The document discusses Aristotle's classification of states, distinguishing between good forms such as monarchy, aristocracy, and polity, and bad forms such as tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. It outlines the cyclical progression of political systems, where states shift from one form to another based on the character of rulers and the influence of wealth. The text also critiques Aristotle's classification as being unscientific and inadequate for modern governance structures while highlighting its foundational influence on political theory.

1. By
Mohammad Zameer Musazai

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.

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

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,
just as an oligarchy is the rule of the few rich, who are selfish.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 depends upon the number
of persons who are inspired with political consciousness and therefore
participate in its organization and government.

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.

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
1. It 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
2. 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
3. This classification fails to take account of the difference between a federal and a
unitary form of government
4. It also fails to distinguish the parliamentary from the presidential form of
government
 Aristotle’s classification is inadequate for modern states.

14. Democratic
Limited/constitution
monarchy
• Unitary
• federal
Republic
• Presidential
• Parliamentary
• Ruling own
wishes
without any
legal rule
• Rule of one party
in a country
without
opposition party
• Rule of
religious
people
• Kingship,
without
party
Monarch
y
Theocrac
y
Dictators
hip
One
party rule
Non-democratic

16. you