Different People, Different Forms of Government
On 27th August, 2019, we discussed plutocracy and totalitarianism, as forms of government that run against the grain of democracy. Democracy appears to be the most popular and accepted form of government, across the world. I was compelled by more burning emergent national issues, to suspend my discourse. Readers, globally, have been urging me to continue with this enlightening project. I will therefore, continue our suspended discourse today with Aristocracy. Even then, I will still crave your indulgence to suspend the series whenever more urgent issues that ignite readers’ interest crop up.
Aristocracy “Government by the nobility, a privileged minority, or an elite class thought best qualified to rule.”
The argument of proponents of this form of government, is that it is logical that the best kind of government would result, if it was composed only of the best people. To this school of thought, the best people are better educated, more qualified, and more competent, and therefore, better able to lead others. Even at that, an aristocratic government headed by such an elite class may still be one of different genre. For example, it could be rule by the wealthy, called a plutocracy. It could be rule by the clergy, known as a theocracy. It may boil down to rule by government officials, called a bureaucracy.
In the past, many primitive societies, under the rulership of tribal elders or chiefs, were aristocracies. At one time or another, some countries such as Rome, England, and Japan, to name but three, all had aristocratic governments. In ancient Greece, the word “aristocracy” was used in reference to the city-states, or poleis, in which a small group governed. Often, a number of prominent families shared power amongst themselves. In some cases, however, single families seized power illegally, and set up a more tyrannical type of rule, of other families considered less powerful.
Athens, like other Greek city-states, was originally an aristocracy. However, as cultural changes weakened class distinctions and disrupted its unity, the city was forced to take on democratic forms. Sparta, for example, on the other hand, was reputedly founded in the ninth century B.C. It was ruled by, a military oligarchy. The city of Sparta soon rivalled the much older Athens, and both cities fought for supremacy of the Greek world of their time. It was virtually, a “fight-to-finish”. Thus, rule by the many, as in Athens, came into intense conflict with rule by the few, as in Sparta. Of course, their rivalry was quite complex, because it involved more than just a disagreement about government.
Why and How a Noble Ideal was Perverted Political differences were often the subject of philosophical arguments, among early Greek philosophers. Plato’s former student, Aristotle, made a distinction between aristocracies and oligarchies. He classified pure aristocracy as a good form of government, a noble ideal that enabled persons with special abilities and high morals, to devote themselves to public service for the benefit of others. He argued however, that, when headed by an oppressive and selfish elite, a pure aristocracy which is ordinarily good, deteriorated into an unjust oligarchy. This, he canvassed, was a perverted form of government having departed from the nobility and morality of pure and ideal aristocracy.
While advocating rule by ‘the best,’ Aristotle even admitted that combining aristocracy with democracy would probably produce the desired results, an idea that still appeals to some political thinkers to date. In fact, the ancient Romans actually did combine these two forms of government, with some measure of success. “Politics [in Rome] was everyone’s affair,” says The Collins Atlas of
World History. Nevertheless, at the same time, “the richest citizens and those who were fortunate enough to be high born formed an oligarchy, which shared out among itself, the offices of magistrate, military commander and priest”.
Interestingly, even in late medieval and early modern history, European urban centres combined democratic and aristocratic elements in their government. Says Collier’s Encyclopaedia: “The extremely conservative Venetian Republic, which Napoleon finally overthrew, provides the classic example of such an oligarchy; but the Free Cities of the Holy Roman Empire, the cities of the Hanseatic League, and the chartered towns of England and Western Europe, reveal the same general tendencies toward tight oligarchical control by a relatively small but proud and highly cultured patriciate [aristocracy]”.
The argument has been powerfully advanced, and with some strong justification, that all governments are in every case aristocratic in nature, since all of them actually strive to have the best qualified people in charge. The concept of a ruling class, to date, has served to strengthen this view. Some reference work has therefore, posited that, “Ruling class and elite are becoming synonymous terms to describe as actual, what Plato and Aristotle argued for as ideal”.
Searching for “The Best” In ancient China under the royal house of Chou, centuries before these Greek philosophers made their appearance on the stage, a feudal society (based on lords and vassals) was already bringing a measure of stability and peace to ancient China. But, after 722 B.C.E, during what is called the “Ch’un Ch’iu period”, the feudal system incrementally weakened. In the last part of this period, a new elite emerged, composed of people regarded as the former “gentlemen”. These people had served in feudal households, ones who were descendants of the old nobility. Members of this new elite, moved into key government positions. Confucius, the renowned Chinese sage, as The New Encyclopaedia Britannica points out, stressed that, “ability and moral excellence, rather than birth, were what fitted a man for leadership”. Confucius’ many words on marble, litter our moral and leadership landscapes.
