 Hi, my name is Monte Johnson. I teach philosophy at the University of California, San Diego And this is the first of two lectures on Aristotle's politics book five the first nine chapters on the causes and motives of constitutional change and constitutional preservation So here's an overall outline of book five the first four chapters are about the general causes of constitutional change and what Aristotle calls stasis meaning civil war faction or revolution Chapters five to seven then are about the specific causes of constitutional change and Stasis in democracies in oligarchies and in polities and aristocracies Chapters eight to nine are about the preservation of Constitutions where Aristotle takes the lessons he's learned about what causes strife and faction and constitutional change and infers some Strategies for preserving constitutions by way of preventing that kind of stasis Now that's what this lecture is going to focus on but then Aristotle goes on in Chapters 10 to 12 to discuss monarchies Their causes and destruction the means by which they are preserved and why tyrannies tend to be short-lived Now here's Aristotle's own description of the topics of book five He says the following issues remain by him to be discussed the cause of stasis in states How many and of what nature are the causes of faction strife? Civil war and so forth What modes of destruction applied to particular states i.e. oligarchies or democracies and out of what and into what? Constitutions mostly change for example Democracies tend to become more like oligarchies Finally what are the modes of preservation in states generally or in a particular state and by what means? Each state may be best preserved Now in the first chapter Aristotle distinguishes Three kinds of political change the first which have already mentioned is stasis This is the most radical and important kind of change change affecting the entire Constitution when the change is from an existing form into some other form of Constitution for example from a democracy into an oligarchy or from an oligarchy into a democracy or from either of those into a Aristocracy and so on The second kind of political change would be change that affects just the administration of the government when it changes hands from one group or one individual to another people The third kind of change is change of degree an oligarchy for example can become more or less oligarchical and a democracy can be more or less Democratic and in like manner the characteristics of the other forms of government may be more or less strictly maintained or The revolution or stasis may be directed against a portion of the Constitution only for example The establishment or overthrow of a particular office so of those three kinds of Change Aristotle discusses each of them and how they relate to each other in this book Now the first topic again the most important stasis and its main causes again Stasis means civil war as opposed to a foreign war, but also revolution since Aristotle thinks of it as a cause of change of the entire Constitution but also faction because The main cause of stasis is one group whether that's a minority or a majority Pushing their own interests so far that it actually Distorts and changes the kind of Constitution and Aristotle says that the main cause of this is Having differing concepts of equality the fact that people mean different things when they talk about equality Quote democracy for example arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects Because men are equally free. They claim to be absolutely equal. So that represents a kind of Principle of democratic equality. We're all equal to each other on The other hand oligarchy This is again a quote is based on the notion that those who are unequal in one respect are in all Respects unequal being unequal that is in property or wealth. They suppose themselves to be unequal absolutely so people that have more wealth consider themselves to be Unequal and to be superior to those who have less wealth and thus they want more representation in offices more political power or even more distribution of wealth and property But Democrats think that since they're equal they ought to be equal in all things while oligarchs under the idea that they're unequal claim too much and That's one kind of inequality So each of these forms of government. He says have a kind of justice So democracy this kind of absolute equality and oligarchy a kind of equality based on equal Amounts for equals unequal amounts for unequals and there's a sense in which both of those are a kind of justice But tried to an absolute standard. It turns out both democratic and oligarchical Concepts of equality will be faulty Therefore he says both parties whenever they're sharing government does not accord with their preconceived ideas stir up a revolution or Stasis so Democrats if they think that they're not getting their equal share of political power wealth or whatever We'll stir up stasis in an oligarchy and attempt to change the Constitution into something Democratic or less oligarchical oligarchs on the other hand Considering themselves to be superior on the basis of their property or wealth if they're not given more political power Say in a democracy they will stir up stasis and attempt to overthrow that constitutional structure or at least to Reduce its democratic aspects and this is the main cause of this form of change and revolution really Now to go into a little bit more detail about this idea that there's two kinds of equality So Aristotle distinguishes between so-called numerical equality, which is simple sameness or equality in number or size for example 3 minus 2 equals 2 minus 1 because 1 equals 1 and He compares that with what he calls proportional equality where you have not equality of The individual terms or numbers but an equality of the ratios. So for example The ratio 4 to 2 is equal to the ratio 2 to 1 even though the numbers aren't equal The ratios are equal because 4 is double of 2 and 2 is double of 1 and double equals double So Aristotle had actually introduced this distinction between two kinds of mathematical quality Equality earlier in his discussion of distributive justice in politics book 3 chapters 9 and 12 also He discusses distributive justice and distinguishes these two kinds of equality in the second common book of the ethics The third chapter of