In a best form of government, various thinkers have shared what they would have in their best form of government. In today’s modern world, governments have adopted elements of those thinkers’ government ideologies into their government.. Political thinkers Aristotle and Plato-Socrates each present two contrasting views on what they see is the best form of government and what they see fits best in their rule with a philosopher-king would governing and a polity, which is a mix between an oligarchy and democracy rule. Although Plato-Socrates’ make a powerful claim that philosophers should rule in their aristocracy form of government, Aristotle’s polity form of government would be suited as the better form of government because a polity would not run the risk of turning into a tyranny, the social classes would be prioritized, and because of a constitutional government would be more consistent than the rule of philosophers. In this paper, I will examine elements of Plato-Socrates’ and Aristotle’s best form of government while also presenting arguments as to why Aristotle’s polity is favorable over Plato-Socrates’ philosopher-king run city and looking at the argument from the perspective of both thinkers.
Plato-Socrates and Aristotle feature different aspects in their best form of government. In Plato’s The Republic, Socrates presents a city where just and virtuous philosophers would rule because they are intellectually just, they would not be tempted by greed or lust, and because they will be the est due to the fact that they are not ambitious to rule and are not lovers of rule (Republic. VII. 520d -521a). It is similar to an aristocracy but in this case, philosophers or kings that philosophize would be the ones that govern. Under this rule, all citizens would be put forth to be instructed to do what they excel and the citizens would be placed under three classes, which include guardians or the philosopher-kings, auxiliaries, and producers. In contrast, Aristotle advocates for three types of government in the Politics but states that a polity would be the best practical regime. Under a polity, it would function as a constitutional government with government offices and laws that would be heavily enforced where the interest of the citizen’s would be met and the rule of law would help to enforce justice so that the people would not be taken advantage of. In Aristotle’s practical polity, he would hold a strong emphasis on the government being a just one and one that is virtuous. In this mixed government of an oligarchy and democracy, the middle class would be the cornerstone since they are the middle of the means where as Aristotle puts it “ready to obey reason” (Politics IV.11.1295b 5-6).
One reason as to why Aristotle’s polity would be better suited than Plato-Socrates’ philosopher-led government is that due to the structure of rule, their government runs the risk of potentially developing into an oligarchy or a tyranny.. In a hypothetical situation where the philosopher-kings feeds into their desires of wealth and begin to take advantage of the power that they hold as leader, they could begin to implement characteristics of an oligarchy. As an oligarch, the leader would rule with a few others and their desires would revolve around wealth. This type of downfall would see the city go from being led by the best and virtuous leader to being led by self-centered oligarchy. The same could occur where the rule under philosopher-kings could turn into a tyrant that has unlimited power and force or if the philosopher-king’s successor would become a tyrant. The successor would contradict many of the previous leader’s actions and put their interests above. This deterioration from a philosopher-king to an oligarchy or tyranny could be dangerous to the city as “those which regard only the interest of the rulers are all defective and perverted forms” (Politics. III.6.1279 a.11).
In contrast, Aristotle’s polity would feature a government that would not share that flaw because the leader would be constrained from seeking more power due to the constitutional government that they are under. In this rule, a leader would not be able to take advantage of their power and turn the city into an oligarchy or tyrannical rule because of the constraints of the law. Unlike Plato-Socrates’ republic where philosophers or those that share characteristics of wisdom would be the only ones that would be allowed to rule and participate in government, a polity would allow for citizens to participate in government. A polity would be structured for the common interest rather than the interest of the ruler. Overall, a polity would not be vulnerable to become an extreme version of a democracy where the city could turn into a communist city or an extreme version of an oligarchy where it becomes an oppressed tyrannical city but rather just a mix of the two under a constitutional reign.
In addition, Aristotle’s best practical government with a polity accommodates for all three classes of wealth unlike with Plato-Socrates’ philosopher-king led rule. In the polity, a large middle class would be the foundation of the polity as it would be the cornerstone to balance the social classes since they would represent views from both the rich and poor where it would help accommodate for the excess of greed from the rich and excess of envy from the poor with the mixture of an oligarchic and democratic traits in the polity (Politics IV 1295a 4-11). If the rich held majority of power in a city-state, it would likely turn into an oligarchic rule whereas if the poor held power, it would turn into a communist or democratic rule where the priority would shift to an absolute plan for equality in wealth. In Plato-Socrates’ aristocratic philosopher-king rule, the interest of all social classes is not among their top concerns since the citizens would automatically be put into a role that suits them best, whether it could be as a ruler, soldiers, or ruler. He also believes that in a limitation to private property and he sees that this type of unity could create a just city although as Aristotle also acknowledges, this communistic-like rule can create conflict. Under this rule, there can be conflict over property and the citizens could feel oppressed. Although the goal is to form a city on the foundation of justice and wisdom, the citizens of the city would not be forced into a task unlike in a polity.
