Aristotle's Politics: The Art of Living Together › The Classification of Constitutions

Aristotle classifies constitutions along two dimensions: who rules (one, few, or many) and whether they rule for the common good or their own interest. When one person rules for the common good, you have kingship. When one person rules for private benefit, you have tyranny. When a few rule for the common good, you have aristocracy (rule by the best). When a few rule for their own benefit, you have oligarchy (rule by the wealthy). When the many rule for the common good, you have _politeia_ (often translated as "constitutional government" or "polity"). When the many rule for their own benefit, you have democracy (in Aristotle's usage, a degenerate form). ::: {.callout-warning title="Common Misconception"} Aristotle's use of "democracy" differs from modern usage. He means rule by the poor majority in their own interest, which he sees as a corruption. What we call democracy today is closer to his _politeia_: constitutional government where the many rule with regard for the common good and respect for law. ::: Each correct form has its characteristic virtue. Kingship depends on the exceptional virtue of the monarch. Aristocracy depends on the virtue of a ruling class. _Politeia_ depends on the civic virtue of ordinary citizens. Each deviant form has its characteristic vice. Tyranny serves one person's appetites. Oligarchy serves the wealthy. Democracy (in Aristotle's sense) serves the poor majority's immediate interests. The crucial insight is that legitimacy depends on _how_ and _for what_ someone rules, more than on _who_ rules. A single ruler governing for the common good is legitimate. A majority governing for factional interest is not. This cuts against simplistic assumptions that more participation automatically means more legitimacy. The question is always: participation in what? For what purpose?