero. And with the inaction of officials, anarchy sets in, which often leads to defeat in the war. Another disadvantage of ochlocracy and polis democracy is that it is difficult to gather people to a national assembly without monetary reward, and this in turn requires increased taxes and confiscations. All this has overthrown a considerable number of democracies. In addition, demagogues tend to organize free distributions of food to the poor, who need distributions again and again; such help from the mob resembles a leaky barrel.
According to Aristotle, forms of government transform into each other. An oligarchy, where the oligarchs submitted to one person, becomes tyranny, and where they are weakened, it becomes a democracy. Main disadvantage Aristotle's classification is that it is somewhat outdated, because after Aristotle, new forms of government were invented.
3. Sparta as an example of aristocracy.
According to the ancient Greek historian Plutarch ( approximate years life: 45-120 years AD), the aristocracy and laws of Sparta were established by Lycurgus, who was the son of the king of Sparta. Lycurgus's father was killed in one of the street clashes. According to custom, the father's royal power passed first to Polydeuces, the elder brother of Lycurgus, and then to Charilaus, Polydeuces's young son. And Lycurgus began to rule the state as the guardian of Charilaus. At the right moment, when the weak-willed Charilaus had already begun to rule in Sparta, Lycurgus with 30 armed aristocrats occupied the square and proposed to begin reforms. After the laws came into force, Lycurgus at a public meeting asked citizens to take an oath not to change anything until his return. And he himself went to Delphi to ask the oracle’s opinion about his laws. The oracle announced that its laws were excellent, and that as long as Sparta was faithful to these laws, it would prosper and dominate other states. After this, Lycurgus decided not to return to his homeland and commit suicide in order to force the citizens to fulfill their oath. In addition, he is already 85 years old, and he has achieved everything he strived for. Lycurgus said goodbye to his friends and son, refused to eat and soon died of hunger. He was afraid that his remains would be transferred to Sparta, and the citizens would consider themselves free from the oath, so he bequeathed to burn his remains at the stake and throw the ashes into the sea. Lycurgus was a theoretician by personality, as evidenced, in particular, by the laconic style of his speech. A laconic style of speech (from the name of the region in Sparta - Laconia) means a short and clear style in expressing thoughts. The Spartans were fluent in this style of speech. Modern students would also do well to master this art.
The following examples of laconicisms can be given. Lycurgus spoke briefly and abruptly. When someone demanded that he introduce democracy in Sparta, he replied: “Introduce democracy at home first.” One day the Spartans asked Lycurgus: “How to make neighboring countries didn’t attack us?” He replied: “Stay poor and do not be any richer than your neighbors.” The Spartans valued wit. For example, when a person spoke smartly, but inappropriately, the Spartans said to him: “You are talking sense, but not to the point.” Once, in the presence of the Spartan king, a philosopher was scolded for not saying a word at a dinner party. Defending him, the king remarked: “Whoever knows how to speak, knows how to choose the time for this.” One man bothered the king with his questions about who was the best of the Spartans. The king replied: “The one who is least like you.” When the Spartan king was asked whether there were many troops in Sparta, he said: “Enough to drive out the cowards.”
According to the laws of Lycurgus, the most important government agency became gerousia - council of elders (in Greek - geronts). Gerusia resolved disputes and gave instructions even to kings. From ancient times, Sparta was headed by two kings from two clans that were constantly at war with each other. This enmity between the two kings made it possible to avoid tyranny and maintain the supremacy of the supreme power of the aristocracy over the kings. According to the laws of Lycurgus, kings retained their power and importance only in war. IN Peaceful time the kings were ordinary members of the gerusia, which included 30 people. The remaining 28 members were chosen by the Spartan people for life from among old men at least 60 years old from aristocratic families. Elections were called when one of the geronts died. The Spartan people had the right to gather in an assembly at the Eurotas River in order to accept or reject the decisions proposed by the gerusia, i.e. the people's assembly had the right of veto. The aristocrats were dissatisfied with this law and after the death of Lycurgus they adopted an addition to the law: “If the people make the wrong decision, the geronts and kings can reject it and dissolve the popular assembly.” In an open square, not protected from the wind and hot sun, where there was nowhere to even sit, the meeting proceeded quickly without long discussions. After listening to the short speech of the geront or king, the people shouted their approval or rejected the proposal. No one except the geronts and kings was allowed to express their opinion. In these ways, the aristocrats fought the power of the popular assembly and limited democracy. The people did not want to tolerate injustice, and 130 years after the reign of Lycurgus, the position of ephors was established, who were chosen one person from five regions of the country. They carried out trials and reprisals against citizens in the absence of kings and monitored the implementation of laws; in case of their violation, even kings were punished.
Before the reign of Lycurgus, the land accumulated in the hands of aristocrats. On the advice of Lycurgus, a redistribution of land was made: the aristocrats renounced ownership of land in favor of the state, the land was equally divided between Spartan families, no one could sell or buy land anymore, thus private ownership of land was replaced by state property. Each plot provided the family with only barley flour and vegetable oil, which, according to Lycurgus, was quite enough for a happy life, but, according to most people, such a diet is too poor and ascetic. In those ancient times, labor productivity was too low to provide a varied diet for the Spartans. Lycurgus wanted to destroy the hostility and division of the Spartans into rich and poor. This made it possible to rally the Spartans against external enemy during the war. Lycurgus prohibited the use of gold and silver coins and ordered that only iron money be accepted. These iron money were so of little value and bulky that to store them it was necessary to build a separate pantry in each house and transport them on a cart, thus almost losing iron money three most important functions - as a medium of exchange, a means of payment and a means of storage. As a result, trade, as the exchange of goods, money, goods, money, almost disappeared, and the Spartans began to live by subsistence farming - they confiscated food from the helots. Crimes disappeared in Sparta because a large number of iron money as booty made it difficult to hide the fact of theft, bribe or robbery. Lycurgus forbade the Spartans to engage in crafts. Iron money was not accepted for exchange in other countries, like the Soviet “wooden” ruble, which was a non-convertible currency, i.e. a currency that cannot be exchanged for other currencies of the world. The visiting artisans only laughed when the Spartans tried to pay them with iron money. The equality of the Spartans was equality in poverty.
