Revolution by Aristotle_2

Aristotle’s study of the revolutions, their causes and the ways of their prevention, indicates his marked advancement altogether beyond his teacher who, though willing to sketch a sub-ideal constitution in the Laws, had never moved to the extent of making an earnest attempt to study the therapeutics of the actual and imperfect states. Contradistinction from this, Aristotle now “finally allows Political Science to abandon its ethical connection and permits his respect for things as they are to lead him to study perversion themselves with a view to their preservation.” Book V of the Politics opens with these words of his essential purpose: “Under this head we have to consider the general causes which produce changes in constitutions and to examine their number and nature. We have also to consider the particular way in which each constitution is liable to degenerate, i.e., to explain from what a constitution is liable to change to what. In addition, we have to suggest the policies likely to ensure the stability of constitutions, collectively and individually, and to indicate the means which may best be employed to secure each particular constitution.”

Aristotle uses the term ‘sedition’ for revolution in a very comprehensive sense so much so that even the word ‘destruction’ becomes analogous to what really amounts to a change in the constitutions of the state. Thus, there is a revolution if an attempt to bring about a different kind of government in place of an established political system takes place, Again, there is a revolution when the seditious party comes into power no matter the status quo remains undisturbed. Still again, there may occur a revolution in event of the excess or scarcity of a certain political system. That is, a particular system is made more or less rigid or loose as compared to its past form. 

Finally, there is a revolution in case there is an agitation against a particular class or a section of the community, no matter its aim is concentrate on bringing about a stable change in the form of government or not.”

But the most powerful cause of revolution is inequality. Here Aristotle’s concept of inequality must be understood in terms of the relative political and economic status of the individuals, or in terms of what he calls ‘equality proportionate to desert’. Accordingly, a condition of inequality is created by a situation in which (a) groups that occupy a privileged political status do not enjoy corresponding economic status, or (b) groups that have decisive economic advantages are deprived of corresponding political privileges. The result of this incongruity is a dominant consciousness of the equality, for which a remedy is sought in revolution. According to him, therefore, inequality between different strata of society is not a cause of revolutions; only inequality in the sense of an incongruity of the respective political and economic status with special classes if a factor which promotes political disorders. In its essential features, this all “may be reduced to the proposition that whenever political and economic power are separate, a revolution is likely to occur.’

It signifies that there are varying degrees of a revolution. 

1. Sometimes, it is directed against existing constitution to change its nature-to turn democracy into oligarchy, or oligarchy into democracy; or again to turn democracy and oligarchy into polity and aristocracy, or conversely the latter into the former.
2. Sometimes, however, it is not directed against the existing constitution. The seditious party may follow a more moderate line in one of the three directions:

• It may decide to maintain the system of government as oligarchy, for example or a monarchy as it stands; but also desire to get the administration into the hands of its members.
• A seditious party (while leaving a constitution generally intact) may wish to make it more pronounced or more moderate. It may desire, for example, to make an oligarchy more or less oligarchical. It may wish to make a democracy more or less democratic. It may, similarly, seek to tighten or loosen the string in any of the other forms.
• A seditious party may direct its efforts towards changing a constitution or only some part of the same. It may wish for example, to erect or abolish some particular magistracy.

The causes of a revolution, as discussed by Aristotle, are of three kinds------- general, particular and particular ones applicable to particular forms of stakes.

First of all, we take up the study of the general causes of a sedition which is inequality. It is the passion for equality which is at the root of sedition. Some take the plea that if men are equal in one respect, they may consider themselves equal in all: others adopt the line that if they are superior in one respect, they may claim superiority all round. Acting on such opinions, the democrats proceed to claim an equal share in everything on the ground of their  equality, the oligarchs proceed to press for more on the ground that they are unequal, that is to say more than equal. Yet it must be admitted that democracy is a form of government which is safer and less vexed by sedition than oligarchy. 

Oligarchies are prone to two sorts of sedition- the one within the ranks of the oligarchical party itself and the others between the party and the party of the people. Thus, Aristotle says: “In oligarchies, the ground which the masses take in justification of sedition is that they are unjustly equal. In democracies the ground taken by the notables is the injustice of their having only equal rights although they are actually superior.”

While dealing with the particular causes of a revolution, Aristotle investigates three factors

1. The state of mind,
2. Objects at stake,
3. The occasions that serve to start political disturbance and mutual dissension.

First of  all, he takes up the psychological motive or the state of mind. There are some who stir up sedition as their minds are filled with a passion for equality which arises from their thinking that they have the worst of a bargain in spite of being the equals of those who have got the advantage. There are others who do it because their minds are filled with a passion for inequality (i.e. superiority), which arises from their conviction that they have no advantage over others, though they are really more equal than others. Thus, the inferiors become revolutionaries in order to be equals and equals do the same in order to be superiors.

