The Best Form of Constitution: the Platonic and Aristotelian Discourses - Essay Example

The Best Form of Constitution: The Platonic and Aristotelian Dis s Introduction Political philosophy can never be separated from its background or setting in history; and many of the grand theories of political intellectuals encompass something of the essence of political guides aimed at the state of affairs of their period. Plato and Aristotle reflect this inclination powerfully, for they had an idea of political science as a pragmatic and curative discipline. More than ever is it evident in Plato, who possessed more of the essence of an advocate and an oracle than Aristotle, and was hence encouraged to engage himself more in real situations and propensities. However, in exploring the ideas of both, it is important to consider at all times, not just the broad nature of the city-state of which they address, but as well as the unusual hardships and lures which it had to confront; nor should we disregard, that although they are talking about city-states and their lures, they have constantly remembered the States, whose antagonistic relationship had misled Greece in the Peloponnesian War (Barker 16), and whose conflicting characters and objectives quite clearly defied comparison and focus. This paper discusses Plato’s and Aristotle’s idea of the best form of constitution. The Best Constitution The philosophy of Plato and Aristotle is of Greece, and for Greece. From the city-state philosophy’s theory jumped to a world-state’s theory: from world-state theory it has returned in the contemporary period to that of the theory of a nation-state. But through all its changes it has maintained an essential harmony (Barker 16). Although Greek philosophy is ‘a philosophy of the Greek and for the Greek, yet the Greek was a man, and his city was a State’ (17); and Greek theory is, naturally, a theory of the State and humanity, a theory which is truthful all the time. The environment may be outdated: the rock itself stays unchanged. Therefore, we do not engage in the analysis of the city-state philosophy, as in a historical issue: we engage in the analysis of something, wherein we live and act. The city-state was distinct from the nation-state; yet it was merely distinct due to the fact that it was a stronger and more crucial type of the same thing (17). Plato and Aristotle both identified what they believed as the best government or constitution. Nevertheless, the philosophy of Aristotle is the more rational one for he went beyond the limit. Although Aristotle had the same opinion with Plato about the best constitution, he studied the world pragmatically, and hence identified the most sensible and ideal constitution. Because his worldview was systematic and empirical, he observed the best and the realistic. The aspect that disconnected him from Plato, his teacher, and named him ‘the Philosopher’ was his aspiration to make sense of the theoretical study of the objective and goal of being a human. Aristotle’s longing to make sense of human beings, as political animals, gives more strength and influence in his political theory. In contrast, Plato used a great deal of his time describing intangible theories and values, which although significant and applicable to philosophy and politics, do not possess the ultimate link between reality and utopian principles. In due course, the only best form of constitution or government is one that can be adopted and maintained in the actual world. The government’s purpose is to build strength, peace, and order in society. A constitution is a sum or control of the powers given to the government. If at all possible, the constitution most favorable for stability and security as identified by Aristotle and Plato is that of a ‘philosopher king.’ This rule would not hunt power greedily and selfishly, but would instead aim to exercise these powers to build security and stability. Being a benevolent despot, the philosopher king would exercise absolute power over his subjects to protect them and maintain stability throughout his territory. Drawing upon dialectic, reason, and judgment, the philosopher king would apply the knowledge he has to governance. Yet, there is a dilemma; supposing that a philosopher king exists, then he is human; but what about his heir? Regardless of the nature of succession, whether by appointment or inherited, this major limitation does not give much room for flaw (Horn 29). Due to the power’s character, if any person were to assume authority and misuse it, he would be despot, who although the same with the philosopher king, as stated in book IX of Plato’s Republic, enables their cravings to subjugate their reason and govern their spirits, hence allowing their souls to become inferior to their bodily wants, obsessions, and caprices. William Pitt Sr. proclaimed in an address to the English House of Lords that “unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it; and this I know, my Lords, that where laws end, tyranny begins” (Horn 14). From the statement of Aristotle and Plato about the