 Hi, my name is Monty Johnson. I teach philosophy at the University of California, San Diego And this is the first of my lectures on Aristotle's politics book four on kinds of democracies oligarchies aristocracies tyrannies and constitutional governments or Polities Now to give you an overall outline of book four the first two chapters are Focused on the scope of political science and actually give a general Account of what political science is supposed to accomplish After that he discusses various kinds of democracies oligarchies aristocracies Tyrannies and Polities he'd already discussed the kinds of kingship at the end of book three Following this he discusses what is the best constitution for different kinds of states including for the majority of States and then he discusses the various parts of a constitution the deliberative executive and judicial parts as With book three. This isn't just a random grab bag of topics. They're actually tightly Interrelated and interconnected so it turns out that the scope of political science is to figure out not just the definitions but how to establish each of the kinds of Constitution and that requires differentiating the kinds of Constitution, but also the kinds of Regimes possible under each one. There are four or five kinds of democracies oligarchies Etc. And then this leads to a discussion of what among all these possible variations is the best Constitution in general and the best for most states and then the discussion of the parts of the Constitution Doesn't just give an abstract account of that But how to bring about the various kinds of regime for example a democracy or oligarchy by means of appointments to the deliberative executive and judicial Branches now throughout my discussion. I'm using the translation of Benjamin Jowett the Oxford translation of 1921 So the general remarks about political science in chapter one Aristotle points out that in general every art embraces the whole of its subject including the absolutely best Application of the skill down to the lowest degree of the skill. So for example Medicine doesn't only deal with people that are in good physical condition or not even primarily those in good physical condition But also those in very poor physical condition but it also knows and Comprehends how to keep those who are healthy healthy and how those who have diseases can be cured or made Better. Similarly gymnastics isn't just about training the highest level Olympic athletes It's also how you can cause physical fitness in Bodies that aren't in the best shape including those that are in the worst shape and shipbuilding doesn't just consider how To build large ships or very solid ships But also for example, what you would do with a leaky rowboat So in so far as it's a general art science or skill it has to comprehend the Everything from the best to the worst objects in its domain Similarly political science must comprehend all of the following number one the best Constitution under any circumstances number two the best constitution under specific circumstances for as Aristotle points out the best is often unattainable and Therefore the true legislator and statesmen ought to be acquainted not only with that which is best in the abstract But also that which is best relative to the circumstances Third the political scientists must comprehend the constitution best suited for most states in general Quote not only what form of government is best, but also what is possible and what is easily attainable by all and Fourth political science must comprehend how to originate preserve or improve any kind of constitution whatsoever Including the corrupt kinds. So how? To originate and preserve a kingship Aristocracy constitutional government, but also how to originate and preserve a tyranny oligarchy democracy Etc. And I think that's very interesting that he gives Discussion devotes considerable discussion to how to preserve even these forms that he identifies as corrupt we usually think of Machiavelli is having such a Radical view because he discusses in the prince how to preserve even a regime just dedicated to its own kind of power But here he's following Aristotle's lead who discusses the same thing for example in politics for ten So it follows that the political scientist has to comprehend all of the different kinds of constitution Not just the ideal kind like the kind presented by Plato in the Republic But also the really existing kinds and not just the good kinds, but also the bad kinds and has to study and Understand their advantages and disadvantages and how to originate and preserve or dissolve every one of them and Not just as generic kinds like democracies or oligarchies But the kinds within these kinds democracy type one type two type three type four and similarly for oligarchy, etc Now to remind you as Aristotle does here in book four chapter two of the three by two Table or scheme that arranges types of constitutions that was introduced in chapter seven of book three Again, we distinguish correct and corrupt Constitutions on the basis of whether the rule exists for the sake of both the ruler and the ruled as in correct regimes or As in corrupt regimes just for the sake of the ruler. So that's what distinguishes these two kinds and then they can be further distinguished Quantitatively rule by one of the correct form in the interest of both the ruler and ruled is Kingship the corrupt form being tyranny which the tyrant rules Just for his own sake and not in the interest of the subjects Rule by a few the correct form is aristocracy power of the good people as opposed to oligarchy rule of the few Rich people in their own interests Apparently aristocrats are thought to rule both in their own interest and in the interest of Those they rule over whereas oligarchs focus only on themselves finally rule by many the legitimate form of it Aristotle calls constitutional government and In Greek Politea here using the general term Constitution for this specific species of Constitution and This is what he goes on to describe as a combination of other constitutional forms especially oligarchy and democracy that somehow Though combining elements of those Corrupt and illegitimate