Then, the objects that are at stake are profit and honor. They have also their opposites as loss and disgrace, for the authors of political sedition may be simply seeking to avert some disgrace, or a fine, from themselves or their friends.

However, the most important part is played by the third factor of occasions which may be thus counted:

1. The occasion of profit and honor (given above) should be considered therein also.
2. Another occasion is insolence. When those who are in office show insolence and seek their personal advantage, the citizens turn seditious; they not only attack the person but also the constitution which entrusts power to such persons. 
3. Another occasion is honor. Men turn seditious when they suffer dishonor themselves and see others being honored.
4. Then, there is the occasion of the presence of some form of superiority. It becomes an occasion for sedition when a person or a body of persons is in a position of strength which is too great for the state and more than a match for the strength of the general body of citizens.
5. Fear is an occasion which leads to sedition among two classes of persons-wrong-doers who are afraid of punishment and persons expecting to suffer wrong who are anxious to anticipate what they expect.
6. Another occasion is contempt. We can see in oligarchies that those who are not in enjoyment of political rights are more numerous and consequently think themselves stronger: we can also see it in democracies when the wealthy despise the disorder and anarchy which they find prevalent.
7. The disproportionate increase of a part of the state affords an occasion which leads to constitutional changes. The analogy of the body is instructive. The body is composed of parts and it must grow proportionately if symmetry is to be maintained.
8. Another occasion is provided by the effects of election intrigues which may lead to constitutional changes even without causing actual sedition.
9. Then, willful negligence may afford an occasion and persons who are not loyal to the constitution may be allowed to find their way into the high offices.
10. Another occasion is the neglect of trifling changes. A great change of whole system of institutions may come about unperceived if small changes are overlooked.
11. Then, there is the occasion of the dissimilarity of elements in the composition of a state. Heterogeneity of stocks may lead to sedition at any rate until they have had time to assimilate. Aastate cannot be constituted from any chance body of persons, or in any chance period of time. Most of the states which have admitted persons of another stock either at the time of their foundation or later have been troubled by sedition.
12. Heterogeneity of territory also causes an occasion for sedition. This happens in states with a territory not naturally adapted to political unity.
13. Constitutions may also be changed in the direction of oligarchy or democracy or polity as a result of the imbalanced growth of reputation or power of one of the magistracies or some other part of the state. Any person or body which adds new power to the state—an individual, a board of magistrate, a tribe, or generally any section or group, whatever it may be—will tend to produce sedition and the sedition will either be started by person who envy the honors of those who have won success or be due to their refusal of the latter to remain on a footing of equality when they feel themselves superior.
14. Revolutions also occur when some section of the state which are usually regarded as antagonists, for example, the rich and the common people are evenly balanced with little or nothing of a middle class to turn the scale, for, where either side has a clear preponderance, the other will be unwilling to risk a struggle with the side which obviously the stronger.
15. Last, sedition may be caused by force and fraud. Force and fraud may be used initially or in different stages. In this way, a change may be made at the moment with general assent, but those who have made it then proceed to keep control of affairs in the teeth of all opposition.

Finally, Aristotle investigates particular causes of revolution in particular forms of government. First be takes up the case of democracy. Here revolution tend to be caused by the policy of the demagogues in attacking the rich individually or collectively. In early times demagogues often made themselves tyrants; they no longer do so; and indeed tyrannies of every sort are becoming rare owing, among other causes, to the increased size of the modern state. Democracy is liable to change from the older and modern forms to a new and extreme type. This is largely due to the courting of the people by the ambitious candidates for high office.

Second, in oligarchies revolutions are due partly to unjust treatment of the masses and partly to the dissension inside the governing class. Such dissensions may arise if a section of that class being to play the  demagogue, if some of its member become impoverished and turn revolutionary and also if an inner ring is formed inside the governing body. Personal disputes may affect the stability of oligarchies and accidental causes as general growth of wealth, increase in the number of persons eligible for office and matters relating to marriages and law suits may insensibly alter this character.

Third, in aristocracies revolutions are due to the policy of narrowing the circle of government. The collapse of aristocracies is generally due to a defective balancing of the different elements combined in the constitution : this may lead either to change in the direction in which the balance is tilted, or to violent reaction towards the opposite extreme. Aristocracies are particularly liable to be the victims of trifling occasions. All constitutions may be affected and undermined by the influence of powerful neighboring states”.

Fourth, allied with this is the case of polities. The actual downfall of polities is chiefly due to some deviation from justice in the constitution itself. The difference between aristocracy and oligarchy lies in this point: constitution where the elements are so mixed that the tendency is more towards oligarchy are called aristocracies; those where the mixture is such that the tendency is more in favor of the masses are called polities. Thus, when the constitution gives more power to the rulers, they are by virtue of their position of superiority apt to fall into arrogance and to covet even more. Thus, if a constitution is not equally balanced and is inclined in one or another direction, it will tend to change in that way. As a result, the favored element will proceed to increase the stock of its advantage: a polity will then change into democracy and aristocracy will change into oligarchy.

