Classification of states or government

The classification of states or government by ancient Greek Aristotle and modern classification by modern writers and own views

1. By Mohammad Zameer Musazai Classification of States or Government

2. According to Aristotle, A state is an association which exists for the good of its members. If its power is exercised for the good of the people, the ruled, the State is of a normal or good form. But if it is exercised for the benefit of the rulers, it is then a bad or perverted State. When monarchy becomes perverted, it becomes a tyranny, and when a polity is bad, it is what Aristotle calls a democracy, which may be translated as a mob-ruler or Mobocracy . S tate

3. Types of classification

4. Classification By Aristotle

5. Numbers of rulers One Few Many Good Monarchy Aristocracy Polity Bad Tyranny Oligarchy Democracy Classification

6. Monarchy : A government by a king who rules for the good of the whole community. Tyranny: A perverted form of monarchy in which the one ruler uses his supreme authority for his own selfish ends or benefits. Aristocracy: The rule of the few good rulers who exercise supreme authority for the well-being of the people. Oligarchy: The selfish government of the few rich men in their own interests. Polity: A good form of the rule of the many for the good of all. Democracy: Aristotle says: The rule of the poor who are many but lawless, j ust as an oligarchy is the rule of the few rich, who are selfish. Shortly Defines

7. It contains that how one form changes into another. First of all, there is a monarchy or kingship, the rule of a good king. In course of time, the kings become bad and oppressive tyrants. But the tyranny does not last long, for the people overthrow it under the leadership of a few good men, who establish an aristocracy. When the character and aims of the few rulers degenerate aristocracy becomes oligarchy. Then the citizens establish a constitutional rule of the many, which Aristotle called Polity. Thus polity degenerates into democracy, the rule of the mob, but this lawlessness and confusion too cannot last long, sooner or later, one strongman, e.g. a successful military leader assumes supreme power and once again re-establishes monarchy or the rule of one. Thus the cycle of change or progression come. A ristotelian Cycle of Political Change

8. Aristotle’s cycle of change is illustrated by the history of ancient States of his times, especially the Greek city-states, they were originally monarchies, which degenerated into tyrannies. When they degenerated into oligarchies, the citizens overthrow them and established polity or constitutional rule, as illustrated by the city-state of Athens. History of Rome also illustrated this cycle. Modern history also illustrates this cycle of political changes to some extent. For example: France was ruled by kings whose government became perverted under Louis. The revolution of 1789 overthrow French monarchy and established an aristocracy which lasted only two years and became a democratic State under the directory. Then change to monarchy. At last, the French monarchy was overthrown by the constitutional Republic. History has nowhere followed the exact pattern of succession or progression, as laid down by Aristotle. H istorical illustrations

9. Aristotle classification of states has some merits. In the first place, it is so precise and exact that it has fascinated and attracted the attention of political writers down to the present day. Secondly, he classified the states not only on the basis of their government structure but also on that of their ethical or moral spirit. He clearly showed that a good or normal state is one which is governed by good rulers. Thirdly, he analyzed the causes of political change and revolution. He found two causes, the deterioration of the character of the rulers and the influence of wealth. He was the first great political writer who showed that politics is conditioned by economics or that wealth influences the political structure of the state to a great extent. He illustrated his theory of political change or cyclic progression by the history of his times. M erits

10. In this connection the following objections have been taken to it: Aristotelian classification is unscientific and merely quantitative Aristotle’s classification confuses the state with government It does not apply to many kinds of modern governments. D efects

11. It is urged that Aristotle’s classification is unscientific and artificial because it is based not on organic and qualitative distinctions between various forms of the state but merely on numerical and quantitative differences. The distinction between monarchy, aristocracy and democracy or polity is really qualitative and organic because it indicates the spread of political consciousness among the people Aristotle believed that knowledge is the basis of the state and knowledge means the consciousness of the ethical end for which the state exists A monarchy is qualitatively different from an aristocracy as well as from a polity or democracy Burgess said: the distinctive character of a state dep ends upon the number of persons who are inspired with political consciousness and therefore participate in its organization and government. A ristotelian classification is unscientific and merely quantitative

12. Garner said: Aristotle did not keep in mind the difference between the state and government and he did not classify state, but governments A classification of governments it is unsound and unscientific because it is not based on their fundamental characteristics The Greek did not know the difference between the state and the government. A ristotle's classification cofuses t he state with government

13. Seeley and Leacock have objected that his classification does not embrace several kinds of modern states and governments Dr. Leacock raised four objections against his classification I t does not provide any place for constitutional or limited monarchies like that of England. Modern constitution is a mixed constitution which combines the features of a monarchy and a democracy Aristotle’s polity or democracy and monarchy open the way to great confusion like the England and USA both of them are democracies, but they will be put in different categories, for England is a monarchy, while the USA is a republic This classification fails to take account of the difference between a federal and a unitary form of government It also fails to distinguish the parliamentary from the presidential form of government Aristotle’s classification is inadequate for modern states. I t does not apply to many kinds of modern governments

14. Democratic Modern classification Non-democratic

15. Diagram

16. you T hank