it. So that's ee 4 3 or Nicomachean ethics 5 3 Now the numerical concept of equality the simpler one Corresponds to a democratic conception of equality each individual is worth exactly the same amount as every other And so if you're going to distribute some good to them such as land or offices political power Whatever each person would get an exactly equal amount The proportional concept of equality however corresponds to an oligarchic conception of equality Different people are worth different amounts based on their relative virtue or wealth or whatever So if you're to distribute some good to them again something like land or Political offices those who are supposedly worth more would get a proportionally higher amount So those twice as virtuous say or twice as wealthy if we were just using wealth as the basis for political power Would get twice as much political power political offices land or whatever as those who are Half as virtuous or wealthy as they are Now according to Aristotle both kinds of equality should be employed in a Constitution and that would be conducive to the stability of the Constitution and because democracies Embrace a more widespread kind of equality Aristotle says that makes them relatively more stable so first of all he says that everywhere again is Inequality is the cause of revolution or stasis But an inequality in which there is no proportion for instance if you have a perpetual monarchy among people who are equals Always there'll be a desire for equality among those equals and this will result in stasis or rebellion against a perpetual monarch and So employing only one kind of equality as the example shows is bad and causes instability That a state should be ordered simply and wholly according to either kind of equality is not a good thing The proof is the fact that such forms of government never last They are originally based on a mistake and as they begin badly They cannot fail to end badly the inferences that both kinds of equality should be employed numerical in some cases and proportionate equality in others So your your constitution for example might distribute offices according to proportionate equality and give offices to those who have more virtue more justice more courage, etc, but might allow Land to be distributed equally to everyone and so you would then Everyone would have some kind of share and some kind of basic equality with other people But then in in order to satisfy those people who are or consider themselves to be superior There would be this unequal distribution to them of political offices and Aristotle thinks such schemes are very conducive to constitutional stability Democracy however is inherently more stable and has less stasis So he says that Democracy appears to be safer and less liable to stasis than oligarchy for an oligarchy There is the double danger of the oligarchs falling out among themselves and also with the people But in democracy, there's only the danger of a quarrel with the oligarchs No dissension worth mentioning. He says arise among the people themselves Now that might be questionable Maybe there is a lot of dissension among people themselves and even hard to unite them But he's talking here about the context of a kind of class struggle Economic and political interests of a very basic kind being vied over democracies tend to be more stable because Also, they have a larger middle class So he says quote we may remark further that a government which is composed of the middle class more nearly Approximates to democracy than oligarchy and is the safest of the imperfect forms of government very important quotation because although Aristotle acknowledges that Democracy is an imperfect form of government. It's actually one of the corrupt or deranged forms He does think that it's the safest of those if you're going to have a bad kind of constitution It's much better to have a democracy than it is to have an oligarchy or a tyranny and That's because in part democracies have a bigger middle class and So there is less of this kind of class warfare between rich and poor less Demands by the rich to have unequal shares of office less demands by the poor to be considered equal to them on the basis of their radical numerical concept of equality and So since democracies have this large middle class, they end up having less Stasis and more agreement in general. They are therefore the least bad of the imperfect forms of government now in chapter 2 Aristotle discusses the motives and basically the causes of Stasis Although he doesn't explicitly say so the seven causes of stasis that he discusses in this chapter can be interpreted According to his distinction between four kinds of cause There's the formal cause the final cause the efficient cause and the material cause and we can map them on to the various Motives and causes of stasis that he discusses in this chapter So he first describes the feeling the actual emotional feeling of the revolutionaries and what those who are propagating factionalism party politics or Revolution and what kind of Motives and emotions they have and what is the cognitive dimension especially of the motions that they're feeling so he describes a very complex set of desires consisting in the first place of the desire for equality and Gain and honor and this is sort of the formal cause of Stasis He says the universal and chief cause of this revolutionary feeling has already been mentioned It's the desire for equality when people think that they are equal to others who have more than themselves or Again the desire of inequality and superiority when conceiving themselves to be superior They think that they have not more but the same or less than their inferiors pretensions which may and may not be just Inferiors revolt in order that they may be equal and equals so that they may be superior Such is the state of mind which creates revolutions or stasis Now that's one aspect of the revolutionary feeling another is the desire for one's own gain and Honor Including the want to divert punishment or dishonor away from one's selves or away from one's friends So not just what is the feeling that you're kind of irked by being treated unequally or treated equally depending on who you are, but then a forward future looking desire to regain that honor or gain more of those possessions that you think weren't distributed equally or Avoid punishment or dishonor