Political Thought in the Greek Era

The Greeks now call their country the Hellenic Republic and refer to themselves as “Hellenes” or Hellenics. In everyday life, they use the term “Hellade” as the ancient name for these lands, which consisted of multiple kingdoms and states independent from each other. Ancient Greece comprised various kingdoms and independent states, possibly due to its geographical nature, including a large number of islands scattered throughout the Mediterranean Sea. This geographical reality imposed a social and political reality based on independence, resulting from the self-sufficiency of many of these groups, each forming a city-state. The Greek term “Polis” referred to two meanings:

• The first pertains to the physical city, a collection of private residences and public buildings concentrated in a limited area;
• The second relates to a political concept associated with the practice of governance and independence from external interference.

In 621 BCE, a politician named Draco (or Dracon) established the first set of written laws in Athens. The goal was to reduce the dissatisfaction caused by the judicial system at the time, which relied on unwritten laws known only to a few aristocratic judges who were known for their favoritism towards the nobility. By replacing customary law and blood feuds with a written legal code, Draco enabled everyone to become acquainted with these laws.

Draco’s law placed the responsibility of punishing the offender in the hands of the government, contrary to the previous custom where everyone took their own revenge. By placing the responsibility of enforcing the law in the hands of the Athenian government, Athens became one of the first city-states. Despite the positive aspects of Draco’s actions, his laws were criticized for their severity, to the extent that it was said they were written in blood because they prescribed the death penalty for most crimes.

Draco’s laws were the first constitutional legislation for the Greeks, enabling the ruled classes to find a way towards participating in power and organizing the relationship between the ruler and the ruled through laws that defined rights and warned against transgressions and crimes.

Political Thought of Solon:

Solon (639 BCE – 559 BCE) is considered one of the most prominent Greek thinkers before Socrates and was known as one of the seven wise men of ancient Greece. During his visit to Egypt in 559 BCE, he benefited from the laws of “Bocchoris” and incorporated them into his legislation. When he was appointed as Archon, he was entrusted with the authority to change Draco’s laws at a time when Athens needed political and economic change. Most of the wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few influential citizens, and farmers were forced to mortgage their lands in exchange for borrowing money, offering themselves and their families as guarantees for the debt. Solon issued a law that canceled all those debts and mortgages and freed those who had become slaves. He also modified the financial systems to facilitate foreign trade, but he issued a law prohibiting the export of grains. Additionally, Solon modified the inheritance laws by granting the right to inheritance and distributing land ownership to all children instead of only the eldest son. He also devised a plan for distributing land, similar to what is known as agricultural reform in modern times. Solon’s belief in the rule of law and the necessity of upholding it led him to formulate the principle of the right of a community – with shared principles – to establish its own laws, recognized by the state for its legitimacy and legality for its members, as long as they do not contradict its laws. This takes the form of parties, unions, or associations in the present era.

Solon’s constitutional reforms divided citizens into four classes based on income and allowed citizens from all classes to become members of the legislative assembly and civil courts. He established a council of 400 people to assume political powers in the judicial council “Areopagus” and established popular courts where citizens could appeal and challenge the decisions of state officials. Despite the fact that Solon’s reforms maintained minority rule, they were a definite step in the path of Athenian democracy.

Solon sought to introduce the highest ideals of social equality in a state affected by economic conditions and strongly opposed advice from those who urged him to become a tyrant, saying: “Absolute power is a beautiful position indeed, but it is like a position on top of a mountain, with a path to ascend to it, but no path to descend from it.” Upon leaving office – by his own will – after serving as the executive ruler in Athens for twenty-five years, Solon advised the Athenians, saying: “The best stable system of governance is for the ruled to obey the rulers, and for the rulers to obey the laws.”

Influence of Greek Politicians Before Plato in Establishing Political Thought:

Solon’s reforms laid the foundation for ancient Greek democracy, introducing social and political reforms and empowering the people. This forced subsequent politicians to consider this change in the nature of political participation, the extent of granted freedoms, and the powers used in governance. In this context, two important figures can be mentioned, who shaped the golden age of Athenian democracy before the emergence of Greek political thinkers, starting with Plato.

1- Cleisthenes (570 BCE – 508 BCE):

Solon’s reforms achieved a degree of stability in Athenian society, but that did not prevent conflicts from erupting between the three classes in that society: the aristocrats, merchants, and the common people. This conflict ended with the victory of the common people led by a young soldier known as Peisistratus, who appointed himself as ruler of Athens around 545 BCE and exercised a tyrannical and despotic rule. He was succeeded by his son Hippias, who was overthrown by the Athenians, leading to Cleisthenes taking power. He established a constitution that complemented and modified Solon’s constitution, addressing individual rule and reinforcing the foundations of the democratic system, starting from 503 BCE.

Through this action, Cleisthenes established a democratic system in Athens and gained the support of the Athenian people. He then proceeded to reform the tribal organization in ancient Athens and put an end to the political control of noble tribes by redistributing Athenian society into tribes based on location, which became the basis for administrative organization and political rights, instead of the old division based on kinship or blood ties. Athens was thus divided into ten tribes, each based on location, and based on the new spatial relationship that replaced the old blood ties, the Areopagus Council, which appeared in Solon’s legislation, was reorganized to represent Athenian society as a whole, rather than representing old family ties. After being composed of four hundred members, one hundred from each of the four Athenian tribes based on blood ties, it was reorganized to consist of five hundred members, fifty from each new spatial tribe, elected annually through elections, and membership was open to any citizen. To protect the emerging democracy, Cleisthenes enacted a law of ostracism and exclusion for politicians believed to be dangerous.

