Mahmud1

Mumtahina Mahmud Hist100 Section: 015 1. Aristotle praised Constitutional government because it benefitted both the rich and the poor by seeking a middle ground between aristocracy and democracy. In his book Politics, Aristotle supported constitutional government because the government could not exercise absolute power and was accountable to the citizens.1 Aristotle also mentioned that only in a constitutional government could everyone find common interests. Aristotle was opposed to offering power to the wealthy or to the poor. He portrayed a middle ground where one or a few ruled with shared interests of the state and its citizens. Aristotle believed that a state would fail miserably if it was governed by the poor or incapable because they have lack of knowledge and experience. Aristotle also believed that a rich leader might fail to secure the rights of the needy. Therefore, Aristotle proposed that a state was best worth living if it consisted of middle class people and was ruled by one or few. Aristotle found a virtue in moderation because it avoided extremity and thus was close to perfection. Aristotle understood that moderation in wealth, power and control was paramount to build a rational political and social system. Aristotles constitutional government guaranteed a moderation loving ruler who acted upon the common interests of the state and made sure that every citizen had moderate and sufficient property.2 Aristotle also believed that such government was less likely to cause any rebellion among the citizens and thus would be the safest for every state. Aristotle described that the greatest share of government needed to be divided among the citizens, who were to be governed by one or few moderate rulers.3 Aristotles logic behind having a

1 2

Aristotle, Politics, Primary Sources, 8 Aristotle 8 Aristotle 8

Mahmud2

constitutional government was to create a secure standard of living for the citizens because such government would not oppress the poor and favor the rich. Therefore, the government maintained a sound ruling system where every citizen had a share of political power. A moderate ruler would neither conspire against the property of the poor nor would he contrive to seize the wealth of the rich. Therefore, a moderately governed society would achieve both stability and consistency. Since men had no way but to live inside of a political society, a stable and secure political system was imperative to live a sound life. Aristotles theory of constitutional government not only ensured a stable government but also protected the citizens standard of living. Although Aristotle tried to show the Greeks a light of hope, it was obvious that the struggle for power would still persist among the Greek city states and having a ruler with wisdom and expertise would become indispensable for the states to survive. 2. Plato argued that a state should be governed by the philosophers because they surpassed everyone in wisdom and expertise. According to Plato, philosophers were the best because they could understand the unalterable reality. Philosophers had better understanding of the world because they were able to see beyond the limited view of the world. Plato believed that only philosophers could best enforce the laws of state because they were more truthful, honest, and knowledgeable than anyone else. Plato furthered his argument by remarking that philosophers were the best thinkers and possessed more wisdom than anyone else. Wisdom would lead to truthfulness and a truthful ruler would be loyal to his citizens.4 Philosophers, according to Plato, were the true explorers of knowledge. Therefore, a truly knowledgeable man would be so immersed in acquiring knowledge that he would have very little time and chance to answer the call of his lustful desires. Plato concluded that a ruler, who could control his desires and temperament, could easily regulate

Plato, The Republic, Primary Sources, 4

Mahmud3

the adversities of a state. Philosophers, according to Plato, were beyond the time constraint, which means that certain time and period could rarely affect them. Philosophers were not scared of death and a ruler, who did not fear death, would put his life before the enemy to save his people. Finally, Plato adeptly assumed that a ruler must possess a sense of balance to comprehend the true nature of anything and everything.5 However, interestingly, Aristotle had some views which never resonated with his mentor Platos views. Aristotle believed in sharing the authority among one or few common rulers, whereas Plato believed in offering the power to the wisest among everyone. Aristotle was a materialist and Plato was an idealist. Plato would have rebuked Aristotles theories by arguing that materialism was not the answer to everything. Intellectual concepts, such as eternity, cannot be achieved through material things. A State led by a moderation loving ruler, with little knowledge about eternal things, would fail to control any unexpected chaos in the state. Plato believed that a philosopher could see through matters more deeply than anyone else and thus they had the power to overcome any difficulties a state could possible face. According to Plato, the best ruler must have the best wisdom, control and expertise and only a philosopher could possibly possess all those qualities. While Platos ideologies about intellect were very optimistic, Aristotles ideologies seemed more practical according to todays political spectrum. Aristotles theory guaranteed a standard and moderate life for the citizens, a balance of power among the rulers and the ruled, a moderation loving ruler and an array of opportunities for the people to participate in politics. On the other hand, Platos theory focused more on the ruler and people had very little role to play in politics. Rationally, it seemed that Platos astute ruler might have ended up as an extreme monarch rather

Plato 6

Mahmud4

than an idealist. Platos ruling body could easily cause uprising because it was peoples natural right to get involved in politics. 3. John Lockes Second Treatise of Government placed political sovereignty into the hands of the people. Locke argued that a law of nature governed everyone in a state of nature by providing equal natural rights.6 According to Locke, not only did a law of nature assure ones freedom to choose a way of life but also it perfected ones behavior. Law of nature forbade people to violate others rights but if that happened, a person had full authority to reprimand the lawbreaker even if the law went against the government itself. Basically, Locke presented a civil society where the people submitted their natural liberties to the common laws of the society and in return, they obtained the protection from the government. However, Lockes main purpose was to extinguish the existence of absolutism so that nobody was compelled to lose their right of sovereignty. Locke criticized absolute power and believed that governments duty was to protect peoples rights. If the governing bodies violated peoples natural rights, they failed to effectively represent the state. However, government could control peoples behavior to make sure that their way of conduct obeyed certain moral standards. Locke realized if the government acquired ultimate power, it might tend toward corruption and violate natural human rights. Therefore, Locke placed limits in the behaviors of both the ruler and the ruled so that state preserved peoples rights but people could not take unfair advantage of them. Locke believed that every person was sovereign because they had power over one another. However, they did not dominate each other. Instead, they were dependent upon each other and preserved each others rights. Locke and Aristotle both shunned the idea of absolute power because they felt it might create chaos among people. Locke and Aristotle both believed that men naturally lived inside of a
6

John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Primary Sources, 27

Mahmud5

political spectrum in order to fulfill basic human needs. However, they had different ideas about governing state. Locke emphasized that state could attain stability and harmony only through a law of nature with which God has created every man, whereas Aristotle believed that a moderation loving ruler, having common interests of the state and administered by the citizens, was more likely to achieve perfection in governing the country. Locke and Aristotle both seemed to support the roots of democracy where the center of the theory was to ensure that all the citizens got their freedom to participate in politics and maintained a serene standard of living.

Works cited

Mahmud6

1. Lynn Hunt et al., The Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures : A Concise History. Third ed. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2010. 89-91. 2. Aristotle, Politics, Primary Sources, 7-8. 3. Plato, The Republic, Primary Sources, 3-6 4. John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Primary Sources, 27-28