Critique of Aristotle's Politics - Essay Example

In each of these types of governance, he gives the sound and the bad. According to Aristotle, the philosopher king is the ideal governance. In this form, the kings’ interest is in the welfare of his people (Tacitus & Benario 18). The highest form of governance is the monarchy. It is hereditary in nature, and people can associate freely with the royal family. In a monarchy, the interests of the nation take priority above all other matters. When the respectable leadership of a monarchy becomes rogue, Aristotle terms it as tyranny.

When leadership becomes self seeking the citizens of this state, suffers thus; cannot achieve happiness (Chuska 277). Aristotle considers aristocracy of philosophers to be the second best leadership. When this form of leadership gets crooked, it becomes oligarchy. Further, he views democracy as the worst form of leadership. In his opinion, the third best form of leadership is one whose polity would combine all the noble forms of leadership. According to Aristotle, a polity is a constitution.

Aristotle is of the opinion that, for a polity to be viable, it has to consider the stability and security of its people. The aristocracy as Aristotle puts it is the rule of several. When a virtuous rule of law prevails the society enjoys solidity. In this rule, the needs of the wealthy get priority while the rest of the population gets neglected. This brings about class division, and discrimination on the basis of riches. The elite in the society protect and guard their status making it difficult to join the elite group from low class people.

According to Aristotle, who was advocating for fairness, elitism in the society is wrong (Chuska 278). Polity is the rule of the majority. This is what Aristotle refers to as the rule of many. In the better form, it concerns with the needy. The leaders take office through an election. It is the citizens of the state who decide the person