Furthermore, Aristotle’s polity government would also be favorable and better suited over Plato-Socrates philosopher-king led rule because a polity, constitutional government, would be more consistent and long-lasting than a philosopher-king rule. Under a polity, it incorporates elements of a democracy and oligarchy to form a mixed government for the best interest of the people, where could include “from oligarchy the mode of electing to offices, from democracy the disregard of qualification” (Politics IV. 1294b 4-5). The interest of the people would be prioritized over anything unlike with a Plato-Socrates’ philosopher-king rule where the those with those that display traits of virtue and wisdom would be the only ones that can qualify for the philosopher-king rule and they would have the final say in regards to what goes on in the city. In a polity, a few philosophers would not have the final say but rather a group of people that vary from all three social classes and the law would have the final say.
The three arguments as to why a polity is favorable and a better suited form of government over Plato-Socrates’ philosopher-king rule would come with a few potential objections from Plato-Socrates. If presented with the argument that a philosopher-king rule would run the risk of turning into an oligarchy or tyranny, Socrates would likely object that those that would be brought up to rule would lack the intent to rule and they would not be tempted by corrupt desires that could see a city turn to an extreme form of an oligarchy or tyranny. A philosopher’s desires would not be focused on wealth, power, and honor but rather on truth, wisdom, and justice for themselves and for the people that they are governing. The philosopher-king would have a better understanding of the world and their knowledge of the Forms would be the groundwork for forming just laws. In counter to that potential claim from Socrates, there is no guarantee that the citizens would agree to having a philosopher rule and if they do, the successor might not share the same ideology as the philosophers did. In Plato-Socrates’ ideal rule, where either philosopher’ would be kings or kings would be philosophers, all it would take is a few people to rise up into the ranks of a king and take complete advantage of the power. The successor could be unpredictable in their rule and find loopholes in their role as king to satisfy their own personal desires.
Moving on to the argument that all classes would be fairly prioritized in a polity, Socrates would likely counter that he is also concerned with all social classes and that a polity does not do that. Socrates could argue that under his rule, he will get the best out of the city due to everyone’s contributions and how it would lead to the greater good for all. In counter to that, citizens in Socrates’ philosopher-king rule would be judged based on their capabilities only. Under a polity, citizens would be all seen as equal and they will receive an opportunity to rule in law unlike in Socrates’ rule where unless one displays characteristics of a philosopher, they will not have a say in government or have a say in legislation. In the polity, equality within a city-state would promote stabilization among all classes.
In the final argument that states that a polity and its constitutional characteristics would be more consistent and long-lasting under rule of law than the rule of a philosopher-king, Socrates could object that there would be no need for a polity because a philosopher would have a good understanding of politics and the city that they rule. Socrates’ counter could feature a claim that philosophers have the traits of reason, wisdom, justice, and truth so they would know what is best for the city and they would also employ good employ to deal with foreign affairs. To counter that, rule under a philosopher-king could be influenced by emotions and there is no guarantee that they would stay away using the power that they have to satisfy their own desires. A philosopher-king would not be flawless as they will face unpredictable, grueling challenges during their rule. Although they would have impeccable knowledge and wisdom on philosophy, it would not necessarily translate to high levels of success when it comes to ruling for the common and being an expert on the best interests of the citizens. Also, a polity would enforce the importance of laws, where they are not based on emotions or desires but on a consistency of rules that govern a city. While there could be elected officials and a legislative body, a polity would feature laws that benefit the common interest, would be objective in all cases.
Overall, seeking an answer to the question of which of these two forms of government can be put into a larger context of seeking what is the best form of government or what is the best attainable for rule. While there is no universal and absolute best form of government that would work for every city-state and all modern countries, seeking an answer to this question could help in undercovering what is works and what does not in a form of government. Elements of Aristotle’s polity with a focusing on the middle class to balance out all social classes could be implemented into modern governments that have a large gap between the rich and poor. Alternatively, both Aristotle and Plato-Socrates support having a government that revolves around being just and that ideology can also be implemented into modern governments that have had issues with corruption.
In conclusion, Aristotle’s polity is favorable and a better form of government over Plato-Socrates philosopher-king led rule because a polity is not vulnerable to the threat of becoming an oligarchy or tyranny, all classes would be emphasized, and because it would be more consistent and long-lasting under rule of law. Aristotle’s polity benefits the common interest as it features elements of an oligarchy and a democracy while also looking to close the conflict gap between the rich and the poor by highlighting the importance of the middle class, a social class that does not share traits of greed like the rich or envy like the poor. For a polity under Aristotle, the focus would be a virtuous political government. With Plato-Socrates’ rule, the philosopher-king plan would struggle due to the unpredictable features that they have, such as with the question of what happens if the successor becomes a tyrant or oligarch. There are riveting flaws in Plato-Socrates’ philosopher-king rule while in comparison with Aristotle’s polity, the polity would be better suited as a favorable form of government.