Why Is Democracy So Difficult?
Aristotle Told Us 2,500 Years Ago
Aristotle was clear: Democracy is a degenerate form of government. Whether governing is by a single person, a few people, or the many — as in democracy — whenever persons rule to favor themselves, then oppression, corruption, decadence, and disaffection follow.
As Aristotle wrote: “Governments which have a regard to the common interest are constituted in accordance with strict principles of justice, and are therefore true forms; but those which regard only the interests of the rulers are all defective and perverted forms, for they are despotic” (Politics,1279a17–21).
In a democracy, then, the poor will rule on their own behalf and will confiscate the wealth and property of the rich to distribute it among themselves. Of course, if the rich rule as in an oligarchy, then they will use the power of their offices to further aggrandize themselves at the expense of the poor.
This situation could be overcome, supposed Aristotle, if both the rich and the poor held governmental positions at the same time. In this way, he thought, we can create a middle between these two extremes. This mix of the rich in some offices and the poor in others creates for Aristotle a “mean between extremes.” It is through this mean, Aristotle states in the Ethics, that we find virtue.
This “mixed constitution” Aristotle called “polity.” Here rich and poor are united in governing. But that seems preposterous on its face: The rich suspect the poor of wanting to strip them of their wealth, while the poor suspect the rich of wanting only to exploit them for their own benefit.
But if it is the middle class that rules the polity, then the members of that class are most likely to be in similar positions economically. So, members of the middle or ruling class will not covet the wealth of the rich, and the rich cannot exploit the poor. That sounds delightful, but how do we create the middle class?
We do so, says Aristotle, by emphasizing friendship, for “the greatest good of states and the preservative of them against revolutions” (Politics, 1262b7–8), is friendship. So, cultivate friendship throughout your community, and you can establish a bedrock middle class.
Friendship? What a quaint notion. Of course, governing any sized organization is easier if it is done among friends. Duh. The dilemma is how to create this virtue of friendship. Will the mixed constitution of the polity do that?
Our own “mixed constitution” or democratic republic shows anything but friendship and seems at some distance from creating it. Republicans and Democrats see the other side not just as flawed and deeply wrong but also as evil. This seems as far from friendship as is possible.
In such a system how can the poor trust the rich? Politicians from both parties now take the express elevator up to the suites of bank and corporate executives. The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United stripped off the veneer covering up the reality that many politicians are bought off. Finding politicians whose priority is protecting and preserving the common good and not feathering their own nests now seems a fantasy.
Today data show that the top one percent measured by income holds $38.7 trillion of wealth, while the entire middle class — the middle 60 percent of households by income — holds about 26 percent of all wealth. This, of course, leaves out the bottom 20 percent of income earners, who own about three percent of our wealth. I think that friends would do more than simply cheer on the middle and lower classes to work harder. Maybe a new tax structure could help. Friends might well do that.
In our current circumstances, however, which is more likely: ending democracy or becoming friends? Making the matter more difficult, one side wants to enhance democracy by guaranteeing and expanding voting rights. Meanwhile, the other wants to shrink voters’ rolls, and roles, through extreme gerrymandering; through limitations on who can vote, where, and when; and by promoting as their party leader and presidential candidate a man who champions bypassing the Constitution itself. Friendship as a goal seems far removed.
Do we really need to be friends to rule effectively? Here’s how Aristotle saw the situation:
Recall that Aristotle stated that friendship is “the greatest good of states” and prevents revolutions. The grounds for both are the same: Friendship provides for the unity of the collectivity, because “friendship implies likeness and equality” [Politics, Book III, 1287b33].
We can see this friendship in the middle class “where the citizens have moderate and sufficient property.” Not surprisingly, it is here that “there are least likely to be factions and dissensions.” On the other hand, “where there is little middle class and the poor are excessive in number, [then] troubles arise, and the state soon comes to an end” [Politics, 1296a8–10, 16–17]. It takes no great insight to see where the United States currently sits within this equation. Beware, Aristotle states, for poverty is the parent of revolution [Politics, 1265b12–13].
So, how much property is sufficient? For Aristotle the amount of property is determined by what can be used to further the good life of those in association with you — family, neighborhood, community, region, nation. That is, you should have enough property so that those in your orbit, however defined, can live well. Bear in mind that living well includes living moderately but also generously — to wit, sharing with or distributing to others in our care but also in need regardless of proximity. Sharing here might include distributing property in various forms to others or permitting others the use of our property — land and equipment, for example.
Fine, but again, how do we generate this kind of generosity, this friendship? Aristotle recommends two ways — first, externally by establishing conducive institutions and regulations; second, internally by educating persons in the virtues. Although the two ways are intimately connected, as we shall see later, in this first part of a two-part article, I shall address only the first way.
If we wish to develop a community of friends distributing and sharing property, we must first, claims Aristotle, rely upon legislators “to create in [persons] this benevolent disposition” [Politics, 1263a39–40]. Such a disposition, Aristotle tells us, provides “the greatest pleasure by doing a kindness or service to friends or guests or companions.”
“Oh, please!” I hear you declaiming. “Our legislators creating a benevolent disposition among the citizens? You’re making me laugh. One side wants to suspend rights by, among other targets, limiting women’s bodily autonomy, while the other side wants to punish carping speech as micro-aggressions. Benevolence is itself a rare commodity among many of our elected officials. So how can they generate this disposition among the populace?”
But proper legislation and regulation can protect rights and speech, as we know. The framers of our Constitution did not assume that all legislators, let alone all citizens, would be virtuous or benevolent in their outlooks. Instead, they established governmental checks and balances to mitigate excesses, passions, and self-interests. It was the behavior of citizens more than their character that our founders sought to shape through our institutions. Through tax policies, for example, legislation can bring greater equality among the citizenry.
The United States loses one trillion dollars each year in unpaid taxes. These dollars are not lost through legitimate tax loopholes. They are lost by those who rightly owe the money, but cheat to avoid paying. Having those stolen tax dollars could enable state and federal authorities to bring about greater “equalization of property…and prevent citizens from quarreling” [Politics, 1267a38–39] or at least prevent quarreling over how to pay for better social-service programs. This is a benevolent way of helping raise people out of poverty and perhaps grow our middle class.
Yet, doesn’t this simple example of tax cheating demonstrate the absence of a benevolent disposition among many of our citizens? That’s a legitimate question and an important concern. It points directly to the need for Aristotle’s second way to cultivate the required disposition to work in tandem with the first. These two ways are deeply interrelated, as we shall see when I address education for virtue in part two: “Smart Enough for Democracy, but Too Dumb For This One.”
