Politics   

nature of each of them. For he who would make a philosophical study of
the various sciences, and does not regard practice only, ought not to
overlook or omit anything, but to set forth the truth in every
particular. Tyranny, as I was saying, is monarchy exercising the rule
of a master over the political society; oligarchy is when men of
property have the government in their hands; democracy, the opposite,
when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers. And
here arises the first of our difficulties, and it relates to the
distinction drawn. For democracy is said to be the government of the
many. But what if the many are men of property and have the power in
their hands? In like manner oligarchy is said to be the government of
the few; but what if the poor are fewer than the rich, and have the
power in their hands because they are stronger? In these cases the
distinction which we have drawn between these different forms of
government would no longer hold good.
Suppose, once more, that we add wealth to the few and poverty to the
many, and name the governments accordingly- an oligarchy is said to be
that in which the few and the wealthy, and a democracy that in which
the many and the poor are the rulers- there will still be a
difficulty. For, if the only forms of government are the ones already
mentioned, how shall we describe those other governments also just
mentioned by us, in which the rich are the more numerous and the poor
are the fewer, and both govern in their respective states?
The argument seems to show that, whether in oligarchies or in
democracies, the number of the governing body, whether the greater
number, as in a democracy, or the smaller number, as in an oligarchy,
is an accident due to the fact that the rich everywhere are few, and
the poor numerous. But if so, there is a misapprehension of the causes
of the difference between them. For the real difference between
democracy and oligarchy is poverty and wealth. Wherever men rule by
reason of their wealth, whether they be few or many, that is an
oligarchy, and where the poor rule, that is a democracy. But as a fact
the rich are few and the poor many; for few are well-to-do, whereas
freedom is enjoyed by an, and wealth and freedom are the grounds on
which the oligarchical and democratical parties respectively claim
power in the state.
Part IX
Let us begin by considering the common definitions of oligarchy and
democracy, and what is justice oligarchical and democratical. For all
men cling to justice of some kind, but their conceptions are imperfect
and they do not express the whole idea. For example, justice is
thought by them to be, and is, equality, not. however, for however,
for but only for equals. And inequality is thought to be, and is,
justice; neither is this for all, but only for unequals. When the
persons are omitted, then men judge erroneously. The reason is that
they are passing judgment on themselves, and most people are bad
judges in their own case. And whereas justice implies a relation to
persons as well as to things, and a just distribution, as I have
already said in the Ethics, implies the same ratio between the persons
and between the things, they agree about the equality of the things,
but dispute about the equality of the persons, chiefly for the reason
which I have just given- because they are bad judges in their own
affairs; and secondly, because both the parties to the argument are
speaking of a limited and partial justice, but imagine themselves to
be speaking of absolute justice. For the one party, if they are
unequal in one respect, for example wealth, consider themselves to be
unequal in all; and the other party, if they are equal in one respect,
for example free birth, consider themselves to be equal in all. But
they leave out the capital point. For if men met and associated out of
regard to wealth only, their share in the state would be proportioned
to their property, and the oligarchical doctrine would then seem to
carry the day. It would not be just that he who paid one mina should
have the same share of a hundred minae, whether of the principal or of
the profits, as he who paid the remaining ninety-nine. But a state