forms itself creates a nice balance or mean or kind of middle regime that we just generically call a constitutional government and the Rulers those who are in power in a constitutional government rule not just in their own interests But also in the interest of the ruled that is in the common interest of everyone as opposed to a democracy Which is ruled by the many poor, but Aristotle argues that they rule in the interests of the poor and they actually Do not rule also in the interests of the rich Whom they rule over and so this is technically a corrupt form and we have a means of Ranking these from best to worst it was argued also in book 3 that kingship is the best if there happens to be a situation however unlikely But where there is some individual so preeminent in all of the virtues and leadership qualities then and is willing to rule in Not only his own interests, but in the interests of everyone else then we'll say that clearly is the best form of government But since tyranny is a corruption of the best form of government. It must be the worst form of government now almost as good as kingship and a bit more realistic than kingship is Aristocracy a few good men ruling for the sake of everyone, but Aristotle says that's also pretty unlikely and Generally what it is is a name Given to what is in fact an oligarchy ruled by the few Rich people in their own interests like to call themselves an aristocracy But it's actually a corrupt form of government since they oppress the poor Now constitutional government as I've described it is the least good of the correct forms but it is the most Realistically attainable because it can balance out the interests of the rich and poor and Represent everybody's interest and doesn't Require there to be a few outstanding people as in an aristocracy or even just one outstanding person as in a kingship Now since democracy is the corrupt counterpart to this constitutional government we can Recognize that it is a corrupt form of government since Democrats rule in the interests of the poor and they oppress and do not rule in the interests of the rich It is the least bad of the corrupt forms democracy is least Less bad than oligarchy and less bad than tyranny. So this actually gives us a very complicated But interesting way to compare the different kinds of kingship in certain are different kinds of constitution in certain Circumstances kingship will be the best tyranny will always be the worst Democracy if you have it the least bad but still a corrupt form of government a Constitutional government a correct form of government and one that it's realistic for us to try to attain aristocracy possible, but Just barely Now the question arises. Why are there several kinds of Constitution why was the what is the cause of introducing the variation in the first place and Aristotle says that it's because states contain different classes like the rich and the poor or Sometimes in this analysis the middle classes and these classes exist in different proportions in different places and each of these classes may participate Eventually in each of the offices of the state so they may participate fully in them partly in them or not in all of each of the offices of the state a Constitution just is an organization of offices, which all the citizens distribute among themselves According to the power which different classes possess for example the rich or the poor or according to some principle of equality which includes both so if you think of three parts of the Constitution judicial deliberative and Executive or official and you think that rich poor and middle class may Participate fully partly or not in all in each of those and since each of those divides into many Individual offices there are lots of variations and combinatorial possibilities here then we really get We really proliferate to Many many different kinds of Constitution and they can be brought under the six heads that we discussed in the last slide But this is why they are different because there are these different classes and there are these different possibilities of them participating in the different parts of the Constitution is Aristotle says there must be as many forms of government as there are modes of arranging the offices According to the superiority and differences of the parts of state Now in theory one could reduce The number of them for example if we took aristocracy just to really be a kind of oligarchy or we considered a constitutional government really to be some kind of form of democracy as we generally do today like when we speak of the United States government, which is in fact a constitutional government containing not just oligarchical elements, but also elements of kingship, but we generally call it a democracy Now Aristotle prefers not to reduce our terminology in this way and not call Aristocracies oligarchies much less oligarchies aristocracies and not call constitutional governments Democracies or assume that a democracy is a constitutional government But instead we keep clear how some of the constitutions are actually Corruptions or perversions of the others this allows us again to rank order them and compare them relatively to each other But again, he also delineates sub kinds under each of the six major kinds because even within within a democracy There are several ways of organizing the offices and distributing them to various classes And he creates an interesting analogy to animals and their parts and how they are classified and how they may be Arranged differently giving rise to different species of animals in chapter four of book four now in In the same chapter Aristotle discusses what he calls the elements of the state the different kinds of people that make up the state and Here we may generally speak of rich and poor But we can describe specific functions or jobs or work that they have described the the kinds of tasks that they carry out in the city and that some of which are All of which are in a way necessary for the function of the city So first of all you need farmers and husband husband men that is food producers Second you need what Aristotle generally considers a working class that is craftsmen or