from befalling yourself so that you Throw yourself in with a party or faction or revolution in order to distract from it That's the final cause in the sense of the aim or the purpose of the revolutionary feeling Now the desire to prevent others from maintain from obtaining gain and honor Justly or unjustly Aristotle treats as the efficient cause so I noticed that somebody's getting more profit More money more honor than I think they should that inspires me to Want to desire to get more for myself of honor property Whatever and so that it's what spurs this first movement That makes it like an efficient cause and again, it's a desire to prevent others from obtaining gain and honor but other things that could trigger it and cause it are insolence fear of punishment excessive predominance contempt and disproportionate growth in some part of the state so there's actually Seven different origins or efficient causes of stasis that Aristotle enumerates here and He mentions that they may also be expanded to include election intrigues carelessness and neglect about trifles So these are all efficient causes or perhaps cooperating causes that support this Revolutionary feeling and he goes on to discuss each one of them in detail in this and the next chapter But finally just to summarize how this all relates to his scheme of four causes Aristotle mentions that dissimilarity of the elements that is of the population and territory is a contributing cause to Stasis that when elements are dissimilar so they aren't equal in some way Then that sets up the conditions and the material for a stasis to form when the desire for Equality of gain and honor takes hold because somebody's been prodded By the desire to prevent others from obtaining it and by the desire for their own gain now a Little bit more discussion of the motives for Stasis in chapter 3 again, we've already said quite a bit about gain and honor Those are key factors in the revolutionary feeling a desire for equality or inequality of gain and honor Aristotle in reiterating this in this chapter says now in oligarchies The masses make revolution under the idea that they are unjustly treated because as I said before they are equals and have not an equal share and In democracies the notables revolt because they're not equals and yet have only an equal share So we can see how their their Dispute exactly Corresponds and correlates now the third sort of Instigator of this feeling of stasis could be insolence or greed So he treats insolence or hubris and greed as a single cause even though Insolence without greed can also in theory be the cause of Revolutions, but the main idea here is that the perception of oneself being dishonored or that of others receiving disproportionate honor will motivate citizens to Factionalism and revolution in order to restore their own honor or remove that of others And so this is a cause independent of the desire for honor mentioned above because here the insolence of Magistrates is the primary cause of the desire to increase one's own honor or decrease another's honor whereas insolence or greed need not be the cause of the desire for honor Another cause here excessive predominance which when one person becomes so much more powerful than the rest of the political community Then the result is a kingship or tyranny or what Aristotle calls a dynasty a family kingship Aristotle mentions that the Athenians use the instrument of Ostracism in order to prevent this cause of stasis Meaning that they would all vote on a person to be removed to be sent into Exile because they'd become too predominant over others and were considered a threat to political order He says it's much better to provide from the beginning that there shouldn't be preeminent individuals Instead of letting one of them come into existence and then having to resort to a remedy like Ostracism so we would we should remove people who are too wealthy or too politically power Powerful before they get more powerful or we should prevent them from coming into existence in the beginning have more of an equal Society and equal opportunities So that no one is able to become preeminent because it's much harder and much more of a crisis to deal with after they already have Now fear is another motive Aristotle mentions fear of punishment for example or fear of an enemy's power as a cause of Conspiracies and he names historical examples like roads contempt is also a cause The contempt that one class has for another for example in oligarchy's the rich have Contempt for the poor in democracies the poor have contempt for the rich and this contempt Causes neglect of the interests of the other class and thus motivates that class to conspiracy and fractionalism Now Aristotle also discusses electioneering or campaigning as a cause of stasis Now he's overly brief here But the example he gives suggests that election intrigue motivated a particular state to shift from elections to Sortition so something went wrong with their election. So they decided we'll shift to Assigning offices by lot. Now since selection of offices by lot is considered a democratic process while Elections are considered an oligarchic process then this may have caused the Constitution to change from an oligarchy into a democracy You could imagine it going the other direction if instead of Deciding by lots we decided to start having elections then elections then then our Constitutional type might change from a more democratic to a more oligarchical one Carelessness is also a motive for stasis Aristotle's examples here have to do with disloyal people getting into high office and Changing an oligarchic into a democratic Constitution again You can just as easily imagine the opposite somebody getting elected or chosen by lot to democratic office And then supporting oligarchic measures Another cause neglect Aristotle's example here is where you'd set a certain property Qualification for office, but it was pretty small and then it diminishes over time perhaps because of inflation so that the Education no longer excludes certain cases. It used to cost a hundred dollars to Be able to you used to have to prove that you had a thousand dollars on hand in order to qualify for an office But then as more and more people are able to show that they have a thousand dollars more and more people are Able to qualify for the offices and so it becomes more democratic and