Chapter 6

Having established these points, we proceed next to consider whether one form of government only should be established, or more than one; and if more, how many, and of what sort, and what are the differences between them. The form of government is the ordering and regulating of the city, and all the offices in it, particularly those wherein the supreme power is lodged; and this power is always possessed by the administration; but the administration itself is that particular form of government which is established in any state: thus in a democracy the supreme power is lodged in the whole people; on the contrary, in an oligarchy it is in the hands of a few. We say then, that the form of government in these states is different, and we shall find the same thing hold good in others. Let us first determine for whose sake a city is established; and point out the different species of rule which man may submit to in social life.

Having established these points, we next consider whether there should be only one form of government or more than one. If there should be more than one, how many should there be, and of what kinds? How do these forms differ? A form of government is the way a city and all its public offices are organized and regulated. This applies especially to the offices that hold supreme power. Supreme power always belongs to the governing body. But the governing body itself defines the particular form of government established in a state. Thus, in a democracy, supreme power belongs to the people as a whole. By contrast, in an oligarchy, supreme power belongs to a few. We therefore say that these states have different forms of government. We will find that the same is true of other states. Let us first determine for whose benefit a city is established. Let us also identify the different kinds of rule people may live under in society.

I have already mentioned in my treatise on the management of a family, and the power of the master, that man is an animal naturally formed for society, and that therefore, when he does not want any foreign assistance, he will of his own accord desire to live with others; not but that mutual advantage induces them to it, as far as it enables each person to live more agreeably; and this is indeed the great object not only to all in general, but also to each individual: but it is not merely matter of choice, but they join in society also, even that they may be able to live, which probably is not without some share of merit, and they also support civil society, even for the sake of preserving life, without they are grievously overwhelmed with the miseries of it: for it is very evident that men will endure many calamities for the sake of living, as being something naturally sweet and desirable. It is easy to point out the different modes of government, and we have already settled them in our exoteric discourses. The power of the master, though by nature equally serviceable, both to the master and to the slave, yet nevertheless has for its object the benefit of the master, while the benefit of the slave arises accidentally; for if the slave is destroyed, the power of the master is at an end: but the authority which a man has over his wife, and children, and his family, which we call domestic government, is either for the benefit of those who are under subjection, or else for the common benefit of the whole: but its particular object is the benefit of the governed, as we see in other arts; in physic, for instance, and the gymnastic exercises, wherein, if any benefit [1279a] arise to the master, it is accidental; for nothing forbids the master of the exercises from sometimes being himself one of those who exercises, as the steersman is always one of the sailors; but both the master of the exercises and the steersman consider the good of those who are under their government. Whatever good may happen to the steersman when he is a sailor, or to the master of the exercises when he himself makes one at the games, is not intentional, or the object of their power; thus in all political governments which are established to preserve and defend the equality of the citizens it is held right to rule by turns. Formerly, as was natural, every one expected that each of his fellow-citizens should in his turn serve the public, and thus administer to his private good, as he himself when in office had done for others; but now every one is desirous of being continually in power, that he may enjoy the advantage which he makes of public business and being in office; as if places were a never-failing remedy for every complaint, and were on that account so eagerly sought after.

I have already discussed human nature in my treatise on household management and the authority of masters. Human beings are naturally social animals. So even when people need no outside help, they desire to live with others. Mutual advantage also draws people together, since living together allows each person to live more agreeably. Living well is indeed the great goal, both for everyone together and for each individual. But people do not join society merely by choice. They also come together simply to stay alive, and life itself probably has some value. People also maintain civil society to preserve life, unless life's hardships overwhelm them too severely. Clearly, people endure many misfortunes for the sake of living, because life is naturally sweet and desirable. The different forms of government are easy to identify. We have already defined them in our discussions for a general audience. A master's authority is by nature equally useful to both master and slave. Yet its purpose is to benefit the master, while the slave benefits only incidentally. For if the slave dies, the master's authority ends. But a man's authority over his wife, children, and household, which we call household government, has a different purpose. It serves either those under his authority or the whole household. Its specific aim, however, is the benefit of the governed. We see the same principle in other arts, such as medicine and physical training. In these arts, any benefit [1279a] to the practitioner is incidental. Nothing prevents a trainer from sometimes taking part in the exercises himself, just as a helmsman is always a sailor. But both the trainer and the helmsman consider the good of those under their direction. A helmsman may benefit as a sailor, and a trainer may benefit when he takes part in the games. But neither benefit is intended or is the purpose of his authority. Likewise, in all political systems established to preserve and defend equality among citizens, taking turns in office is considered right. In earlier times, everyone naturally expected fellow citizens to take their turns serving the public. Each citizen expected to benefit personally from their service, just as he had served others while in office. But now everyone wants to remain in power continually, to enjoy the advantages gained from public business and holding office. People pursue public offices so eagerly, as if those offices were a never-failing cure for every illness.

It is evident, then, that all those governments which have a common good in view are rightly established and strictly just, but those who have in view only the good of the rulers are all founded on wrong principles, and are widely different from what a government ought to be, for they are tyranny over slaves, whereas a city is a community of freemen.

Clearly, then, all governments that aim at the common good are properly established and fully just. But governments that aim only at the rulers’ good are all based on wrong principles. Such governments are far from what a government should be, because they rule over people as tyrants rule over slaves. A city, by contrast, is a community of free people.