Mechanics that have the various arts that produce the tools and the other things needed by the farmers and builders and so on third Traders whether commercial or retail Forth hired men or day laborers and then fifth generally you need defenders that is soldiers people in the military and All of those kinds of people will basically be poor in most states But each of them makes up a different element of the state and performs a different function within it now classes of the rich Aristotle mentions just Prosperous or property people who are necessary for the state and contribute to the state with their property and wealth and Also public servants that is office holders those who carry out the day-to-day business of the government Finally you need Judges and here he may be including also assembly Members if those are supposed to be different than the executive office holders Judges to judge the merits of various cases are necessary to the functioning of the state generally Carried out by the rich, so he differentiates these eight different Elements of the state that are necessary Classifies them as rich and poor now he actually names Numbers nine different distinctions, but the sixth one It's not clear what he means to mention and something may be wrong with the text. It seems that here. We're meant to supply priests who Are a necessary element of the state they carry out all of its religious Functions and in politics seven Chapter eight He seems when he gives a very similar list to mention priests in that place Now in most states there are essentially two major classes We can obviously distinguish even those elements that we just discussed in an even more fine grained way, but we can also Discuss them much More generally in terms of those that are rich and those that are poor and in most if not every state the Rich are few and the poor are many Aristotle says different functions appear to be combined in the same individual for example The warrior may also be a husband man or an artisan or again a counselor or a judge a Counselor may be a judge and all claim to possess political ability and think that they're quite competent to fill Most offices, but the same persons cannot be rich and poor at the same time for this reason the rich and the poor are Regarded in a special sense as parts of the state Again because the rich are generally few in number while the poor are many they appear to be Antagonistic and as the one or the other prevails they form the government hence arises the common opinion that there are Two kinds of government democracy and oligarchy and Again, there's a tendency to reduce the various constitutional types that Aristotle's distinguished into essentially two democracies and oligarchies and that's because modern states tend to be Dominated by the class conflict just between these two classes the rich and the poor But democracy and oligarchy are not simply a matter of just the many or the few governing Freedom and wealth are the basis of the claims to rule freedom on the part of the Democrats wealth on the part of the oligarchs, but democracy and oligarchy are defined as rule by many or few not merely in Respect to their claims to rule Quote but the form of government is a democracy when the free who are also poor and the Majority govern and an oligarchy when the rich and the noble govern they being at the same time few in Number so it's not merely about the number as the diagram might suggest oligarchy rule by few Democracy rule by many this class analysis of it being ruled by the few rich or Rule by the many poor is essential to what those kinds of constitution are Now within Democracy we can distinguish several kinds and in politics for for Aristotle discusses five kinds Beginning with a kind that he describes as embracing a kind of strict equality Quote of forms of democracy first comes that which is said to be based strictly on Equality in such a democracy the losses that it is just for the poor to have no more advantage Than the rich and that neither should be masters But both equal for if liberty and equality as is thought by some are chiefly to be found in democracy They will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost and since the people are the majority And the opinion of the majority is decisive such a government must necessarily be a democracy here Then is one kind of democracy And it's a strange kind and he doesn't say anything more about it in the ensuing discussion He only discusses the following four kinds that he distinguishes the second kind being a Government in which you have low property Qualifications apparently still according to the rule of law But we just say that for example all those that can afford light arms or even those who are rowers in the military Can be citizens and can participate politically a third kind where Everyone is considered a citizen who is not Challenged all citizens who are not challenged and there isn't some disqualification are allowed to participate And again this according to rule of law a Fourth kind where everyone who is a citizen participates in the state fully and again according to the rule of law or A fifth kind in which everyone who is a citizen participates, but it's not according to rules of law But rather whatever the majority decides is sovereign and Aristotle describes. This is a situation where a government is Nominated by Demogogre and is led to even violate its own rules and principles by swaying the masses through propaganda and speech So those last four kinds are the ones he goes on to subsequently discuss and he Abandons this perhaps utopian idea of a of a democracy based on strict Equality and the way he describes it as existing in the interests of Basically the rich and the poor makes it sound more like the what he calls the constitutional government or The polity and says is the best kind of government for most states. So it may be that he Goes on to discuss that kind of democracy under the Aegis of constitutional government or polity Now we can also distinguish several kinds of oligarchy and Aristotle does in chapter 5 First one where the property Qualification for offices such that the poor although they form the majority have