less oligarchic So you shouldn't neglect that if you want to preserve an oligarchy You should keep increasing the property qualification if for example the relative supply of money is going to continually increase Aristotle also discusses racial differences as a motive for stasis This corresponds to what he called dissimilarity of elements in the previous chapter his examples are problems mostly caused by colonization when Colonists from two different cities try to set up They're a city together or an established colony tries to absorb a fresh body of colonists Aristotle also discusses problems of Adjustment of certain peoples to certain other peoples or places or even locations within a city So he says that the occupants of the Pyraeus, which is the harbor and shore of Athens are somehow naturally more Democratic than the people who are inland or who are in the citadel of the city Finally disproportionate increase in any part of the state and this is a complex factor So I will discuss it on its own slide This is a major cause of stasis that Aristotle is interested in he says that political Revolutions spring up from any disproportionate increase in any part of the state Now what does he mean by part of the state if we look back at the previous books in the politics? We'll see that several different things have been called parts of the state first of all households Which consists of master or slave wife and children? That's in book one and book four. He's also called social classes which are stratified by the level of birth Education virtue and so forth those were called parts of the state in books three and four and also will be in book six Also, he's described economic classes i.e. rich and poor as being parts of the state That's in book four also later on in book five and he uses the same terminology in book six Also, he's described as parts of the states Parts of the state just jobs or functional groups for example warriors farmers politicians etc in book four and he Returns to this way of speaking also in book seven He seems to hold that a disproportionate increase in any of these parts relative to the other Parts may result in a political revolution And here he makes an interesting analogy to zoology especially interesting because he wrote a lot about zoology in his biological works and This analogy doesn't seem to correspond well to his own Methodological presuppositions and zoology but here in the politics he says as a body is made up of many members And every member ought to grow in proportion that symmetry may be preserved But loses its nature if the foot be four cubits long and the rest of the body to span and should the abnormal Increase be one of quality as well as quantity may even take the form of another animal Even so a state has many parts of which some may often grow Imperceptibly for example the number of poor in democracies and in constitutional states so in the example He uses he's talking about economic classes suppose that There's a widening rich poor gap Small middle class you get more and more numbers of people that are poor Eventually they become so big that they just their they they overwhelm the power of the Rich the few rich people that are left and so there will be Constitutional change and it can happen even imperceptibly Now what would the cause of the disproportionate increase itself be the only examples Aristotle gives are of military defeats actually in which nobles end up getting slain which results in a disproportionate increase in lower social classes Which again would tend to a democratic overthrow of oligarchic? constitutions so the wealthier people In Greece who can afford to bear arms in these Greek city states are the ones who would go off to war unlike say in the United States where the rich send the poor off to war in this situation the rich themselves are the ones that could be armed and Go to war so then they risked being decimated If Things went very badly in a battle in which case There'd be none of them left and there would just be the poor in the city and then you would In fact have a kind of democratic revolution now Small causes can have big effects on Stasis as Aristotle says and he discusses several individual causes First of all Issues with something as trivial as what's happening in individual marriages can go on to cause regime change and Aristotle delights in giving us several historical examples of that Also a change in a single section Could transform an entire constitution so governments change into oligarchy or democracy or into a constitutional government because magistrates or some other section of the state increase in power or renown And the examples here are very interesting So Athens went from an oligarchy to a democracy and Argos from a democracy to an oligarchy by strengthening of nobles Syracuse from a Republic to a democracy when the people were seen as the cause of a victory against Athens Chalcas went from a tyranny to a democracy after the nobles allied with the people and so on so these You know small important sections of the government if they take on a much different character can Support a change in the entire Constitution Also Stasis itself tends to inspire further status further revolutions and regime changes Either because people are really envious about the new order of things or there is excessive predominance of those who have Secured power towards others or because there is envy of others towards them or both Also decline of the middle class is a cause of status Revolutions tend to break out when opposite parties for example the rich and the people are equally balanced And there's little or no middle class for if either power party were Manifestly superior the other would not risk an attack upon them And for this reason those who are eminent in virtue usually do not stir up insurrections always being a minority Finally stasis may be affected either by force or by fraud or both force Applied either before or after a revolution or fraud Which when discovered requires? Either holding people in subjection against their will or persuading them to accept the regime so Each of those is a case of fairly small seeming things having a large Constitutional effect Okay, so having discussed the general causes of stasis in the previous chapters in Chapter 5 Aristotle starts discussing the causes of stasis in particular kinds of Constitutions beginning