To create the appearance of brotherhood and camaraderie, Lycurgus ordered the Spartans to participate in daily joint dinners for 15-20 people serving in the same military detachment. Lycurgus wanted them to be bound by strong friendship and ready to die for each other. The decision to accept a newcomer into the dining fraternity had to be made unanimously. The diet at lunch was very meager - lentil stew with ox blood, barley dishes, some cheese, meat and fruit, wine diluted with water, which the Greeks drank instead of tea, and they considered drinking undiluted wine a disgrace. It was forbidden to come to dinner well-fed and leave your portion uneaten, otherwise other diners might think that the guilty person considered common table not good enough for themselves, and could subject the culprit first to a fine and then to expulsion from the members of the dining fraternity. Lycurgus deprived the rich of the opportunity to have a tasty meal, so they were so angry with Lycurgus that one day they beat him with sticks and knocked out his eye, but the people stood up for the reformer and punished the rich.
Lycurgus legalized in Sparta the selection of healthy offspring and the destruction of sick children in order to obtain the maximum number of healthy and strong warriors. In order to get healthy offspring, girls had to play sports and participate in competitions on an equal basis with men - run, wrestle, throw a discus, throw a javelin, attend festivals, participate in dances and sing in a choir. Foreigners reproached Spartan women for ruling over their husbands. Remaining single was considered shameful in Sparta. After the birth of his son, the father brought him to the council of elders. They examined him and decided his fate. If they found him healthy and strong, then they gave him the opportunity to live and gave him a plot of land. If the child turned out to be weak and sick, then they ordered him to be thrown into the abyss, because... the Spartan state did not need weak and sick warriors. Served the same purpose Spartan upbringing children. In infancy, they were not swaddled in order to harden the body with cold. They were weaned off whims and whining, and accustomed to a meager diet. At the age of 7, all boys were taken away from their parents and united into small units. At the head of the detachment was a man from whom the children took an example, and who had the right to severely punish the children. The old men deliberately quarreled the boys and provoked them into fights among themselves in order to find out which of the children was braver. Boys were taught literacy only to the extent that they needed to read the text of an order or sign their name. Spartan boys were expected to obey their superiors unconditionally, endure hardships patiently, and win battles at any cost. The boys' living conditions were the most harsh: they had to sleep together on bundles of reeds, they were forced to walk barefoot and play without clothes in any weather. At the age of 12 they were given a raincoat. The boys in the troop chose their leader, who later became the commander of this troop. The children were given very meager food with the aim of forcing them to obtain firewood and food for themselves by stealing from gardens, from lunch fraternities and by attacking watchmen. If the watchmen managed to catch the thief, then they beat him without mercy with whips as an incompetent thief. The boys tried to hide their crimes at all costs and could even die during the scourging, but not make a sound or admit their guilt. With the help of all this, Spartan children were taught to fight hardships on their own and raised them to be dexterous and cunning people. When a young man became a warrior, he was allowed to take care of the beauty of his dress, hair and weapons. Before the battle, the warriors tried to decorate themselves especially carefully, because... they went into battle with songs and music, as if on a holiday. The privilege of the Olympic champion was to go into battle next to the king. The champion did not want to exchange this privilege for any money. Having put the enemy to flight, the Spartans did not pursue him, because they considered it unworthy to finish off a defeated enemy. The enemies knew that the Spartans only killed those who resisted. The practical benefit of this custom was that enemies often preferred to run away from the Spartans rather than fight.
A lot of attention in Sparta was paid to education and propaganda. This propaganda in the absence of funds mass media was presented in a primitive form - in the form of choral singing and public speeches by speakers. Spartan songs were courageous, simple and instructive. They glorified those who fell for Sparta, condemned cowards and called for heroism. This is reminiscent of Soviet propaganda and Soviet song. The Spartans went into battle to the sound of a flute. And in peaceful life Sparta was like a military camp, where the Spartans observed strict discipline and lived as custom dictated. Lycurgus' hopes did not deceive him. While Sparta adhered to his laws, for several centuries it remained one of the most powerful states in Greece. Only at the end of the 5th century BC, when self-interest and property inequality penetrated into Sparta along with gold and silver, the laws of Lycurgus were damaged death blow.
4. Athens as an example of polis democracy.
According to Plutarch, polis democracy and laws were established in Athens by Solon. He was considered one of the seven greatest ancient sages. He knew how to write poetry. Solon's father was a poor man and did not leave Solon any means of subsistence as an inheritance. Therefore, Solon decided, following the example of a few daredevils, to engage in trade and go on a ship overseas with a cargo of Athenian goods. One such successful trip could make a person rich. He set sail not only for profit, but also to gain knowledge. Having become rich, he returned home and discovered hometown a bitter struggle between the rich and the poor. The rich passed a law that prohibited calling for war for the island of Salamis. This island was owned by the neighboring state of Megara, which managed to defeat Athens in the war for this island. This island blocked the way for ships to Athens, and the Megarians could easily prevent the bringing of grain and other goods to Athens. To circumvent this law, Solon pretended to be crazy and called for a campaign against Salamis. He led this campaign. He resorted to a stratagem. He ordered the soldiers to dress in women's clothing and go ashore, and then sent a spy to the Megarians with the task of convincing them to attack these supposedly defenseless women. The Megarians succumbed to the deception and were defeated. After this, the Athenians captured Salamis. The land in Greece was rocky and unsuitable for farming, so poor farmers lost their land and fell into debt slavery to the rich. The only way out was to develop crafts and maritime trade. Solon was elected archon (elected official) so that he would stop internal strife. Thus, he gained the right to introduce new laws. After establishing his laws, Solon left to wander for 10 years, and took an oath from the citizens not to change the laws until his return. In Athens, in the absence of Solon, unrest began. A distant relative of Solon, Pisistratus, began to prepare a coup d'etat with the aim of establishing tyranny instead of polis democracy. Pisistratus went on a provocation - he ran to the public assembly square, bleeding, although many claimed that he inflicted these wounds on himself, demanded that a detachment of poor people be provided for his protection, then captured the Athenian fortress and began to rule like the ancient kings (560 BC). BC.). Solon in the national assembly called on citizens to fight against tyranny, but no one listened to him because of fear of the tyrant. Friends advised him to flee from Athens in order to avoid the tyrant's revenge, but Solon believed that he was already too old for this. Peisistratus left in force most of Solon's laws and verbally showed his respect for him. Solon died a very old man. In Athens, the laws of Solon were preserved almost unchanged.
