Aristotle, Madison, Dahl (long)

[Michael Hoover]

> >Aristotle, James Madison, and Robert Dahl each construct "middle element"
> >political models where what is best is that which is practical.  And, that
> >which is practical arises from a notion of equilibrium.  Aristotle's "polity,"
> >"Madison's "repub1ic" and Dahl's "polyarchy" are attempts to balance
> >oligarchical and majoritarian principles.  In each instance, mixed,
> >representative goverment becomes the mechanism through which this balance
> >might be achieved.
> 
> Nicely put. Though I would quibble with the application of 
> "representative government" to Aristotle's ideal...
> Brad DeLong

While Aristotle indicates preference for monarchy or aristocracy in which
philosopher king/s govern, he thinks that such a regime either will
not arise or will be corrupted if it is established.  His turn to
'polity' is predicated on assumption that it is achievable and will be
stable.  Mixture of aristocratic & democratic principles will provide 
'checks and balances.' 

Aristotle's theory revolves around conflict pitting 'greed and paranoia' 
of rich against 'hunger and envy' of poor.  He assumes that all societies 
are permanently divided into competing classes.  Key is to contain and 
moderate strife via constitution incorporating institutions 
*representative* of major 'factions' (Madison's term in *Federalist #10): 
crown, council, assembly.  Thus, A posits basic principles of 
representative government and, in doing so, conveys fundamentally elitist 
character of such rule.  

Too bad for those who are too poor, too scattered, too unorganized, too 
weak (in Aristotle's time, women and slaves because he thought they
were 'naturally' deficient in reason) because representative government 
is for those capable of and "interested" in being represented. 
Michael Hoover