Chapter 8

It will be necessary to enlarge a little more upon the nature of each of these states, which is not without some difficulty, for he who would enter into a philosophical inquiry into the principles of them, and not content himself with a superficial view of their outward conduct, must pass over and omit nothing, but explain the true spirit of each of them. A tyranny then is, as has been said, a monarchy, where one person has an absolute and despotic power over the whole community and every member therein: an oligarchy, where the supreme power of the state is lodged with the rich: a democracy, on the contrary, is where those have it who are worth little or nothing. But the first difficulty that arises from the distinctions which we have laid down is this, should it happen that the majority of the inhabitants who possess the power of the state (for this is a democracy) should be rich, the question is, how does this agree with what we have said? The same difficulty occurs, should it ever happen that the poor compose a smaller part of the people than the rich, but from their superior abilities acquire the supreme power; for this is what they call an oligarchy; it should seem then that our definition of the different states was not correct: nay, moreover, could any one suppose that the majority of the people were poor, and the minority rich, and then describe the state in this manner, that an oligarchy was a government in which the rich, being few in number, possessed the supreme power, and that a democracy was a state in which the poor, being many in number, possessed it, still there will be another difficulty; for what name shall we give to those states we have been describing? I mean, that in which the greater number are rich, and that in which the lesser number are poor (where each of these possess the supreme power), if there are no other states than those we have described. It seems therefore evident to reason, that whether the supreme power is vested in the hands of many or few may be a matter of accident; but that it is clear enough, that when it is in the hands of the few, it will be a government of the rich; when in the hands of the many, it will be a government of the poor; since in all countries there are many poor and few rich: it is not therefore the cause that has been already assigned (namely, the number of people in power) that makes the difference between the two governments; but an oligarchy and democracy differ in this from each other, in the poverty of those who govern in the one, and the riches I28oa of those who govern in the other; for when the government is in the hands of the rich, be they few or be they more, it is an oligarchy; when it is in the hands of the poor, it is a democracy: but, as we have already said, the one will be always few, the other numerous, but both will enjoy liberty; and from the claims of wealth and liberty will arise continual disputes with each other for the lead in public affairs.

We must examine the nature of each of these forms of government in a little more detail. This task presents some difficulties. Anyone seeking a philosophical understanding of their principles must look beyond how these governments appear to act. Such an inquiry must leave nothing out and explain the true character of each form. As we have said, tyranny is a monarchy. One person holds absolute, despotic power over the whole community and every member of it. An oligarchy places the state's highest power in the hands of the rich. A democracy, by contrast, places that power in the hands of those who own little or nothing. But these distinctions raise an initial difficulty. Suppose the majority of the inhabitants hold power, making the government a democracy, but that majority is rich. How does this fit with what we have said? The same difficulty arises if the poor outnumbered by the rich gain supreme power through their greater abilities. Rule by this smaller group is called an oligarchy. Our definitions of these different governments would therefore seem incorrect. We might instead suppose that most people are poor and a minority are rich. We could then define an oligarchy as government by the wealthy few, and a democracy as government by the poor majority. But another difficulty would remain. What should we call the governments just described, if no other forms exist besides those we have identified? In one, a rich majority holds supreme power. In the other, a poor minority holds it. Reason therefore suggests that whether many or few hold supreme power may be incidental. Yet clearly, rule by the few will be government by the rich, and rule by the many, government by the poor. This is because all countries have many poor people and few rich people. So the number of people in power, the explanation given earlier, does not distinguish the two forms of government. Instead, democracy and oligarchy differ because the rulers of one are poor and the rulers of the other are rich. When the rich govern, whether few or many, the government is an oligarchy. When the poor govern, the government is a democracy. But, as we have already said, the rich will always be few and the poor numerous. Both groups, however, will enjoy freedom. Their competing claims based on wealth and freedom will therefore lead to continual disputes over leadership in public affairs.