with democracies and his discussion of democracies is really very straightforward and simple He says the cause of stasis here is when demagogues rally people against the rich revolutions and democracies are generally caused by the Intemperance of demagogues who either in their private capacity lay information against Richmond until they compare them to combine for a common danger unites even the bitterest enemies or Coming forward in public stir up the people against them and Aristotle adduces several historical examples Now Aristotle says formerly these Demagogues within democracies were like generals lately. They've become Orators so tyrannies were more common previously because with knowledge of military affairs Demagogues could wield more power Whereas orators only can lead on the public with their persuasion not with their military dominance hence safeguards are necessary against demagoguery in a democracy without For example having property qualifications a general election of magistrates could lead demagogues Promising to put people above the law and so Aristotle says a solution to this would be to divide the populace into Tribes and have each elect magistrates separately instead of having a general election And there's various other ways that you could safeguard against demagogues gaining too much power Now in chapter 6 Aristotle discusses the causes of Stasis and oligarchies and there are a lot more of them to discuss For example when oligarchs press the people for then anybody is good enough to be their Champion especially if he be himself a member of the oligarchy This Aristotle says generally results in a tyranny But he gives other historical examples of oligarchies becoming republics and even democracies Now they stasis also occurs within oligarchies when there's personal Rivalry of the oligarchs and so they fall out with one another or one or more of them may try to play the demagogue with the people or When an oligarchy is excessively narrowed this may cause greater calls for equality toward a polity or a democracy so even if you had a In oligarchy with relatively more oligarchs if you narrowed and narrowed that down For example with a greater and greater property qualification then you'd be alienating more and more people and this would contribute to stasis Also when oligarchs waste their public fortunes on extravagant living their power collapses When some party within an oligarch steals from the Treasury this can cause internal dissension and cause their power to collapse When within an oligarchy and even smaller oligarchy is created For example within an oligarchy if you set up an elite Senate which excludes other oligarchs Would result in a more extreme oligarchy, but could also motivate others to strife and factionalism When in war if an oligarchy depends on mercenaries these mercenaries may be loyal to a faction or to an individual and thus help set up a tyranny Also when in peace if there's mutual distrust in the two parties hand over defense to the military The military may end up as master of both of them sort of military coup Also when there are quarrels over marriages or lawsuits an oligarchic regime may be destroyed As we mentioned above in discussing the causes of stasis and how small Causes can have big effects Finally when our property qualification remains unchanged, but wealth in the city increases then as we've already Noted many more people become eligible for office and they might transform an oligarchy into a polity or even a democracy in chapter 7 Aristotle discusses the causes of stasis in aristocracies One is when a few only share in the honors of a state That tends to motivate people to stasis a cause which we've already discussed in connection with oligarchies But in aristocracy Aristotle admits is a kind of oligarchy and like an oligarchy is the government of just a few people and since all So-called aristocratic governments inclined towards oligarchy the notables are apt to be grasping that is There will always be some notable people who are left out of the honors of the state Now when the mass of people are of a very high spirited kind and have a notion that they're as good as their rulers That is an obvious cause of stasis in aristocracies when great men who are at least of equal Merit or dishonored by those in higher office When an individual who is great and might become even greater wants to rule alone or when trifling gets out of hand in aristocracies above all There are gradual and imperceptible Causes here Citizens begin by giving up some part of the Constitution and so with greater ease the government changes into something else Which is a little more important until they've undermined the whole fabric of the state So small Changes that accumulate in order to transform the entire Constitution also when there's a significant or foreign influence is a cause of stasis in aristocracies So when there is some government close at hand who has an opposite interest But even though it's at a distance. It's powerful This was exemplified in the old times of the Athenians and the Spartans the Athenians everywhere would put down oligarchies and the Spartans Would put down everywhere Democracies that is they would encourage stasis or faction in the opposite direction now another cause of stasis in Aristocracies are structural problems with the Constitution's these are actual problems with the theory of the way it's set up And this has the do with inadequate mixing of Democratic and oligarchic elements in Aristocracy somehow has to represent the interests of both the rich and the poor Otherwise, it wouldn't be a legitimate form of government would but would be either an oligarchy or a democracy But Constitutional governments and aristocracies are commonly overthrown Owing to some Deviation from justice in the Constitution itself the cause of the downfall is in the former the ill mingling of the two elements democracy and oligarchy in the latter of the three elements Democracy oligarchy and virtue, but especially of democracy and oligarchy for to combine These is the endeavor of constitutional governments and most of the so-called aristocracies have a like aim But differ from polities or constitutional governments in the mode of combination Hence some of them are more and some less permanent Those which incline more to oligarchy are called aristocracies and those which inclined to