Solon carried out moderate reforms that satisfied both the poor and the rich. He canceled all debts of the poor and banned debt slavery. Solon abolished the harsh laws of Draco, which prescribed only one punishment even for minor crimes - the death penalty. Solon abolished the aristocracy and introduced polis democracy. Before these reforms, power in Athens belonged to council of the nobility (Areopagus), and the national assembly had almost no significance. The court was also in the hands of the aristocrats. The Areopagus appointed 9 archons, i.e. members executive power. He divided all citizens into four categories depending on their income. Citizens of the first three categories could hold government positions and serve in the ground forces. Citizens of the fourth category, i.e. the poor had the right only to participate in the people's assembly and in the people's courts. They did not have money to purchase weapons, so they formed auxiliary units in the army and served as rowers in the fleet. The People's Assembly in Athens received supreme legislative power. All full-fledged citizens could participate in it, except for slaves, women, children and metics (non-resident by origin). Solon retained the Areopagus, but assigned this body only one function - monitoring the implementation of the laws. Solon encouraged the development of crafts. According to Solon's law, a son could not feed his elderly father if the father did not teach his son any craft.
5. Demosthenes as an example of a great orator.
Demosthenes was a theorist by personality type, so he experienced a panicky fear of public speaking. But with great difficulty and through hard training, he managed to overcome this fear, because... dreamed of devoting my life to a calling politician. Demosthenes' father left a rich inheritance, but his guardians disinherited him, so Demosthenes learned oratory in order to protect their interests in the people's court. He managed to achieve this goal. Demosthenes's first public speech ended in complete failure, because... he had a very weak voice, spoke slurredly, stuttered slightly, lisped, and had a bad habit of twitching his shoulder while speaking. public speaking and in general he did not know how to behave in front of an audience at all. To correct the shortcomings of his speech, Demosthenes began complex exercises. To correct the unclearness of his pronunciation, Demosthenes put pebbles in his mouth and tried to speak loudly and clearly. To learn how to pronounce the sound "r", he imitated the growl of a puppy. To learn to speak loudly, he recited poetry while climbing a mountain or drowning out the noise of the waves on the seashore. After long and persistent efforts, Demosthenes achieved his goal and became an excellent orator. However, he never spoke without preparation, but always memorized a speech written in advance: at night, by the light of a lamp, he diligently prepared for his speech, carefully considering every word. All this subsequently gave rise to the opponents of the great orator to reproach him for the lack of inspiration and natural abilities. What can you do, he was a theorist, not a speaker, but he knew how to speak to the point. Eventually, even his enemies recognized the strength and skill of his performances. In his speeches the extraordinary simplicity of expression was combined with greatest power feelings and thoughts, clarity and persuasiveness. Demosthenes always adhered strictly to the main subject and did not like empty chatter. He either spoke calmly, influencing the minds of his listeners, or conquered them with the power of feeling, conveying to them his ardent faith in the correctness of the cause he was defending.
Unfortunately, the theorist Demosthenes was able to master the skill of public speaking with great difficulty, but could not become an excellent commander, so he lost the war to the speakers. He led the struggle of Greek cities against the great commanders - the Macedonian king Philip and his son Alexander. King Philip created beautifully armed army and invented the Macedonian phalanx. The Greek states waged constant wars among themselves, which weakened the Greek resistance to Macedonian aggression. Demosthenes was chosen as the first strategos (commander-in-chief) in Athens. At the head of the embassy, Demosthenes traveled to many Greek states, urging the Greeks to unite their armies against Macedonia. The decisive battle took place at Chaeronea in 338 BC. On the left flank of the Macedonian army, Alexander dealt a crushing blow to the troops of Thebes; on the right flank, the troops of Athens managed to push back the Macedonians, but at the same time the Athenians upset their ranks. King Philip said: “The enemy knows how to fight, but does not know how to win.” Then Philip reorganized his soldiers and rushed at the Athenians, they wavered, and the entire Greek army began to retreat. Demosthenes fought as a simple infantryman and retreated along with everyone else, which gave his enemies reason to accuse him of cowardice. In the midst of preparations for the campaign against Persia, King Philip was unexpectedly killed by his bodyguard. Demosthenes believed that it would be easier for him to deal with Philip’s heir, Alexander; he called the latter a boy and a fool, but Demosthenes was mistaken. Alexander managed to conquer the Persian Empire. Fleeing persecution, Demosthenes was forced to flee from Athens. But unexpectedly the news came about the death of Alexander in Babylon. Demosthenes was given a solemn meeting in Athens. He led the Greek resistance against Macedonia. Athens lost the last battle at Kranion. A Macedonian garrison was stationed in Athens, and Athenian democracy was destroyed. Demosthenes was sentenced to death, but he managed to escape. Fleeing from pursuit, Demosthenes swallowed poison and died.
6. Machiavelli's classification.
Niccolo Machiavelli was a theorist by personality type, so he was an unsuccessful politician, but became a great political scientist. He lived in Italy during the Renaissance. Years of his life: 1469-1527. He was born in Florence.
In Machiavelli's classification, there are only two forms of government:
· REPUBLIC
· MONARCHY.
Monarchies are either hereditary or new, state power is acquired either by one’s own or someone else’s weapons, or by the grace of fate, or by valor. Representative democracy and the principle of separation of powers are described in Montesquieu's book On the Spirit of Laws. In the 20th century in a number of countries there has been a regression to ancient forms of government - to oligarchy or tyranny - in the form fascist regime, Soviet power, fundamentalist-Islamic state.
7. Our point of view on the issue of classification of forms of government.
In our opinion, it is possible to create a classification from five forms of government :
· TYRANNY or KINGDOM.
· ARISTOCRACY or OLIGARCY.
· DIRECT DEMOCRACY.
· HERITABLE MONARCHY.
· REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.
This classification is based on four criteria :
· number of rulers or voters,
· types of ways to struggle for power,
· types of fighting groups and the place or arena of their struggle,
· types of vices or shortcomings of each form of government.
Of these four criteria, the most important is the second criterion, since types of social conflict and social control are the main basis for the construction of social structures.