no share in the government yet He who acquires a qualification may obtain a share a Second kind where there's a qualification for office But it's a high one and the vacancies in the government body are filled by co-optation Now you could make the election out of all the qualified persons And that would be more like an aristocracy, but if it's made only out of a privileged class like people that That have a certain amount of property or can can outfit a Certain kind of military unit then that's an oligarchy Another sort of oligarchy is when the son succeeds the father So a kind of hereditary form and he distinguishes that from a fourth form Likewise hereditary in which magistrates are supreme and not the rule of law this sort of oligarchy Receives the name of a dynasty that is ruled by powerful families Now in chapter 6 Aristotle gives an extensive class analysis of oligarchies and Class analysis of the different kinds of oligarchies and of the kinds of democracies So beginning with oligarchies He says that one form of oligarchy is that in which the majority of citizens have some property But not even very much and this is the first form which allows anyone who obtains the required amount the right of sharing in the government and The sharers and the government being a numerous body It follows that the law must govern and not individuals for in proportion as they are further removed from a monarchical form Of government or sole rule and in respect of property have neither so much of it to be able to live without Attending to business nor so little is to need state support They must then admit rule of law and not claim to rule themselves So this is kind of almost a benign oligarchy and it shows Aristotle's even-handed analysis He thinks that there's a kind of oligarchy which could be according to rule of law and actually be very moderate but you get more and more extreme forms of oligarchy as the Inequality in the state increases but if the men of property in the state are fewer than in the former case and Own more property there arises a second form of oligarchy for the stronger They are the more power they claim and having this object in view They themselves select those of the other classes who are to be admitted into the government But not being as yet strong enough to rule without the law. They make the law represent their wishes so that intensified Form of oligarchy based on greater inequality can still be in accordance with the rule of law But when this power is intensified by a further Diminution of their numbers and increase of their property there arises a third and further stage of oligarchy In which the governing class keep the offices in their own hands and the law ordains that the son shall succeed the father So here the the law begins to prescribe a hereditary form and it's barely clinging to rule of law, but Finally when again the rulers have great wealth numerous friends this sort of family Desbatism approaches a monarchy Individuals rule and not the law. This is the fourth form of oligarchy and is analogous to the last sort of Democracy that is it's the worst and most corrupt form of oligarchy based on the greatest Inequality of wealth within the society so then wealth starts to get concentrated just into the hands of a few families and The most powerful of those becomes the preeminent Family and rules in their own interest and entrenched as their own interests and even exacerbates the Problems with inequality Now compare that class analysis to a class analysis of the kinds of democracy Beginning with when the class of husband been and those who possess moderate fortunes have supreme power The government is then administered according to law For the citizens being compelled to live by their labor have no leisure And so they set up the authority of the law and attend assemblies only when necessary They all obtain a share in the government when they have acquired the qualification that is fixed by the law The absolute exclusion of any class would be a step towards oligarchy, but here in a democracy You presumably set a very low Qualification hence all who have acquired the property qualification are admitted to a share in the Constitution But leisure cannot be provided for them unless there are revenues to support them This is one sort of democracy and these are the causes which give birth to it again a very moderate and Fairly legitimate form of democracy both oligarchy and democracy are in fact corrupt forms But this is among those corrupt forms Democracy is the least corrupt and then among kinds of democracy this first kind appears to be the least corrupt of those But another kind is based on the distinction which naturally comes next in order in this Everyone to whose birth there is no objection is eligible But actually acquires a share in government only if you can find leisure Hence in such a democracy the supreme power is Invested in the laws because the state has no means of paying the citizens Compare that to a third kind when all freemen have the right to share in government But do not actually share for the reason which has already been given so that in this form again The law must rule so in all these cases we have mass participation of people who Aren't rich and are basically poor and they don't have a lot of time to devote to these government matters So they have to set up laws and live according to those laws and not constantly be deliberating About them and so According to Aristotle this situation has a positive effect that they tend to be governed by rule of law But a fourth kind of democracy and that which he says comes latest in the history of states in our own day When cities have far outgrown their original size and their revenues have increased all the citizens have a place in the government Though the great preponderance of the multitude through the great preponderance in the multitude and they all Including the poor who receive pay and therefore have leisure to exercise their rights share in the administration Indeed when they are paid the common people have the most leisure for they're not hindered by the care of their property Which often fetters the rich and who are thereby prevented