philosopher king, it seems that they do possess absolute and boundless power and influence. It would be great to imagine that there is a person who could refuse the temptation of exploiting this absolute power and exercise it for the wellbeing and interest of the public. In other words, although the rule of philosopher kings can be an excellent option, it is not feasible or sustainable in the long run for the progress of a civilization. Quite simply and effortlessly can a person with unlimited power be demoralized and led toward the gratification of his personal desires at the expense of prosperity, stability, and justice, making his people slaves, victims, and oppressed classes. Aristotle, identifying the likelihood of a philosopher king being dishonest and crooked in history and via his analysis of the array of constitutions he had seen, formed a government that would be stronger and more workable: a mixed government, or a Polity. Aristotle perceived constitution in a ladder where there were perfect constitutions and their average counterparts. For instance, the best constitution argued would be one ruled by a philosopher king, but its complement would be a despot. The second one would be an upper class of philosophers, but its complement would be plutocracies or oligarchies (Barker 88). A bad form of constitution Plato and Aristotle stated is democracy, but the latter exerts additional efforts by asserting that a Polity which possessed the features of all the forms of constitution identified would be one of the best. These forms of constitution can be summed up into three fundamental groups of the ‘one’, ‘the few’, and ‘the many’ (88). When these groups compete for power and influence, this thwarts a particular group from acquiring absolute power and furnishes society the security and stability required. The Roman Republic, before the emergence of the Roman Empire, stood for more than four centuries. It survived for that long because the constitution of the Roman Republic was a constitution of laws, not men. The sole cause of the disintegration of the constitution was because power was consolidated to the level that a despot was given the opportunity to assume power (Horn 16). Another case in point is power balancing in the United Kingdom. This nation developed a political structure with a traditional Monarch, a House of Commons and a House of Lords, hence setting power equilibrium between the three forms of constitution. However, the finest case of a genuine representative constitution of the masses is the original American constitution. Although not as broadly utilized as the system of the British Parliament, it adopted all the features of power separation and equalized them excellently. The lower house, or the House of Representatives, is chosen by the people, the upper house, or the Senate is chosen by the legislatures, and the President is chosen thru a delegation (Horn 16). The greatest part is that because the terms of office are not for life, but defined and restricted, then bloodshed for change and power to happen becomes unnecessary. Moreover, with the three constitutions equalizing each other, this produces the security and stability required by a society to operate, survive, and prosper. Conclusions The lack of openness in The Republic and Politics usually means that a legalistic idea of constitution and government revive a kind of understanding that engages in the consistent need for the concept of constitution and government to be reinterpreted. In the ultimate analysis, the best constitution supposes the fundamental nature of the concept without actually probing into it: Plato’s and Aristotle’s idea of the best constitution replaces the subject that exposes an individual to the issue. Finally, after all the theoretical deliberations and philosophical discourses, the best form of constitution is one that is rooted in a pragmatic view of the world, or, as argued by Aristotle, the most workable for building the security and stability required to enable society to survive and prosper. The person who possesses the power and influence decides the fate of a civilization, which is genuinely alarming regardless who the individual is. Nevertheless, when the group is more preoccupied with rivalry for power, it permits the public to carry on with their everyday existence and permits the philosopher to deliberate and rule in the general sense that any society requires so as to survive and prosper. And hence the fight continues. In the end the victors of this grand competition for power are not Aristotle and Plato. Not the various units of government or constitution or organizations, but instead the citizenry. Works Cited Aristotle. Politics. Trans. C.D.C. Reeves. Hackett Publishing Co., 1998. Print. Barker, E. The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle. New York: Dover, 1959. Print. Horn, Tim. Ruling the Elite: Moving Power from the Parties to the People. New York: NonPartisan Americans, LLC, 2011. Print. Plato. Republic. Trans. C.D.C. Reeves. Hackett Publishing Co., 2004. Print. Read More