Table 4.
|
Name of forms of government. |
Tyranny. Kingdom. |
Aristocracy. Oligarchy. |
Direct democracy. Ochlocracy |
Hereditary monarchy |
Representative democracy. |
|
Quantityrulers or voters |
Onetyrant. |
Privilegesmodifiedminority. |
Majority. |
Dynastic family. Impostors. |
Allcitizens. |
|
Ways to fight for power. |
1. Armed seizure of power. 2.Civil war. |
Elections in the privilegedmeeting. |
Elections in the people'smeeting. |
1.Transfer of the throne by inheritance without struggle. 2.Palace coups |
Nationalelections. Conflict limited by the constitution between the three branches of government. |
|
Kindsfighting groups andplace, arena of their struggle. |
1. Groups of rebels in the army. 2. Cliques within the bureaucracy. |
Factions in the Senate, Boyar Duma, Central Committee, Politburo, at a meeting of criminal authorities. |
Groups in the People's Assembly,at a community meeting, at a meeting of criminals. |
1. Groups of guards led by representatives of the dynasty. 2. Somozvantsy. |
1.Parties in elections. 2. Factions in parliament. |
|
Kindsthe vices or shortcomings of each form of government. |
1. Arbitrariness andabuses of tyrants. 2.Damage from civil wars |
1. Degeneration of the oligarchs. 2.Uprising of the disenfranchisedmajority |
1. The abuse of demagogues. 2.Cannot be built on a large area |
1. Degeneration of the dynasty. 2.Lack of selectionrulers. |
1.Too many rulers anddeputies. 2. They take too long to make a decision. |
Of the five forms of government, representative democracy is the best, because it has no vices, but only minor shortcomings. But building representative democracy is the most challenging task. To overcome these minor shortcomings in case of emergency - war, natural disaster or riots– the president is given emergency powers for a limited period. If such construction of representative democracy fails, society slides into archaic forms of government - tyranny or oligarchy, which is what happened in 1917 under the Bolsheviks. The worst of the five forms of government are ochlocracy and tyranny, and ochlocracy is even worse than tyranny. An example of ochlocracy is a gathering of criminals or a crowd of scoundrels who are always ready to smash and kill. Tyranny was invented in the countries of the Ancient East, aristocracy - by Lycurgus in Sparta, direct democracy - in Athens, hereditary monarchy in the form of a custom of succession to the throne, of transferring the throne to the eldest son or elder brother - in the Moscow principality, representative democracy - in England and the USA.
Russia is a unique country where during the 20th century. the authorities tried to introduce all five forms of government in turn. Until 1905, under Nicholas 2, Russia had a hereditary monarchy. From 1905 to February 1917, the Russians tried to build a representative democracy, for this purpose the Russian parliament was created, a multi-party system was guaranteed political freedoms and free elections, but no constitution was adopted, and the right to appoint members of the government remained in the hands of the emperor, not parliament. From March to November 1917, the dual power of the Provisional Government and the Soviet government was established, elections were held to the Constituent Assembly, which was supposed to choose the form of government. In October 1917, the Bolsheviks seized power and Lenin built an oligarchy where privileged layer became the “Leninist Guard” instead of the nobility, opponents of the Bolshevik oligarchy were physically destroyed during the civil war and KGB terror. The Bolsheviks destroyed the ochlocracy of Father Makhno in Ukraine. Stalin built tyranny in the thirties, and again there was a change of elites - the replacement of the “Leninist guard” at the top of power with the nomenklatura. Khrushchev restored the oligarchy, eliminating Beria as a new contender for tyrant. Gorbachev's merit lies in the fact that he shook the oligarchy to its foundations. Yeltsin destroyed the oligarchy and established representative democracy. Putin destroyed ochlocracy and the source of the civil war in Chechnya, and then established a more conservative and authoritarian version of representative democracy, bringing order after Yeltsin’s reforms.
The USA and Britain as leaders of world development in the 20th century. pursued a policy of overthrowing tyrannical and oligarchic governments and building representative democracies around the world. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein's tyranny in Iraq is the latest example of such progressive policies.
Questions to think about.
1. Name the names of the kings and emperors who managed to seize the throne in Russia
at various times from the 16th to the 19th centuries. through a palace coup.
2. Name the names of impostors in the History of Russia from the 19th to the 18th centuries.
What form of government is the best? In our previous discussion about the forms of government, we distributed them as follows: three normal forms - monarchy, aristocracy, polity, and three forms deviating from the normal - tyranny - a counterweight to the monarchy, oligarchy - aristocracy, democracy - polity. ...It can easily turn out that under some conditions democracy is more suitable than oligarchy, under others - vice versa.
Apparently, however, two main forms of government are recognized - democracy and oligarchy... (Aristotle here clashes with the adherents of one or another sovereign mode. - Layout.). Democracy should be considered a system in which the freeborn and the poor, constituting the majority, will have supreme power in their hands, and an oligarchy should be considered a system in which power is in the hands of those rich and distinguished by noble origin and forming a minority.
The law should rule over everyone, and the magistrates and the people's assembly should be left to discuss detailed issues.
It is necessary, of course, that in a perfectly mixed state system, both democratic and oligarchic elements should be represented, and not just one of them. ...Various types of the so-called aristocratic system... are partly of little use for most states, partly they are close to the so-called polity (which is why we should talk about both of these forms as one).
That blessed life, in which there are no obstacles to the implementation of virtue, ... virtue is the middle, but it must be recognized that the best life will be precisely the “average” life, the kind of life in which the “middle” can be achieved by each individual. It is necessary to establish the same criterion in relation to both the virtue and the viciousness of the state and its structure: after all, the structure of the state is its life.
In every state we meet three classes of citizens: the very wealthy, the extremely poor, and the third, standing in the middle between both. Since, according to the generally accepted opinion, moderation and the middle are the best, then, obviously, average wealth is the best of all goods. If it is present, it is easiest to obey the arguments of reason; on the contrary, it is difficult for a person who is super-beautiful, super-strong, super-noble, super-weak, super-low in his political position to follow these arguments. People of the first category mostly become insolent and major scoundrels; people of the second category are usually made into scoundrels and petty scoundrels. And some of the crimes are committed because of arrogance, others because of meanness. Moreover, people of both these categories do not shy away from power, but zealously strive for it, and both of them bring harm to states. Further, people of the first of these categories, possessing an excess of prosperity, strength, wealth, friendly affections, etc., do not want and do not know how to obey; and this is observed from an early age, from childhood: spoiled by the luxury with which they live, they are not accustomed to obey even in schools. The behavior of people in the second category, due to their extreme insecurity, is extremely humiliating. Thus, they are not able to rule and only know how to obey the power that is exercised by masters over slaves; and they know how to rule only as masters rule over slaves. The result is a state where some are filled with envy, others with contempt. And this kind of feeling is very far from the feeling of friendship in political communication, which in itself should contain an element of friendliness. The people we mentioned do not even want to go along the same road with their opponents.
