Justice in Democracy: Parallels Through Time

Aristotle, one of the most influential ancient philosophers, conceptualized the notion of democracy within his novel Politics, serving as a foundational tool to understanding the complexities of what constitutes a democracy in the present day. By classifying various nuances of democracies into distinct categories, Aristotle exposes flaws within such a system that deem it unjust. In particular, he assigns the unjust nature of a democratic system to the imbalance of powers; either the faction of the poor or the faction of rich be the dominating power which in itself unequally allocates power. Nonetheless, regardless of the imperfections within a democratic system, Aristotle believes that it is the ultimate form of government for his era of writing. Aristotle highlights that democracy is based upon intentions to be just, but it succumbs to power imbalances and false notions of equity causing the system to fail to live up to its utopian ambition. The injustices found in the democratic populace system explored by Aristotle draw parallel to present-day democratic America whereby a small middle class, biased justice systems and tyrannical tendencies characterize its political system.

To comprehend the sources of injustice highlighted by Aristotle, it is crucial to distinguish what Aristotle believes to be the basis of a just governmental system. Aristotle believes that humans are innately political and engage in political discussion which Aristotle deems as virtuous (Aristotle: Book I Ch. 2, p4). It is potentially better to rule by the many than by the few because each citizen embodies some virtues and brings their individual perspectives. The combination of these collective virtues will inevitably lead to just decisions and outcomes (Aristotle: Book III Ch. 11, p83). In essence, he proposes that more voices and experiences lead to a better form of government. This description mirrors contemporary notions of what constitutes a democracy; a government by the people and the rule of the majority. Additionally, he stressed the importance of the ideal government to deliberately strive towards increasing the common good. Aristotle believes that being in alignment with a government is the pathway to achieving happiness and freedom. These foundation ideals are attuned with the goals of modern democratic governments. However, Aristotle regards democracy as the rule of the poor over the rich therefore bringing injustice to this approach for a polis.

Popular rule holds that everyone is equal and thus, each citizen has the right to rule. This concept assumes that everyone is equal in all aspects of life because they are alike in their dwelling and freedom (Aristotle: Book V Ch. 1, p139). In actuality however, this conceptualization leans towards overgeneralization and contradicts contemporary democratic theory. The theory draws upon the theory of individualism that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual, favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control. Individualism stresses the importance of individuality and assumes that people are rather dissimilar which can be seen in the discrepancy between levels of wealth in present day society. (Aristotle: Book IV Ch. 3, p111). These financed-based differentiations lead to the factions that create injustice within the democratic system due to the fact that the faction of the poor is most often larger than the faction of the wealthy. This causes the poor population to have an unbalanced proportion of power in the government’s decision making processes (Aristotle: Book IV Ch. 3, p108). As a result, this system represents a reverse form of oligarchy whereby the poor majority is overwhelmingly represented within the government. Aristotle deems this unjust because even though the majority is in power, not all factions are included. By extension, Aristotle argues that the worst form of democracy is one that prohibits the participation of the elite. His argument references the concept of different people having a voice in the decision making process. If the ultimate way to reach a just decision is to have a variety of voices, then the elites should not be excluded. Furthermore, to promote the common good within the ramifications of the city, the government must consider what will also promote good for the elite. Aristotle does not trust the rule of the poor to consider the common good for all factions.

Aristotle argues that the most just form of ruling for a democracy would be the ruling of the middle class. The middle class is in an optimal position whereby they can rule and be ruled. Aristotle argued that the rich are susceptible to pleonexia — the continual desire for wealth accumulation and material belongings for oneself. The rich cannot be entrusted to rule for the common good because they do not know how to be ruled. In contrast, the poor are too eager to rule and it is feared that if they were to be granted access to unlimited power, they will not know how to use it in a balanced manner. (Aristotle: Book IV Ch. 11, p122). Therefore, the most just system is to have the middle-class rule as it will provide an unbiased government. Aristotle’s idea of the middle class references his image of the ideal citizen — someone who possesses the ability to rule and be ruled, participates in political discussion, and promotes improvements in order for the benefit of the city (Aristotle: Book III Ch. 4, p72). The middle class does not have a desire to take advantage of the rich or the poor and therefore would be the best method of reducing conflict and factions. Though, Aristotle points out that it is not common to have a city with a large middle class. Therefore, this “most just” form of democracy is rare phenomena. Thus, the dilemma of the rich and the poor rule leads to an unbalanced and therefore unjust form of democracy which paradoxically, becomes undemocratic based on its very definition.

