Aristotle’s Administrations—Part 3

At the founding of the USA there was an additional factor that compromised the ability of the USA to be a true democracy: slavery. Of the 13 original states that ratified the proposed constitution, about half of them (in the South) based their economies on slavery. They feared that they would become dominated in a representative government by the more populace northern states, so they forced two compromises to be written into the Constitution, as a condition of their joining the union: (1) their voting power must be augmented by adding three-fifths of their enslaved people to their population, and (2) the creation of the Senate as a legislative body made up of two representatives from each state. The first compromise gave the slave states more weight in the House of Representatives, which is based on population; and the second compromise did much the same in the Senate, by giving the less-populated slave states an equal two-senator power to the more populated northern states.

So, the US form of government—from the perspective of Aristotle's six types of regimes—is neither a true democracy nor a true oligarchy. It falls somewhere in between. In fact, our tendency is actually toward a plutocracy, not an oligarchy. What is the difference? An oligarchy is the rule by a small, elite group, while a plutocracy is rule by the wealthy. It is a fine distinction, but an important one, as the real power in the US today is held by the rich… that so-called 1% that has amassed increasing power, the last few decades.

So what could be done; what changes might be required, to move the US towards a real democracy? There are several specific changes that could be implemented. Here are a few: (1) Eliminate the various forms of voter suppression that are currently being practiced by several states; such as making it difficult for non-white people to vote (there are many laws that do so), stop arbitrary purging of voter lists, eliminate gerrymandering (manipulating the boundaries of voting districts so as to favor one race/class or party), and other methods of blocking some people to vote. (2) Eliminate the electoral college, which has allowed several men to become president when in fact they lost the popular election. (3) Change the Senate election rules, so that smaller, more rural states do not possess the outsized power that they wield today. (4) Set term limits for members of Congress and the judiciary. Many of them stay in power for decades and begin to behave more like aristocrats than citizens. (5) Set campaign contribution limits. Today's laws favor the rich and those with close connections to corporate funds, which is the source of plutocrats holding power.

Any or all of these specific changes would bring about a more genuine democracy, but there are two general or systemic changes that have their origins going back to those ancient Greeks. The first—and fundamental—change would be to educate the populace. The minority of educated and well-to-do citizens from ancient Athens to the 21^st century have always been suspicious of the masses—especially those common folks who are uninformed and are rarely involved in governance. The fear is that the multitudes—if given a little power—will wreak havoc, because they simply do not understand the complexities of running a country. If they pursue their own personal interests, the “greater” interest of the nation will go unanswered.

There is some validity to this fear. What is the simplest way to allay it? Educate the citizenry! It is a simple concept, although not at all easy to implement—mostly because our education system does a poor job of edifying people. Critical and discerning thinking are of low priority. Our educational process is interested in creating obedient people, not independent thinkers.

Even more detrimental today to creating an educated populace is the spread of misinformation on social media. Worse yet is intentional disinformation aimed at the populace. A working democracy requires informed citizens—not confused and deluded people swayed by fallacious “facts.” Where false rumors once spread with impressive speed through the populace, disinformation in the internet age goes viral and proliferates literally at the speed of light.

The second general change that could strengthen democracy is to appoint representatives not by flawed and biased elections that favor the rich, but by lottery. This option would best be implemented by combining it with the previous educational option. A lottery would be truly impartial, in that every citizen would be called upon to serve. It would eliminate the grip that plutocrats currently possess, by forcing a more equitable representative body of citizens to be in control. Like the New England town meeting, a lottery process would be more complicated and time consuming than our representative election process, but would be far more impartial than today's unequal and unfair voting practices. There is one feasible example of a lottery system operating in today's society: the appointment of juries. An accused member of society can request trial by jury—a form of judgment by one's peers, chosen randomly.

I am thankful for a recent introduction to Aristotle's six varieties of regimes. It has helped me step back and see the bigger picture and then to highlight the ways in which modern regimes—especially those who claim to be democratic, especially in my own country, the USA—measure up to democracy's tenets or how they fall short.

Aristotle’s Administrations—Part 2

Fast forward to the world today. Does true democracy exist? Again, the definition of a democracy is governance by all people for the benefit of all people. As  Abraham Lincoln aptly described it, “of the people, for the people, and by the people.” The purest form of democracy today can be found in the governance of small groups, such as New England town meetings—wherein all citizens gather, discuss issues (thereby informing each other), and then all vote.