Last, there is the case of monarchy and its perverted form tyranny. The distinction between monarchy and tyranny is like this: kinship is allied with aristocracy and its general function is that of impartial guardianship of society, tyranny is directed to personal interest and it combines the more selfish side of oligarchy with the more selfish side of democracy. In monarchies generally revolutions are caused by the resentment to the insults, fears, contempt or a desire for fame; tyrannies are liable to be overthrown by the influence of the neighboring states of an opposite character. In addition, they may also be destroyed by internal factors and the causes which particularly lead to their overthrow are hatred and contempt. Kingships are more durable, but with the general growth of equality they are becoming antiquated and the form of monarchical government now prevalent is tyranny based on force.

The best part of Aristotle’s study of the revolutions that, in a real sense, ‘destroy’ a constitutional system is contained in his enumeration of the various preventive devices may be classified into two parts

• General devices applicable to every political system and 
• Particular devices applicable to particular forms of governments.

The general device may be enumerated as under:

1. The beginning of every change must be strictly watched and the citizens be trained to observe obedience to law.
2. The rules should not rely upon the trick of deceiving the people.
3. The rules should also keep before the people the danger of foreign aggression and, if necessary, should invent possible dangers to keep them alarmed.
4. The rules must by all means protect and preserve their solidarity.
5. The political effect of changes in the distribution of wealth should be carefully watched. No individual or class should be allowed to become too strong; rich and poor should be set to check each other, or power should be given to the middle class.
6. A most careful scrutiny of the public accounts of the magistrates must be maintained.
7. The ruling party should be particularly scrupulous in its behavior towards the ruled and the latter should be given equality in matters of recruitment of all offices leaving the highest.
8. For the highest offices of the state there must be three qualifications-loyalties to the constitution, administrative capacity and integrity of character.
9. There should not be over accumulation of wealth in few hands; no class of the state must be treated with extra-ordinary consideration.
10. It is wiser that instead of giving extra ordinary honors and rewards in a short time, small privileges should be conferred on the deserving people over a long span of time.
11. Not only by law but also by ordinary economic system an effort should be made by which the holders of political authority are kept away from making a commercialized used of their offices.
12. The importance of the middle class must be realized. Middle course is the golden mean.

Apart from these general devices, Aristotle takes into consideration some particular devices to deal with particular forms of political orders. Democracy and oligarchy must not be pushed to extremes, or they will destroy themselves. Men must be trained not to perform the actions in which the oligarchs or democrats delight, but those by which the existence of an oligarchy or a democracy is made possible. Young oligarch must not be brought up in luxury, nor young democrats in the noting that freedom means doing what one wills. Monarchy is preserved by the limitation of its powers. Tyranny may be preserved in the traditional way by humiliating the people, sowing mistrust among them and taking away their power; it may also be preserved if the tyrant appears like the father of the state, the notables, and the hero of the multitude.

In Greek political experience nothing “occupied a more prominent place than revolutions and to this subject Aristotle devotes many parts of the Politics.” The exhaustive study of Aristotle motivated by the prime consideration of the great political experience of the Greek political life, as discussed in the preceding sections, may be divided into two parts. Whereas the first looks like a practical manual of conduct advising the rulers-democrats, aristocrats, oligarchs, monarchs and even the tyrants- as how to keep themselves in power by displaying cool objectivity and a sense of expediency characterizing the prince of Machiavelli, its second part is a treatise on the philosophical basis of a good and stable government. However, the keynote of the entire study of Aristotle in this regard seems to find place in this endeavor to suggest effective means of avoiding the revolutions and not to tell this students about their causes as such. That is, his principal concern is to highlight the preventive device of that baleful event what he calls ‘sedition’ having it’s like meaning in ‘destruction’

Criticism

Aristotle’s theory of revolution, or political change, as it is now called, may be criticized form another angle also.

Those subscribing to the creed of progressive accuse Aristotle of being a defender of the status. He wants nothing else but a stable equilibrium in the state that goes to the benefit of the ruling class- a small section of the state enjoying privileges of citizenship. Thus, like his teacher, Aristotle also detests the idea of political change. His social and political theory ‘regarded change as change as an evil, and emphasized, above all, the virtues of ability and security. It was mainly pre-occupied with arresting social and political change. This, however, dis not preclude some changes from being regarded as good, for, as his theory of final cause postulated, essence was realized in change. Yet it was chiefly in the former direction that Aristotle’s political theory weighed.”