Critique of Aristotle's Politics - Essay Example

Other types include tyranny, oligarchy and democracy, which are considered bad ones. It has been argued that there are a number of advantages and disadvantages that come with the type of government in practice. This affects the level of benefits of the people as well as the level of peace in a government. Benefits and disadvantages are associated with the types of government that Aristotle discusses in his classification of empires. This paper provides a discussion of those pros and cons. It also provides the argument whether these forms of rule would be suitable for the administration of the Roman Empire.

Discussion One of the first political structures Aristotle refers to is a monarchy. He distinguishes a monarchy noting that, “The rule of a household is a monarchy, for every house is under one head: whereas constitutional rule is a government of freemen and equals” (Aristotle 279). Aristotle goes on to indicate that the major pros of a political monarchy are that the head of state is separated from the head of government. It has also been noted that there exists a great relationship between the leader and the people if the leader is a monarch.

This is because people see the Royal Family as a family they can relate to. Indeed, at one point Aristotle even compares a monarchy to a family, with the head of the household constituting the King or Queen. The other pro is that this form of leadership ensures the interest of the nation is placed first in preference to other considerations. It is also a form of government that represents centuries of history and tradition. It is considered a tourist attraction due to its archaic nature, and tourists usually come to see the working palaces.

This type of empire would have been successful in the Roman Empire during the reign of Diocletian which started in 284 CE. Since the monarch divided the empire into two, it would have ensured loyalty to the monarch from the eastern and the western empires. This would ensure cases of disagreements and rebellion against the monarch are prevented. Aristocracy, on the other hand, is a form of rule which ensures the best rulers. There are certain pros associated with this form of rule. The main one is that it ensures the best people who can rule the country are given the authority to do so if the present leadership is hereditary.

This ensures the country is ruled by the right people in the right direction. This form of rule would have been successful in the Roman Empire. In these regards, one considers that Aristotle extols the virtues of the aristocracy as being effective with many strongholds (Aristotle). The Roman Empire had various problems from attacks from the Vandals in 455 CE. This led to the removal of the Roman Emperor, Romulus Augustus from power by the Odovacar, a paid mercenary of the Romans as well as the leader of the Goths.

This is what resulted in the end of the Roman Empire. The selection of the right leader would ensure he puts the right defensive measures to ensure the people are protected and the multitude of strongholds would have constituted an effective defensive measure. This would have contributed to the continued existence of the Roman Empire. Tyranny can also be considered to have certain pros with respect to the Roman Empire. This is because only a tyrant is allowed to act in a manner that he wants without considering ethics.

It allows the society to run free by assuming control irrespective to the nature of the control. Aristotle notes,