When a populace grows larger than a few dozen people, however, direct democratic participation is not feasible. It is far too cumbersome and time-consuming to assemble everyone and to allow all views to be expressed. So most democratic states today practice a form of representative democracy—wherein individual citizens are elected to represent their constituency. The representatives then gather, to discuss and vote on behalf of their electors.

This form of governance, however, is often not a true democracy in practice, for several reasons. The first reason is that elections are often not fair and balanced—thus the people's representatives often do not actually act on behalf of all of their constituents. This situation can occur when voting restrictions prevent some people, such as the poor or minority citizens, from voting. 

A second reason is that, although representative democracy should be open to any citizen choosing to run for office, it usually is not; only those with the necessary finances and connections are able to mount a campaign. Thirdly, while a true democracy requires representatives to have term limits, actual democracies often operate more like aristocracies, in that those in control attempt to maintain their positions and power indefinitely.

But possibly the greatest shortcoming of present-day democracies that fall short of the goal is that citizens are not well informed, so even if they can vote, they often do so with a misguided understanding. Uninformed and misinformed citizens can be dangerous. This was a fundamental concern of ancient Athenians. They did not trust common people to understand the complexities of governance. Only those who had vested interests in society, and who were experienced and were educated, should be allowed to participate, they maintained. Women and enslaved people did not qualify. Thus, although Athens is regarded as the West's first practicing democracy, it was not a case of all people having a voice in managing the affairs of state. It was not an authentic democracy.

Turning to the USA—regarded by many (especially its citizens and officials) as the modern world's most enduring and valid democracy: How does my country rate, by Aristotle's classification, as a democratic society? The US Constitution begins with the words “We the people...” and continues, to imply that this government is established for the purpose of ensuring that its citizens are in control of their political and economic destiny.

Those are noble intentions, but two major concerns guided the efforts of the founders of the US Constitution, that compromised their ability to form a true democracy: (1) a tyrant like King George III must be blocked from unilateral and absolute control and (2) commoners could not be trusted with the reins of power. (They shared that second concern with the ancient Athenians.) 

Going back to Aristotle's three forms of regime that he saw as having the welfare of the people as top priority, the American founding fathers were determined to avoid forging a tyranny (rule of one), as well as a real democracy (rule of the many); the latter because they distrusted the ability of commoners to govern. Thus, they established a constitution and a governmental methodology that actually is a blend of autocracy and democracy. Those founders were, after all, well-to-do, propertied, and educated white men (virtually no women.) They even fancied themselves as aristocrats—people who occupied an upper class position, and they expected to remain in that elevated position.

As a result, the US Constitution and America's subsequent implementation of its government created a flawed democracy. The founders did a pretty good job of avoiding a tyrant, but also shut out the voices and participation of over half of its citizens. Their fear of the “tyranny of the masses” was very strong.

Next time, more on US democracy… 

Aristotle’s Administrations—Part 1

From his perspective of the varieties of governance he observed in ancient Greece, Aristotle described six different kinds of regimes that countries had or might establish. He listed them and then examined their respective advantages/disadvantages, weaknesses/strengths, and viabilities/failures. His categories still have relevance today.

Aristotle sorted his six regimes into two contrasting groups of three: those that function for the benefit of all citizens, and those that function primarily for the benefit of those who govern, or hold power. That is, he contrasted selfless regimes with self-serving regimes. In each case, the three regimes are ruled either by (1) one individual, (2) a small group, or (3) everyone.

His three regimes that rule for the benefit of all are (1) a monarchy (single ruler), (2) an aristocracy (rule of the few), and (3) a polity (rule of the many). (See table) Today we regard monarchies and aristocracies as heavy-handed forms of governance, but they could be ethical and even virtuous in Aristotle's time—if they truly had the welfare of citizens as their priority and actually benefited the populace; and at times they did.

	One	Few	Many
Benefit all	Monarchy	Aristocracy	Polity
Benefit ruler	Tyranny	Oligarchy	Democracy

While a polity—rule by all for the good of all—is theoretically possible, it works only for small groups and can even be rather utopian, in that it supposes everyone must be unselfish and altruistic. A polity may have worked for small hunter-gatherer bands, for example, but by Aristotle's time a polity was virtually unworkable, due to the size of the citizenry. In fact, he concluded that all three types of regimes that function for the good of everyone were either utopian, or unrealistic, because the temptation for those in power to serve their own purposes was just too great.