So, it is clear that the best state communication is that communication that is achieved through the medium of the middle element; and those states have the best system where the middle element is represented in more, where it is of greater importance compared to both extreme elements or, at least, stronger than each of them taken separately. By uniting with one or the other of these extreme elements, the middle element will gain influence and prevent the formation of opposite extremes. Therefore, the greatest well-being for the state is that its citizens have average, but sufficient property; and in those cases where some own too much, while others have nothing, either extreme democracy, or oligarchy in its pure form, or tyranny arises, precisely as a result of opposite extremes in property terms.
So, obviously, the “average” form of the political system is the ideal form, for only it does not lead to party struggle: where the middle element is numerous, party feuds and discord are least likely to occur among citizens. ...Democracy, in turn, enjoys greater security than oligarchies; Their existence is more durable due to the presence in them of a middle element, which is overwhelming in its numbers and is more strongly represented in the state life of democracies than oligarchies. But when, in the absence of a middle element, the propertyless class overwhelms with its numbers, the state finds itself in an unfortunate state and quickly moves towards destruction. As proof of the position we have put forward, we can cite the fact that the best legislators came from the middle class: Solon..., Li-kurg..., Charond and almost most of the rest came from there.
In any state system... there are three main elements: ... the first is the legislative body on state affairs, the second is the magistracy, ... the third is the judicial authorities.
The legislative body is competent to decide on issues of war and peace, the conclusion and dissolution of alliances, laws, the death penalty, expulsion and confiscation of property, the election of officials and their accountability.
By the scope of action of the magistracy I mean, for example, that its competence includes the management of state revenues or the protection of state territory.
The difference between courts is determined by three factors: who the judges are, what is subject to their trial, and how the judges are appointed. ...Number individual species ships. There are eight of them: 1) for accepting a report from officials, 2) for the trial of those who committed a crime causing damage to the state, 3) those who plotted a coup d’etat, 4) for the examination of litigation arising between officials and private individuals on regarding the fining of the former by the latter, 5) for the analysis of civil trials in cases concerning large trade transactions, 6) for the analysis of trials in cases of murder, 7) for the analysis of trials concerning foreigners..., 8) a court for the analysis of trials in small trade transactions transactions. ...
Related information.
Almost an independent part of Aristotle’s political science was his doctrine of forms government organization and their impact on society. Here he not only made synthetic generalizations of the political reflections of the previous period of Greek thought, but also formulated criteria that predetermined the discussion of the problem in political thought until the 18th century.
Aristotle’s thoughts on this problem (which, among other things, had immediate practical value for ancient thinking: it was assumed that, having figured out the “correct” form of the political system, little would be required in order to establish it in society) were, however, not identical to the ideas of his political treatises. And since the time of their creation is unknown, it is impossible to talk about any evolution of Aristotle’s views, although general criteria classifications of government structures remained the same.
Developed by Aristotle typology political forms or modes as follows. (see diagram).
aristotle philosophy political state
The scientist believed that any form of government, any somewhat stable regime can exist in two different states. Firstly, the regime (despite its structural characteristics) may be adequate to the situation and generally be able to act in the interests of broad sections of society. Secondly, the regime, the ruling elite, even in a democracy, can defend and strive to implement its own, narrowly selfish interests. The Hellenic thinker identified three main forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy and polity. He regarded them as “correct”, i.e. generally in the interests of society. However, along with these forms, there are also “irregular” ones, the emergence of which is associated with the degeneration of the correct ones. Thus, Aristotle wrote, monarchy degenerates into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy, and polity into democracy (or ochlocracy, as Polybius later specified).
For Aristotle, various state structures are the result of politics, a violation of the only true goal of statehood, which should be strived for and which can be achieved. Therefore, no conservatism (including political) is characteristic of Aristotle’s political science.
In thinking about the content of the form of state organization, all the substantive innovations of Aristotle’s state-political philosophy were synthesized, which will further become premises for positing some very specific conditions for the organization of the only correct state:
distinguishing between the state union as such and the form of government or organization of power;
recognition of the differences in interests of managers and managed, to the point that they can represent completely different classes;
finally, recognition of the obligatory for state policy to follow the interests of the majority. Chanyshev A. N. Aristotle / Chanyshev A. N. - M., 1981. - P. 87.
In Rhetoric, the problem of classification interests Aristotle in connection with the extent to which certain forms deviate from the only correct one and thereby contribute to its death and a decrease in the possibilities of achieving the good for society.
"I'm talking about death known form government from the properties contained in it, because, with the exception of the best form of government, all others perish both from excessive weakening and from excessive tension - for example, democracy perishes not only with excessive weakening, when it eventually turns into an oligarchy , but also under excessive tension” (Rhetoric. I.4). Here, depending on the degree of participation of the population, i.e. everyone, majority or minority, in the exercise of power in the state there are four forms of government: democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy and monarchy.
“Democracy is a form of government where positions are filled by lot, oligarchy - where this is done in accordance with the property of citizens, aristocracy - where this is done in accordance with the education of citizens. By education I mean education here, statutory, because people who do not go beyond the limits of the law enjoy power in the aristocracy - they seem to be the best of citizens, which is where the form of government itself gets its name. Monarchy, as its name itself shows, is a form of government in which one rules over all. Of the monarchies, some are subordinates famous family order, in fact, constitute a monarchy, while others are perverted, representing tyranny.” (Rhetoric. I.8).
The criterion, however, is not the only one, and, in essence, five forms of government are distinguished here: in one respect, differing in the number of participants in power - democracy, rule of a few and rule of one, in another respect - in the content of government and the implied degree of compliance with a certain political standard: both the rule of a few and the rule of one can be within the framework of the legal order and outside it. Direct rule of the people was initially designated by Aristotle only as rule that is impeccable in the second respect. Thus, what is outlined here, even if not as a direct thesis, is the presence of a value that is superior to the quantitative organization of power. Closely related to this is the assessment of the political goal of each of these forms: for democracy it is freedom, for an oligarchy it is wealth, for an aristocracy it is education and legality, for tyranny it is protection (cf. Rhetoric 1.8).