democracy constitutional governments and therefore the latter are the safer of the two for the greater the number the greater the strength and when Men are equal. They are contented So there's a lot going on in that passage But I think one interesting thing about it is that what we call All aristocracies may very well be understood to essentially be either oligarchies or constitutional governments some kind of mixed constitutional arrangement When aristocracies are in fact more like oligarchies, you know, whenever you ask an oligarch He considers himself an aristocrat not an oligarch. So some oligarchies Disguise themselves as aristocracies, but suppose you had a real aristocracy But it just inclined towards an oligarchy because the rich were relatively powerful Well, then you would be exposed to all of the causes of stasis that affect oligarchies and thus less stable than a democracy democracies There's a there's this other kind of constitution Generically called constitutional government or polity or republics or whatever they are understood by Aristotle to be a kind of combination of democracies and oligarchies but when an aristocracy More resembles a constitutional government than it has more of an admixture of a democratic element And if you remember what we said at the very beginning that a proper mixture of democratic and oligarchic Instruments in the Constitution are is a major cause of preservation and stability of a constitution because then the interests are balanced And they don't become disproportionate But that being said all other things being equal democracies are relatively more stable than oligarchies the main thing you have to worry about is demagogues Coming up within them, but you don't have the exposure to all the kinds of problems and instability that you do in an oligarchy Now Aristotle notes that although Aristocracies are typically transformed into oligarchies. They may also become Transformed into a democracy Similarly, although constitutional governments are typically transformed into democracies They may also become oligarchies and in general the only stable principle of government is Equality or owing to proportion and for every man to enjoy his own So Aristotle actually prefers the proportionate concept of equality, which was identified with oligarchical Concept of equality early on but he prefers democracy is the more stable form of government in general so these considerations of the cause of stasis both general and for specific constitutional types then is Translated in the next two chapters into a theory of means of preserving Constitutions and he begins with the idea of promoting obedience to law Here the general principle is that we should study the causes of stasis or revolutions and then opposing those causes will preserve the Constitution and of all the ways of doing that obedience to the law is key and Employing deception and secrecy and so forth Aristotle thinks is a very limited value in preserving constitutions and All well tempered or well balanced governments There is nothing which should be more jealously maintained in the spirit of obedience to law more especially he says in small matters for transgression creeps in unperceived and at last ruins the state just as the constant recurrence of small expenses in time eats up a fortune The expense does not take place all at once and therefore is not observed The mind is deceived as in the fallacy which says if each part is a little than the whole must be little In the first place then one should guard against the beginning of change and in the second place They should not rely on the political devices of which I've already spoken invented only to deceive people for they are proved by experience to be useless So experience Empirical research has showed Aristotle that you cannot maintain stability by deceiving people and that what is necessary is to prevent change by Eliminating or reducing the motive to stasis which has to do with equalities and not proportionately balancing the interests of people So fostering a spirit of equality and respect among the people will be Preservative of all kinds of constitutions not just democracies Another mechanism he mentions is term limits So if the ruling class is numerous enough, these are very useful. They tend to preclude demagogues Prevent oligarchies and aristocracies from falling into the hands of individuals or families Long tenure of office tends to entrench individuals and enhance individual power at the expense of the state Now the second General set of means of preserving constitutions. He discusses various kinds of safeguards First you could invent terrors Quoting Constitutions are preserved when their destroyers are at a distance and sometimes also because they are near for the fear of them Makes the government keep in hand the Constitution Wherefore the ruler who has a care of the Constitution should invent terrors and bring Distant dangers near in order that the citizens may be on their guard and like sentinels in a night watch Never relax their attention end of quote now it might seem shocking to have Aristotle Advocating the use of terrorism in order to preserve a Constitution But this is more likely just an observation that they end up getting Preserved when such terrors have been invented in his study of constitutions This has been revealed that this is one of the techniques that people take now as we saw on the last slide Aristotle thinks that that kind of deception is not in the long run Effective and will not contribute to the stability of the state But he mentions it as a technique that has been employed and may have some limited usefulness Additionally limiting contention and dissension among the ruling class through statesmanship is a cause of stability adjusting property qualifications in response to inflation or deflation to make sure you preserve the same kind of people coming into office and also Safeguarding against any part of the state growing disproportionate in power The proper remedy he says for this evil is always to give the management of affairs and offices of the state to opposite elements Such opposites include the virtuous and the many or the rich and the poor Give them both give each set some kind of role in the state another way he says is to combine the rich and poor into one body or Increase the middle class if there's enough of a middle class an end