So Aristotle's second group of three regimes—those that are ruled by and for the benefit of those in power are (1) a tyranny (single ruler), (2) an oligarchy (rule by a select few), and (3) a democracy (rule by many). As he looked around his world, these were predominantly the actual forms of government that he observed. They were neither utopian nor ideal, but existed—if often rather flawed.

The first type—rule by a tyrant who uses his power only for his own benefit—is clearly unacceptable, although all too common, even today. The populace is oppressed, harmed, and have no rights. The second type—rule by an oligarchy is far less problematic than tyranny, but can still spurn the welfare of citizens, as the oligarchs have their own interests in mind, not the masses.

Of the six types of regimes listed by Aristotle, democracy has been deemed the best option, because all citizens have some say in government, and they make decisions in their own interest. That was, in fact, the form of government essentially practiced in Athens, in his time. It is the form of government that the USA and many modern states argue that they have. It is regarded today as the best form of governance; although still too often flawed. As Winston Churchill once quipped, “democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

The issue of creating a true democracy is, however, not that straightforward. It is not at all simple. In ancient Athens, for example, even though it was the Western cradle of democracy, all the people could not participate in governance. The only citizens that were allowed to participate were propertied males. Women and slaves were excluded. So Athens' form of governance was actually more like an oligarchy than a democracy, because only a minority of the populace governed. In fact, the Athenian oligarchs did not believe commoners should even have a say in governance, because they were ill informed and had no idea how to manage the city-state. Only those who had the education and experience were fit to govern, they believed.

Next time: Regimes today…

Presidential Powers

In the aftermath of the US succeeding in its revolution that cast off the colonial oppression of England in 1783, leaders of the former colonies met in Philadelphia, to thrash out a constitution for the new country. They were fully aware of the fact that they were creating a new state and hoping that its governing process would be robust and unprecedented. They wished to forge a democracy that was modeled on a republic created some 2200 years earlier in Greece.

Having just shaken off the heavy-handed rule of King George, they were determined to avoid setting up a form of government that would again control the American populace with monarchical powers. In their minds, the new country would need an executive who had the power to manage its affairs, but who would also be restrained by two complementary branches of government: the legislative and judicial branches.

The country's founders, besides being concerned about limiting presidential powers, were also wary of establishing too much democracy. They were chary of setting up a “tyranny of the majority,” wherein the ignorant and uninformed masses would become influenced by emotional and feverish ideas and vote for foolish programs and compelling ideas put forth by a charismatic person or cabal.

The founders were, after all, prosperous and educated men. They possessed ideals of how a democracy should behave, but had elitist biases about preventing the mob from taking over. Plato held similar apprehensions about democracy in ancient Athens—that uninformed commoners would force unwise actions. These concerns of the framers of the US Constitution in 1787 resulted in establishing the Electoral College, which would correct for a possible foolish popular vote for a president.

The constitutional fathers debated long and passionately on how to create a constitution that would prevent any one individual (the president) or group (the masses) from seizing too much power and sending the country off into chaotic behavior. They did a remarkable job of it. For over 200 years the checks and balances they built into the document have kept the US from careening out of control, when imbalance threatened.

After the Constitution was drafted and sent to the 13 states for ratification (which occurred two years later), many people expressed concerns about some of its provisions. For one specific example, George Mason of Virginia was disturbed that it allowed the president to pardon convicted criminals. He could foresee the possibility that an unscrupulous president would encourage his faithful minions to commit illegal acts on his behalf and then pardon them, after they were convicted. Mason thought that this provision of the Constitution would allow a deceitful president to become an autocrat who would then take control, not unlike King George.

Mason was vocal about his fears, and threatened to stop Virginia from ratifying the proposed Constitution. Virginia's approval was crucial. During the state's debates, John Madison convinced George Mason to relax, by telling him that surely if ever a president went that far, he would quickly be impeached and removed from office. 

The founding fathers wrote a constitution that successfully guided the country for over two centuries, yet Donald Trump has utilized both the Electoral College intervention and presidential pardon power to indeed establish himself as a would-be autocrat. The Electoral College process awarded him the presidency, despite his losing the popular vote. That constitutional process of the forefathers backfired.

In addition, Trump has currently pardoned two of his convicted henchmen, who broke laws on his behalf. George Mason surely must be agitatedly rolling in his grave.