In “Ethics”, and then in “Politics”, the classification of forms of government is more specific, built on both logical and political scientific criteria. Likewise, it is almost traditional for Greek political tradition, coming from Socrates and Plato: the difference in the number of rulers forms three categories of government, and the difference in the essence of government divides each into “correct” and “perverted” - six in total. In “Ethics,” the distinction is supplemented by a correlation with ethical virtues, in particular, with friendship as a connecting principle for society, family, etc. In “Politics” the classification is guided by the division into types depending on the observance of the good as the goal of the state union in general.
“There are three types of government and equal number perversions that represent, as it were, corruption of the former. These types of government are royalty, aristocracy, and the third, based on ranks, it is this type that seems to be appropriate for the name “timocracy,” but most are accustomed to calling it government (politeia). The best of them is royal power, the worst is timocracy. Perversion royal power- tyranny; being both monarchies, they are very different, since tyranny has in mind its own benefit, and the king - the benefit of his subjects...
Royal power turns into tyranny, because tyranny is a bad quality of unity of command and a bad king becomes a tyrant. Aristocracy - into an oligarchy because of the depravity of the elders, who share in the state contrary to dignity, and appropriate all or most of the benefits, and the posts of elders - to the same people, putting wealth above all... Timocracy - in democracy, because these types of state devices have common edge: timocracy also wants to be for large number people and with it everyone belonging to the same category is equal. Democracy is the least bad, because it slightly distorts the idea of government... This is basically how changes in government systems occur, because such transitions are the shortest and simplest” [similar transitions happen, Aristotle concludes, in families. - 0.0] (Ethics. VIII. 12.). So, the distinction did not remain only a historical-sociological observation or a basis simply for comparisons of state structures. In essence, it was connected with the problem of the strength and immutability of the state structure in general and with the construction of the only type of government useful for society. The previously important classification criterion for Plato in relation to the level of morality of society and the “spirit” has been completely abandoned. human souls. Fundamental, therefore, was the division of the noted types into correct and incorrect governments - i.e. becomes only political.
Correct devices of power useful for the good of the state include:
one-man rule with the common good in mind, i.e. monarchy;
group rule of the best, ruling in the name common good, i.e. aristocracy;
rule by the majority for the sake of the common good (the military class becomes the bearers of this majority) - timocracy, also known as polity.
On the contrary, perverted forms of statehood, when there is a desire for benefits only for the ruling stratum, include:
sole rule for the purposes of the ruler personally - tyranny;
group rule of owners in the name of their own benefits - oligarchy;
the collective power of the poor, subordinated to the idea of disastrous egalitarianism - democracy. Tsygankov A.P. Modern political regimes/ Tsygankov A.P. - M., 1995. - P. 79.
Aristotle considered oligarchy and democracy to be the most historically and geographically widespread types of government, as well as the most balanced and stable, and identified several subtypes in each. But their main property is that since all types of government systems are only deviations from one correct one, then, true to his political methodology of seeking balance everywhere and everywhere, Aristotle assumed that, therefore, closest approximation to political “truth” there will be a mixed type.
Here Aristotle returns to the stable error of political science throughout ancient thinking: as if there is only one correct state-political system of society and a single scheme for organizing the administration of power in society, serving its highest goals. Not to mention the fact that all reasoning proceeds from the idea of the obligatory nature of these higher goals - the history of societies and politics over the following centuries has been ironic about this. History of political and legal doctrines/ edited by V.S. Nersesyants. - M., 2006. - P. 78.
In all forms of government, the masses must feel themselves to be the bearers of supreme power. Where this is not actually the case, wise rulers must ensure that the “popular masses” have a complete illusion of possession “ supreme power" This, according to Aristotle, is an indispensable condition for the stability of any form of government. But it follows from this: the less power the demos actually has, the more care must be taken to ensure that the appearance of this power is maintained. And, therefore, the more it is necessary to manipulate public consciousness, creating and maintaining such an appearance. Davydov Yu. N. Archetype of social theory or sociology of politics // Polis. 1993. No. 4. - P. 103.
Aristotle's doctrine of pairs of opposites (“right” and “wrong” regimes) led to the comparison of tyranny not with democracy, as in Plato, but with monarchy. “Tyranny is a monarchical power that pursues the interests only of the one who exercises it” [Aristotle 1984; Aristotelis Politica 1973: 1279b 1-7], in other words, a perversion of monarchical power. According to Aristotle, if monarchy is the best political system, then tyranny is the worst, and “as the worst of the types of government, it is farthest from its very essence” [Aristotle 1984; Aristotelis Politica 1973: 1289b 2-5].
The mixture of these two best possible types forms the most desirable and praised by Aristotle state system - polity. Thus, again, in political thinking, the concept of an ideal state structure was clearly outlined.
So, Aristotle’s political philosophy expands the original idea of tyranny, considering the latter as a “perversion” of the political system that most closely corresponds to the nature of power (monarchy). Most thinkers of that era emphasized that in tyranny the political as such ceases to exist, and the state ceases to be a state (therefore “ commonplace” became the provision that it can be called a form of state only conditionally). The transformation of the best political regime into the worst (which turned out to be possible due to the fact that according to the formal criterion - “the power of one” - tyranny and monarchy coincide), i.e. the maximum, where the full potential of the political is revealed, to the minimum, where the political disappears, acting as a kind of prototype of all other transformations that ensure the circulation of political orders.
Aristotle also made interesting and, apparently, least appreciated remarks about transitional forms of government, the very stage of political transformation. As a proponent of a relatively equal distribution of political power, he sees the beginning of the transition, the “source of indignation” in the “lack of equality.” Moreover, equality, according to the thinker, can be of two types - “in quantity” and “in dignity”. Compliance with the first type of equality corresponds to democracy, compliance with the second - oligarchy or royal power. In the second case, there may be worthy, noble people, although few in quantity, but enough to maintain political stability. As soon as equality is violated, a transition situation arises, creating the preconditions for coups d'états or changes in forms of government. Accordingly, the dangers for democracy lie in the omnipotence of demagogues who neglect the interests of the nobility, and for the oligarchy they come either from excessive oppression of the masses or from the concentration of power “in the hands of even fewer people.” Aristotle analyzes in great detail the reasons for the fall and the threats that exist for the functioning of monarchical power.