will be put to the revolutions Which arise from the motive of inequality the main cause of stasis The third General set of things that are discussed as means of preserving Constitutions Aristotle says above all a state should be so administered and so regulated by law that its magistrates Cannot possibly make money so you need to avoid corruption in oligarchies This is a special problem the majority don't really mind being kept out of power What they really mind is the idea that those who are in power are enriching themselves and not acting in the common interest So if you could arrange it so that an office brought absolutely no profit Then and only then would a democracy and aristocracy he says be combined for both Notables and people might have their wishes gratified all would be able to hold office Which is the aim of democracy and the notables would be magistrates Which is the aim of aristocracy and this result may be accomplished when there is no possibility of making money out of the offices For the poor will not want to have them when there is nothing to be gained from them They'd rather be attending to their own concerns and the rich who do not want to make money from the public treasury Will be able to take them and so the poor will keep to their work and grow rich and the notables will not be governed by the lower class So interesting idea that you could fuse Democracy and aristocracy there if you could eliminate profit motive to hold office Now various measures he says should be enacted to ensure public confidence that offices are not being profited from So for example, when there's transfers of revenue, this should be done at public assemblies Keep duplicates of accounts and make those available to all tribes Make sure that honors are only given to honest magistrates and so forth Also, the rich should not be allowed to undertake even if they're willing to Expensive but useless public services like financing of choruses and torch races and things like this because that tends to The people appreciate that but then they tend to overlook corrupt activities that those people engage in Now those who have less share of government So the poor in oligarchies the rich in democracies should nevertheless be given equal or preferential access to some High offices Aristotle thinks and then you can kind of co-opt the poor by giving them certain offices or co-opt the rich if you're in a Democracy by putting them in charge of some things so again Aristotle is always looking to balance out and eliminate that motive that ever annoying sense of Either equality or inequality So some further means that he discusses of preserving constitutions qualifications for office for example loyalty skill and Virtue these these three actually are the main Forms of setting up a qualification for office. It's what you're always looking for. It's what we're trying to make sure that people have that hold office we also want a mean and Proportional or moderate condition in which things aren't pushed to extremes of democracy or oligarchy by factions or parties pursuing their own interests instead of common interests and Also, he says Rhetorical concession should be made to the other party as opposed to for example taking oaths to undermine the other party as some oligarchs Take nowadays he says also the adaptation of the Educational system of the Constitution something that turns out to be crucially important and he devotes the last books of the politics to discussing But educating people into the values of the Constitution and inculcating those in them from an early age and Continuously through through the rest of their lives is an important means of preserving the Constitution Now a bit more on this idea of qualifications for high Offices there are three of them as I said first loyalty to the established Constitution second skill or administrative capacity and Third virtue and justice of the kind proper to each form of government Since what is just is not the same of all governments the quality of justice differs again in oligarchy's Proportional equality in democracy's numeric or arithmetic Equality so you want a person who has a concept of virtue or justice That's proportionate if you're in an oligarchy and which is numerical if you're in a democracy But what happens when? Not all of these candidates are in the same candidate. So they lack loyalty to the established Constitution or they have that but they lack administrative capacity and skill or they have skill and Loyalty, but they have a different concept of equality Assume that in a set of candidates there will be varying degrees of each of these qualifications How then is the selection among them to be made? so suppose for example you have a good military general, but he's a bad man and not a friend of the Constitution another man is Loyal and just but sort of lacks the administrative skill to effectively administrate the office Aristotle says the solution is to Distinguish cases where the skill is rare and in those cases choose on the basis of skill But where the skill is commonly held then choose on the basis of virtue So when you're choosing a military general think about the person who has military skill rather than his virtue For few people have military skill, but many have virtue But in an office of trust or stewardship on the other hand the opposite should be observed for More virtue than ordinary is required the holder of such an office But the knowledge necessary is of a sort which all people possess so if somebody has to be in charge of accounts and making sure that Nobody's wrongly taking money out of the treasury or something anyone can do that because anybody can add and subtract But you need to make sure that you have a virtuous person somebody who's honest just etc So virtue not just loyalty and skill are necessary for good Statesmanship is the conclusion of that argument that you really need virtue and Justice and specifically justice of the appropriate kind for the kind of government that you're trying to preserve Now another set of general means of preserving constitutions proportionality and the moderate state an oligarchy or democracy Although a departure from the most perfect form may yet be a good enough government But if anyone attempts to push the principles of either to an extreme an extreme oligarchy or an extreme democracy He will begin by spoiling the government