from taking part in the assembly or in the courts And so the state is governed by the poor who are a majority and not by the laws. So if you actually Pay the poor to participate in the democracy Then they will It'll be like the best-paying job around for them And so they'll happily do that and then they'll very much be participating Whereas the rich don't have time because they still have to manage their property And so you end up Governing just by the poor and just in their own interest. So this is the least legitimate and slightly more corrupt form of Democracy Now next Aristotle distinguishes various kinds of aristocracy In chapter 7 he says that only can be rightly called aristocracy, which is a government form of the best men Absolutely, that's literally what the term aristocracy means The power of the best Not merely of men who are good when tried by any given standard in the perfect state The good man is absolutely the same as the good citizen Whereas in other states the good citizen is only good relatively to his own form of government like we say in a democracy You have a different standard of who's a good person than you do in an oligarchy But it's only in an aristocracy where the good man and the good citizen are Identical to each other that was an issue discussed at length in book 3 Here he's making the point simply that an aristocracy requires Government of the best men that is the men that have virtue but there are some states differing from oligarchies and also differing from Polities or constitutional governments called Aristocracies in them the magistrates are certainly chosen both according to wealth and According to their merit such a form of government differs from each of the two just now mentioned and is termed an aristocracy For indeed in states which do not make virtue the aim of community men of merit and reputation for virtue may be found So virtuous people exist in democracies and oligarchies. The difference is they aren't given power That's what makes an aristocracy when Those who have virtue are given power now It's interesting that Aristotle says according to their wealth and merit Assuming that those will be correlated those are correlated because people who have wealth can afford better Education's better upbringing for their children and so forth and thus tend to have more Virtue or merit around them But it actually isn't a necessary connection and the true mark of an aristocratic Constitution is that selections for offices are made not only out of a Smaller group of some people that for example have a certain property qualification But are made from the entire population just looking for whoever is best in terms of their virtue Now there are these two forms of aristocracy just mentioned the government formed of the best absolutely and essentially a meritocracy or a government chosen on the basis of Merit, there's also a third form constitutions which incline more than the so-called polity towards oligarchy. So again Aristotle sees there being a very close relationship between aristocracy and oligarchy Often it can seem like exactly the same people the same class and so forth It's just a matter of whether they have truly been chosen on the basis of their merit or wealth And then what makes the determination of what kind of government? It actually is is whether they are ruling only in their own Self-interest or also in the interest of those they rule virtuous people Will do the latter and rule in the interest in the common interests of all Whereas oligarchs will rule rule only in the interests of their own class Now constitutional government or What he calls a polity what really Is this remember? This is the the correct counterpart of the corrupt form of democracy So it's a correct form of government. It's the least good of the correct forms But it's the one that turns out to be the best available option for most states What is it? He considers it to be a mixture or a fusion of democracy and oligarchy Aristocracy considers to be a union of all of the claims to rule when you have freedom wealth and virtue all Coinciding in the same group of people who rule everyone in the common interest. We call that an aristocracy Less good than that is but in the same column is constitutional government, which Doesn't really unify all those and excellent people but rather it consists of a set of laws that balance the interests of Democrats and oligarchs and has checks and balances to make sure that neither class Becomes predominant So a polity or constitutional government may be described generally as a fusion or a mixture of oligarchy and democracy The term is usually applied to those forms of government which incline more towards democracy But Aristotle's made the care the careful Classification into six different kinds and made a strong argument for preserving and observing those distinctions Now the term aristocracy is usually applied to those forms of government which Incline instead towards oligarchy Because birth and education are commonly the accompaniments of wealth and the rich already possess External advantages the one of which is a temptation to crime and hence The rich are usually considered noblemen and gentlemen and in as much as aristocracy seeks to give Predominance to the best of the citizens people say also of oligarchies that they're composed of noblemen and gentlemen The distribution of offices according to merit is a special characteristic of aristocracy For the principle of an aristocracy is virtue as wealth is the principle of an oligarchy and freedom is the principle of a democracy so in All of these forms of government there of course exists the right of the majority and whatever seems good to the majority of Those who share in the government has the authority in most states the form called polity Exists and the fusion goes no further than the attempt to unite the freedom of the poor with the wealth of the rich so in a democracy the majority of Whatever the majority decision is among the many poor That's what holds way and an oligarchy whatever the majority decision is among the few or a wealthy holds way and in a polity you have some attempt to Unite both those the majority of those