Most important for the modern theory of political regimes are his comments on the stability of political power. Firstly, here the thinker clearly identifies the social and property foundations of political stability. The idea of a “middle class”, popular today, was first expressed in “Politics” and in connection with thoughts about moderation and stability. Secondly, Aristotle without hesitation connects his sympathies with mixed forms of government (polity and aristocracy), where the rights of various social strata and the quantitative majority of citizens are realized in one form or another. “The only sustainable state system is one in which equality is achieved in accordance with dignity and in which everyone enjoys what belongs to him.” Many of his observations bring to mind the subsequent argumentation of supporters of “democracy of the elites.” Thirdly, he actually anticipates the idea of legitimacy, but most importantly, he does not connect the stability of the regime (as is often done in modern political science) only with it: “The preservation of the state system is facilitated not only by the fact that it is far from any destructive principle, but sometimes and the very proximity of the latter, inspiring fear, encourages us to adhere more firmly to the existing political system.” Tsygankov A.P. Modern political regimes / Tsygankov A.P. - M., 1995. - P. 76.
Oligarchy(Greek ὀλιγαρχία(oligarchia), from other Greek ὀλίγον(oligon), “a little” and other Greek ἀρχή(arche), “power”) - a form of government in which power is concentrated in the hands of a narrow circle persons (oligarchs) and corresponds to their personal interests, and not to the common good.
Oligarchy in ancient politics
The term was originally used in Ancient Greece by the philosophers Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle used the term “oligarchy” to mean “the power of the rich,” contrasting oligarchy with aristocracy. Aristotle believed that there were three ideal forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy and polity and considered oligarchy a deviation from aristocracy:
In essence, tyranny is the same monarchical power, but having in mind the interests of one ruler; the oligarchy looks after the interests of the wealthy classes; democracy - the interests of the disadvantaged classes; None of these deviating forms of government have any general benefit in mind.
Aristotle considered democracy a lesser evil than oligarchy, due to the greater stability of the democratic government (ibid.):
Be that as it may, a democratic system is more secure and less likely to entail internal disturbances than an oligarchic system. In oligarchies lurk the seeds of two kinds of troubles: discord between the oligarchs and, in addition, their disagreements with the people; in democracies there is only one type of indignation - namely, indignation against the oligarchy; The people - and this should be emphasized - will not rebel against themselves.
Aristotle considered any oligarchy imperfect; thus, describing the state structure of Sparta with its “rotational” oligarchy of ephors that limited the power of the kings, he wrote:
Things are bad with euphoria. This power is in charge of the most important branches of government; it is replenished from among the entire civilian population, so that the government often includes very poor people who ... can easily be bribed.
However, Aristotle also rejected the widespread opinion in his time about the need for a property qualification when electing the most worthy - as happened in Carthage - because of the “purchase of power”:
In total, the Carthaginian state system deviates most from the aristocratic system towards oligarchy due to the following belief, shared by the majority: they believe that officials should be elected not only on the basis of noble birth, but also on the basis of wealth, because it is impossible for an unsecured person to govern well and have enough leisure for this. But if the election of officials on the basis of wealth is characteristic of the oligarchy, and on the basis of virtue - by the aristocracy, then we could therefore consider as a third the type of government system in the spirit of which the Carthaginians organized government regulations; after all, they elect officials, and the most important ones at that - kings and generals, taking into account precisely these two conditions. But such a deviation from the aristocratic system should be seen as a mistake of the legislator. ... Although it must be taken into account that wealth contributes to leisure, it is bad when the highest of positions, namely royal dignity and strategy, can be bought for money. ...
It is quite natural that those who buy power for money get used to making a profit from it, since, having received a position, they will spend money; It is incredible that a poor and decent person would want to benefit, but a worse person, having spent too much, would not want to do so.
A special form of oligarchy is plutocracy.
Examples of oligarchy
“The types of oligarchy are as follows. The first type is when property, not too large, but moderate, is in the hands of the majority; owners therefore have the opportunity to participate in public administration; and since the number of such people is large, the supreme power is inevitably in the hands not of people, but of the law. Indeed, to the extent that they are far from the monarchy - if their property is not so significant that they can enjoy leisure without worries, and not so insignificant that they need support from the state - they will inevitably demand, so that the law reigns among them, and not themselves. The second type of oligarchy: the number of people with property is less than the number of people in the first type of oligarchy, but the actual size of the property is larger; having greater power, these owners make more demands; therefore, they themselves elect from among the rest of the citizens those who are allowed to govern; but due to the fact that they are not yet strong enough to rule without law, they establish a law suitable for them. If the situation becomes more tense in the sense that the number of owners becomes smaller, and the property itself becomes larger, then the third type of oligarchy is obtained - all positions are concentrated in the hands of the owners, and the law commands that after their death their sons succeed them in positions. When their property grows to enormous proportions and they acquire a mass of supporters, then they get a DYNASTY, close to a MONARCHY, and then people become rulers, not the law - this is the fourth type of OLIGARCY, corresponding to the extreme type of DEMOCRACY.”
Oligarchy and monarchy
Modern definitions
In 1911, the prominent sociologist Robert Michels formulated the “iron law of oligarchy,” according to which democracy is in principle impossible in large communities, and any regime inevitably degenerates into an oligarchy (for example, the power of the nomenklatura). In the USSR, political economic literature designated “oligarchy” as a regime in which political power belongs to a narrow group of the richest individuals.
Russian oligarchs
In Russia, since the second half of the 1990s, the term “oligarch” began to be widely used to designate a narrow circle of politically influential entrepreneurs. They included the heads of the country's largest financial and industrial groups.
“In our country, oligarchs became those big businessmen who were eager for power, introduced their people to various government posts, created and supported corrupt practices of officials. Having become monstrously rich as a result of the predatory conditions of privatization, this group during Yeltsin’s presidency, merging with the state apparatus, occupied a special position in the country” (From the speech of the President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, Evgeny Primakov, at a meeting of the Mercury Club on January 14, 2008).
