Aristotle, Madison, Dahl (long)

Michael Hoover hoov at freenet.tlh.fl.us
Mon Apr 3 12:34:44 PDT 2000



> >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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list