However, over two thousand years later in Europe, the process of picking the elite, those best qualified to rule, had little to do with “ability and moral excellence.” Harvard Professor, Carl J. Friedrich, notes that, “the elite in aristocratic England of the eighteenth century, was an elite based primarily on blood descent and riches. The same thing, was true in Venice”. He adds: “In some countries such as eighteenthcentury Prussia, the elite was based on blood descent and military prowess.”
This idea that the good qualities of ‘better people’ were necessarily passed on to their offsprings, accounts for the closely-knit marriage practices of monarchs in the past. During the Middle Ages, the idea of biological superiority prevailed. To marry a commoner was abominable, as it amounted to polluting and diluting the nobleness of the clan.
This was offensive, to divine law. Monarchs were therefore, obliged to marry only those of noble birth. This idea of strict biological superiority, later gave way to a more rationalised and accepted justification, that of a superiority based on better opportunities, education, talents, or achievements.
A principle known as “noblesse oblige” was designed, to ensure the success and continuity of aristocracies. This literal meaning - “nobility obligates”. It meant “the obligation of honourable, generous, and responsible behaviour associated with high rank or birth”. Because of their assumed “superiority,” those of noble birth, were firmly obligated to serve the needs of other lesser mortals responsibly. This principle was found in such aristocracies as the one in ancient Sparta, whose warriors were obliged to put the
interests of others before their own, even in battle fields; and in Japan among the warrior caste, the “Samurai”.
When Aristocracies were found Wanting and Deficient The imperfection of aristocratic rule, soon manifested. In early Rome, only persons of high birth, known as “Patricians”, were eligible for membership in the Roman Senate. The common people, known as “Plebeians”, were not. But, far from being men of “ability and moral excellence,” as Confucius had demanded of rulers, members of the Senate became increasingly corrupt and oppressive. Civil strife, was the resultant effect. The Plebeians kicked. The nobility or patricianity, was derobed and demystified.
For the next 1,200 years or thereabouts, aristocratic governments, even though monarchical in name, were the European norm. As time went on, many political, economic, and cultural changes gradually modified the system. But, during this entire period, European aristocracies remained powerful. They were able to retain their landholdings and their stranglehold on military offices, while becoming ever more parasitic, narcissistic, extravagant, arrogant, and frivolous.
In the 1780’s, the aristocracy suffered a severe blow. Louis XVI of France, finding himself in financial straits, pleaded with members of the French aristocracy to forgo some of their fiscal privileges. But, instead of supporting him, they took advantage of his difficulties, hoping to undermine the monarchy and regain some of their own lost power. “Dissatisfied with government of the people, by the king, for the aristocracy, they [the aristocracy] sought government of the people, by the aristocracy, for the aristocracy”, explains Herman Ausubel, Professor of History at Columbia University. This attitude, helped precipitate the French Revolution of 1789. It was Louis the XVI who once stood in front of parliament and declared, “L’etat c’est moi” (I am the State).
These events in France, brought about momentous changes that were felt far beyond the boundaries. The aristocracy lost its special privileges. The feudal system, was totally abolished. A Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen was adopted, as was also a Constitution. In addition, the powers of the powerful clergy, were restricted by Decree.
Government by the few, even if the few were thought to be the very best had been carefully analysed and weighed in the balances by the many, and had been found wanting and unsatisfactory.
Did they finally find “The Best”? The obvious fact that ‘the best’ did not always live up to their name (“best”) points out one of the major weaknesses of ‘government by the best,’ namely, the difficulty in determining who ‘the best’ really were. To meet the requirements for being best qualified to govern, more appeared necessary than just being rich; just being of noble blood; or just being capable of military prowess and exploits.
It is not difficult to ascertain who the best doctors, cooks, or shoemakers are. We simply view their work, or their products. “With government, however, the situation is not so easy,” notes Professor Friedrich. The difficulty is that, people disagree as to what a government should be and what it should do. Also, the goals of government are continually changing. Thus, as Friedrich says: “It remains quite uncertain, as to who the elite is”.
For a ‘government by the best’ to be really the best, the elite would have to be chosen by someone with superhuman knowledge, and infallibility in judging. The chosen would have to be individuals of unbreakable moral integrity, completely devoted to the immutable goals of their government. Their willingness to put the welfare of others before their own, would have to be beyond doubt. Like Caesar’s wife, they must be above board. (To be continued).
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK “Aristocracy is always cruel.” (Wendell Phillips).
“CONFUCIUS, THE RENOWNED CHINESE SAGE ....... STRESSED THAT, “ABILITY AND MORAL EXCELLENCE, RATHER THAN BIRTH, WERE WHAT FITTED A MAN FOR LEADERSHIP”