and end by having none at all Wherefore the legislator and the statesman ought to know what? Democratic measures save and what destroy a democracy and what oligarchic measures save or destroy an oligarchy Neither the one nor the other can exist or continue to exist unless Aristotle says both rich and poor are included in it. So in any case stability of any or Either of these forms of government requires that rich and poor Interests somehow be balanced For example, if a quality of property is introduced the state must of necessity take another form for when laws Carried to excess one or the other element in a state is ruined the Constitution is ruined. So Aristotle represents this is an example of an extreme measure Imagine you have a democracy so extreme that they want to equalize the amount of property or land that everybody has Well, then this this would so fundamentally transform society that it would create essentially a different form of Constitution and again Aristotle makes an interesting analogy to a biological organism Last time he was describing if a foot was too large this time It's a nose a nose which varies from the ideal of straightness to a hook or snub May still be of good shape and agreeable to the eye But if the excess be very great all symmetry is lost and the nose at last ceases to be a nose at all on account of some Excess in one direction or defect in the other and this is true of every other part of the human body The same law of proportion equally holds in states now the next set of general means for preserving Constitution is adaptation of the educational system to the Constitution and of all the things that Aristotle has mentioned he says this is the one which most contributes to the permanence of constitutions and Yet in his own day, he says and perhaps in our own day This is the principle that is almost universally neglected and again book 8 is entirely devoted to this issue Aristotle says that the best laws though sanctioned by every citizen of the state will be of no avail unless the young are Trained by habit and education in the spirit of the Constitution if the laws are democratic democratically or oligarchically if the laws are oligarchical For there must there may be want of self discipline in states as well as in individuals So it doesn't matter if Currently everybody is on board with what the state wants and has the proper kind of equality we have to continually be changing training the young and inculcating these values in them or very soon the constitutional type change But Aristotle says to have been educated in the spirit of the Constitution is not to perform the actions in which oligarchs or Democrats delight but those by which the existence of an oligarchy or a democracy is made possible So not by being a popular Demagogue in the case of a Democrat or an oppressive oligarch in the case of oligarchy But rather the true oligarch is the person who is even willing to enact Democratic measures to the extent necessary to preserve their oligarchy or the true Democrat is the Democrat who's willing to Introduce those oligarchic reforms necessary in order to preserve the stability of their democracy Now the final set Final piece of discussion about preserving constitutions Aristotle makes a special note on the preservation of Democratic freedom, and it's a continuation of the point Just made Democratic freedom doesn't just mean doing whatever anybody pleases Like some very superficial or naive notion of freedom that some people associate with democracy, but rather True Democratic freedom means submission to majority rule But in democracies of the more extreme tar type There is a risen a false idea of freedom which is contradictory to the true interests of the state for two principles are Characteristic of democracy number one the government of the majority Okay, and this is why submission to majority rule is the crucial element of Democratic freedom and second Freedom itself understood as the ability to do with what one pleases or live how one wants now Aristotle says that men think that what is just is equal and that equality is the supremacy of popular will and that Freedom means that doing what a man likes in such democracies everyone lives as he pleases Or in the words of Euripides According to his fancy. So this is a characterization of an extreme concept of democracy actually boarding on and bordering on a kind of anarchical state in which everyone lives exactly as he pleases and Doesn't do much to coordinate his activities with other people Aristotle says all of this is wrong Men should not think that it's slavery to live according to the rule of the Constitution for it is their salvation So this is what a democracy truly consistent is orderly Submission to the majority's rule not going against what the majority rules because you want to live however you want to live but Allowing your freedom to be defined and circumscribed exactly by what the majority describes that is the true Democratic way Now Aristotle mentions this here because it instantiates the point about the importance of adapting Education to the Constitution in order to preserve a democratic Constitution it's necessary that citizens be educated into understanding democratic values and rule and the importance of Submitting themselves to majority rule so to summarize the general means of Preserving constitutions which Aristotle has deduced from his analysis of the means of destroying Constitutions and then sort of reverse engineered these techniques the first Idea is promoting obedience to the law and the Constitution second safeguarding against Contention dissension and disproportionate growth of one part of the state or one class of the state Third enacting measures to avoid corruption. So Transparency in the use of state funds and so forth Fourth requiring qualifications for office Loyalty to the Constitution skill and virtue in order for people to be candidates to hold the office fifth Moderating the Constitution to ensure Proportionality between the parts of the state the rich and the poor the oligarchic and democratic elements and thus avoiding the extreme policies advocated by parties and factions in their own interest and finally adapting public education to the specific form of the Constitution all of those will be ways of Preserving each kind of Constitution and in general any kind of Constitution. Thank you