Furthermore, this unequal system of power puts into question the justice of the law and courts. If citizenship laws become more open to allow for more lower-class people to enter into government, this leaves a vacuum for potential for the government to lose grip of important law-making processes that ensure a just rule of government. The pre-existing laws will also lose their importance and precedence. With overwhelming citizenship, popular rule can transition into governing by issuing decrees (Aristotle: Book VI Ch. 2, p186). This form of radical democracy supposes that the majority hold in the democracy gets to define what justice is. It is dangerous to have a democracy that can define what morality and justice is for themselves. To remove the basis of justice from a government system by creating an overwhelming citizenship majority, allows an oppressive government to pursue its own agenda on the basis of the parameters it has set for itself. Ultimately, this contributes to the creation of an unjust cycle in the democratic process and the disintegrating from the foundational concepts which define democracy. Aristotle’s solution is to give proportional interest to the few such as the wealthy elites to stimulate the ideals of the middle class and cater to creating a just democracy.

Many of the injustices of democracy which have been exemplified are prevalent in present day politics within countries labeled as democratic. In particular, the United States serves as a key example of a democratic government that is rapidly leaning towards Aristotle’s feared radical democracy — although by means of the ruling of the wealthy rather than the poor. The wealthy elitist government has transformed the systems to benefit themselves and feed their continuing pleonexia vis-à-vis laws and economic policies that perpetuate and benefit their self-interests. The “American Dream” of accumulating an immoderate amount of wealth as the primary goal of many Americans seems at odds with Aristotle’s moderation of the wealth model of democracy. Under an Aristotelian analysis there seems to be almost a fundamental tension between American values around wealth and democracy. In addition, the American judicial system has fallen susceptible to the influences of biased political parties allowing one party to define what justice means for itself. The American government is an example of how a mismanagement of the democratic system can lead it to be manipulated to oppress large populations. Additionally, the middle class of America is concerningly small, allowing for large factions between the rich and the poor. By the same token, the opposite effect has been observed when properly regulating democratic notions. European welfare state democracies function to support the common good for all their citizens. Through high taxation and distribution, the citizens of these countries are able to receive universal health care, education, infrastructure, along with a variety of other benefits which serve to contribute to the increase of their collective common good. These systems help to reduce imbalances in power between the rich and the poor by imposing taxes to restrict the rich from getting overwhelmingly wealthy, allowing for a just system of democracy where everyone can enjoy the benefits. These variations in democracy demonstrate that the concepts behind Aristotle’s arguments of injustices in the system remain timeless and applicable as ever.

Aristotle’s delve into democracy reveals flaws in a system that can at times be painted as utopian and idealized as the best form of government in modern terms. While Aristotle’s idea of democracy is very different from what is currently in the world, many of the concepts of injustice are still paralleled. Through showing flaws in the concept of equity and majority, Aristotle argues for a more balanced system of proper representation for all groups including both the factions of the rich and the poor. He believes this is the way to reach a system that promotes the common good and justice for all people. Even in modern times, politics has still not reached a political system that has fair representation for all people. While it is unlikely that Aristotle would advocate for racial equality or women’s rights, his concepts of representation of factions heavily align with the goals of such movements. In modern structures of democracies, it is crucial to remember Aristotle’s fears of the injustice in democracy in order to advocate as good citizens to improve our own systems.

Bibliography

Aristotle, and Joe Sachs. Aristotle Politics : Translation, Introduction, and Glossary. Focus Pub, 2012.