who the interests and the arguments of the majority of the poor with the majority of the rich But Aristotle says as there are three grounds on which men claim an equal share in the government freedom wealth and virtue It is clear that the admixture of the two elements that is to say the rich and the poor is to be called a polity or constitutional Government the union of the three is to be called an aristocracy or a government of the best and more than any form of the Government except the true and ideal has a right to this name So we see why aristocracy is both above the constitutional Government that is it's it's better than it It's a more perfect union of these different features But why constitutional government is still a correct form? It's in it doesn't rule just in the interest of the rich or the poor But it rules in the interest of the majority of the rich and the majority of the poor Now how can there be a mixture of democracy and oligarchy a Famous commentator said, you know democracy and oligarchy can't just be mixed up in a glass like gin and tonic can So how are they to be mixed and furthermore? How is a mixture of two? corrupt forms of government supposed to produce a correct form of government. Well, he says there's actually Three at least three different ways of mixing them One is simply to combine elements of both for example find the rich for not participating in the courts or assembly But pay the poor to participate in the courts or assembly Second would be to just moderate requirements for participation So you you maintain a property requirement But you lower it so as to allow for example middle-class people to participate and not just the rich But you keep it high enough so that the poorest people who can't have an education and thus can't attain intellectual or even even moral virtue They can't Participate, but you still allow the middle classes to participate. That's a second way of mixing democratic and oligarchic elements to cause a constitutional government and then the third way is you sort of Counterbalance both of the elements of rich and poor so you use elections instead of Lots in order to choose officers now that would be an oligarchic policy, but at the same time You don't require an annual assessment of the office holder and that's a kind of democratic element so you you may have an oligarchic element of law in the Constitution, but you counterbalance it with some democratic element another example he gives is as in Sparta you offer free public education and free Meals that's a very demo. Those are democratic elements, but you choose all officers by election and you restrict The power for important things like inflicting the death penalty only to a few people and that's an oligarchic element which Counterbalances Now to finally round out the Discussion of the various kinds of the kinds of Constitution Aristotle in the 10th chapter Discusses the kinds of tyranny and he mentions that when speaking of royalty or kingship in book three He'd already mentioned two forms of tyranny Which are both according to law and therefore easily pass into kingship Those two kinds were first a kind that was said to exist among barbarians where there's elected monarchs who exercised despotic power and second despotic rulers who were also elected in ancient Greece called a 70s or Dictators now these monarchies when compared with one another exhibit certain differences But they're considered kingships or royal and thus correct forms of government in so far as the soul ruler or monarch rules According to law over willing subjects. So in book three Aristotle said that Yes, these barbarians elect a soul ruler who exercises despotic Power over them, but they're willing to be ruled by that It's it's a racial characteristic of them that they're willing to be ruled like that and so and so These monarchs rule in their interest and with their consent and therefore that's a correct form of government similarly with the despotic rulers who were elected in ancient Greece called dictators but These very forms can be tyrannical and can be considered tyrannies in so far as the ruler is Despotic and rules according to his own fancy and in his own interest and not in the common interest Which is perhaps always how it is and perhaps it was always an idealization to think there really are kinds of correct kingship here and not just forms of tyranny But the essence of tyranny is to be the counterpart of the perfect monarchy This tyranny he says is just that of arbitrary Power of an individual which is responsible to no one and governs all alike whether equals or better With a view to its own advantage and not to that of its subjects and therefore against their will So to summarize again going back to our table of the kinds of Constitution, but here discuss discussing them according to their Relative worth Kingship is the absolutely best if you can get it though you can't usually get it So you should probably aim at an aristocracy That's a good form of government that exists in the common interest, but it again is very rare And so though it is the least good of the correct forms It's really the most realistic a constitutional government which somehow blends or fuses or mixes the best Parts of oligarchies and democracies democracy themselves is a corrupt form of this constitutional Government that where the poor rule in their own interests and discriminate and don't represent the interests of The rich that's the least bad of the corrupt forms because at least the majority's Interests are being observed a bad a worse form of that is oligarchy Since only a few people's interests are represented and only a few people rule over a great majority Worse still than that and thus the worst of all is if you had a sole rulership of that kind where only one person or some kind of dynastic succession of Hereditary power preserves one person ruling in their own interests and not those of the common interests So by this point in book four Aristotle has distinguished not only all of these kinds of Constitution ranked them relative to each other, but he's distinguished subtypes of each of them and described their similarities and differences Thank you