In the late 1990s, the term acquired character spoken word, usually with a strong negative connotation; The ironic term “seven bankers” also became widespread in the media as the name of a group of seven major representatives of the Russian financial business, who played a significant political and economic role, owned the media and, it is assumed, informally united, despite internal disagreements, in order to ensure the re-election of B. N. Yeltsin for another term in the 1996 presidential elections. This group included the following persons:
Roman Abramovich - Millhouse Capital (Sibneft)
Boris Berezovsky - LogoVaz
Mikhail Khodorkovsky - Rosprom Group (Menatep)
Pugachev, Sergey Viktorovich - International Industrial Bank
Mikhail Fridman - Alfa Group
Vladimir Gusinsky - Most Group
Vladimir Potanin - Oneximbank
Alexander Smolensky - SBS-Agro (Bank Stolichny)
Vladimir Vinogradov - Inkombank
American professor Marshall Goldman, author of the book Petrostate: Putin, Power, and the New Russia (2008), coined the term “silogarh” (from “silovik”), referring to the economic model of Putinism, where significant resources are controlled by people from the Soviet and Russian intelligence services .
At the end of February 2009, political scientist Dmitry Oreshkin said: “Oligarchic capitalism, nomenclature capitalism, if you like, is by definition ineffective. It is good when you have a huge flow of petroleum oil, which is produced by wells, and you need to divide it<…>Sooner or later, this mechanism, based on the division of ready-made resources, is exhausting itself - we need to come up with some new types of resources, create some new types of added value. And for this you need to not just chop off, divide pieces, which the security forces are very good at doing. and generate. And here comes the time when suddenly these, in general, intelligent, gifted, brave people, whom we call “oligarchs”, turn out to not fit into the rigid system environment: they are dying out like mammoths - the climate has changed and smaller mammals are needed that are better able to find food for themselves. And they begin to starve, roughly speaking, and very quickly.”
The American newspaper New York Times wrote on March 7, 2009 that Russian oligarchs could soon lose their huge fortunes: the global financial and economic crisis threatens to throw them into the dustbin of history
As it turned out in 2010. March: “The number of billionaires in Russia has almost doubled: 62 versus last year’s 32. The richest Russian, Vladimir Lisin, occupies 32nd place in the general table of ranks, his fortune is estimated at $15.8 billion. Of the notable Russians who are no longer billionaires , the most famous is Boris Berezovsky." According to Forbes.
Timocracy(ancient Greek τῑμοκρᾰτία, from τῑμή, “price, honor” and κράτος, “power, strength”) - a form of government in which state power is vested in a privileged minority with a high property qualification. It is a form of oligarchy.
The term "timocracy" is found in Plato (Republic, VIII, 545) and Aristotle (Ethics, VIII, XII). Also mentioned in the writings of Xenophon.
According to Plato, who outlined the ideas of Socrates, timocracy - the rule of ambitious people, usually belonging to the military class, is a negative form of government, along with oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. Timocracy according to Plato tends to transition into oligarchy as the ruling class accumulates wealth.
According to Aristotle, timocracy is a positive form of power that tends to transition into negative form- democracy, because these types of government have a common facet: timocracy also wants to be the power of a large number of people, and under it everyone belonging to the same category is equal.
An example of timocracy is considered to be the political system in Athens, established in the 6th century BC as a result of the reforms of Solon, and in Rome - after the reforms attributed to Servius Tullius.
Aristocracy(Greek ἀριστεύς “most noble, of noblest birth” and κράτος, “power, state, might”) - a form of government in which power belongs to the nobility (as opposed to the sole hereditary rule of a monarch, the sole elected rule of a tyrant or democracy). Features of this form of government can be seen in some city-states of antiquity (Ancient Rome, Sparta, etc.) and in some medieval republics of Europe. It is contrasted with early democracy, in which sovereign power is recognized as belonging to the entire population or majority of citizens. The basis of Aristocracy is the idea that the state should be governed only by selected, best minds. But in reality, the question of this election finds different solutions; in some Aristocracies the determining factor is nobility of origin, in others military valor, higher mental development, religious or moral superiority, and finally, also the size and type of property. However, in most aristocracies several of these factors, or all of them, are combined to determine the right to state power. In addition to the state form, the highest aristocratic classes are also called Aristocrats. Belonging to them can be determined by the birth and inheritance of certain properties (family aristocracy, to know in the narrow sense), or it is associated with the acquisition of special conditions that presuppose it (monetary and official aristocracy, noblesse financiere, noblesse de la robe), or, finally, achieved by election. The popular aristocracy of ancient Rome belonged to the latter family. The clan and landed aristocracy reached its full development in the feudal organization of the new European society that emerged in the wake of ancient civilization; in the fight against this medieval Aristocracy the principle grew and strengthened modern monarchy. The great French Revolution dealt a decisive, mortal blow to it, laying the foundation for the dominance of the monetary Aristocracy, which has now established its dominion in all European countries. The essence of the aristocratic principle was that dominance should belong to the best people and led to three important consequences. The first is that even in non-republican states, that is, in monarchies, aristocratic elements participate, if not directly in the possession of supreme power, then in its administration, and, moreover, virtually everywhere, and by virtue of state-legal powers in the so-called representative monarchies. The latter is carried out mainly in the form of upper chambers; but the lower houses, or houses of representatives, as well as any popular representation in general, in turn, also rest on the aristocratic principle. The second consequence is that the broadest democracy not only tolerates aristocratic elements, but in reality is nothing more than an expanded Aristocracy, so that both of them are relative concepts and represent only different degrees of development of the same state form of the same thing. the same beginning that defines it. Finally, the third consequence is that in all public unions formed within the state, political, social and even church, as well as in international unions states, the aristocratic principle appears everywhere. The term was introduced into use by ancient idealist philosophers (Plato, Aristotle).
Plato created a model ideal state- aristocracy.
The main features of the aristocracy according to Plato:
The basis is slave labor;
the state is ruled by “philosophers”;
the country is guarded by warriors and aristocrats;
below are the “artisans”;
the entire population is divided into 3 estates;
philosophers and warriors should not have private property;
there is no closed family.
The main difference between an aristocracy and an oligarchy is the aristocracy's concern for the good of the entire state, and not exclusively for the good of its own class, which is similar to the difference between monarchy and tyranny.
Ethnocracy(from the Greek εθνος - “ethnos” (people) and the Greek κράτος - domination, power) - a social system in which power belongs to an elite formed from representatives of the same nationality based on ethnicity.