2- Pericles (490 BCE – 429 BCE):

Pericles is considered a Greek statesman who named the strongest era of Athens after himself, known as the Age of Pericles. He led the Athenian government for over thirty years and worked on continuing the reforms of his uncle Cleisthenes. His position in the Athenian governance system was more like that of a prime minister in a modern government than a military commander, and his strength lay in his ability to win over the general assembly to his side.

He introduced a salary system that began to be granted to civil servants in the state, who had not received wages for their work until then. To implement this, he started by applying this law to elected officials known as Archons, then extended the practice to the rest of the employees, whose names were listed in the public service salary records. Pericles allowed the general public to hold any position in the state through his reforms.

Pericles expressed the Athenian understanding of democracy in a speech, saying:

“Our system of governance does not conflict with or compete with the systems of governance of others. We do not imitate our neighbors, but we are an example to be followed. We call our system of governance democracy because administration is in the hands of a group of people, not in the hands of a few.”

Pericles wanted to strengthen the power of his state and make Athens the strongest state in Greece, so he worked on expanding Athens’ power through foreign conquests. Therefore, Athenian forces engaged in long wars, especially with Sparta.

Political Thought in the Era of Philosophical Schools

Several philosophical schools emerged in Greece that studied political matters, either before the Greek thinkers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, or during the transitional period between the Greek and Roman eras. These schools are listed according to their chronological appearance and contributions as follows:

01- Sophists:

Sophism refers to a Greek word derived from the term “sophistry,” which also derives from the word “sophisma,” meaning wisdom and skill. It was initially applied to deceptive wisdom and skill in rhetoric or philosophy, then considered a practical philosophy based on persuasion rather than scientific or logical proof, relying on sensory perception and belief, and using the power of rhetoric, eloquence, and dialectical dialogue to achieve persuasion in what is believed to be the truth. In this sense, sophism became synonymous with fallacious argumentation, sterile debate, playing with words, and concealing the truth.

Sophism emerged in ancient Greece as an intellectual trend in the fifth century BCE, with the term “Sophistos” meaning a teacher in any field of knowledge. However, Socrates and Plato later used this term in a derogatory manner because sophists turned to dialectics and winning arguments regardless of their truth or falsehood, to the extent that they boasted of their ability to support both an opinion and its opposite at the same time. Sophists were known for their skill in rhetoric, which was important under the prevailing ancient democratic systems in Athens, and they harshly criticized inherited moral principles and religions, believing that virtue lay in achieving success in this world.

Some of the most prominent sophists were Protagoras, Gorgias, Hippias, Prodicus, Polus, and Antiphon, who focused on the difference between civil law and the natural human pursuit of life’s pleasures. He believed that people could often achieve personal benefits by manipulating the law and acting according to their wealth if they could escape punishment. They believed that the law was not a natural thing but a mere convention, so they argued that intelligent individuals – to the extent that they could evade the laws – had no moral obligation to abide by it. The ideas of the sophists were described as contradictory and ambiguous, and Socrates emphasized that their teachings had the potential to destroy the social order.

The spread of the sophist school in ancient Greece negatively influenced social life, leading to a climate of skepticism and debate about values, beliefs, and ideas. In this way, unprecedented ideas began to emerge, emphasizing personal desires and benefits without regard for moral values, which was one of the factors that later led to the emergence of the Epicurean school.

02- Epicurean School:

Epicurus (342 BCE – 270 BCE) is considered the founder of the philosophy of pleasure. He was an atheist philosopher who studied at the schools of Plato and Aristotle and then established a school in Athens in 306 BCE. The Epicurean intellectual trend aimed to achieve the principle of individual self-sufficiency, based on the belief that a good life is based on enjoying pleasure and avoiding troubles. The ideas of this school can be approached based on the circumstances of its emergence, as it emerged during the era of the city-state, the prevailing model in Greece, which established the early meanings of democracy and the clear relationship between political institutions. However, these states were weak compared to their geographical neighbors and experienced a severe lack of loyalty and stability due to wars among them, which explains the weakness they experienced, to the extent that they were easily subjugated during Alexander the Great’s campaign.

These circumstances led to the emergence of new ideas as an alternative to the thought embodied in the philosophy of Socrates, the idealism of Plato, and even the logic and practicality of Aristotle’s ideas, which failed to protect Greek states. Moreover, ideas clashed regarding the necessity of the state’s existence to achieve a virtuous life, as reality proved otherwise. These states failed to achieve the social justice they advocated, as individuals, no matter how virtuous, remained concerned with their personal interests and affairs. Thus, the ideal state lost its value, leading to the emergence of a different thought embodied by the Epicurean school.

Epicurean philosophy emerged as a response to this situation, attempting to steer Greek thought away from engaging in known dialectical issues and open a discussion about stability and human happiness in the way it believed, which was primarily based on exploring what occupies the human mind. In this context, Epicurus believed that there were two sources of anxiety for the human mind: fear of the gods and fear of death. He believed that these fears were based on false beliefs that could be overcome by focusing on obtaining pleasures. Epicurus was known for his belief that the stomach is the home of desires, and desires are of three types: natural and necessary when shared between animals and humans, and their unsatisfied leads to death, such as drinking and eating; natural and non-essential when shared between humans and animals, and their unsatisfied does not lead to death, such as sex; and non-natural and non-essential, which are human privileges, such as the desire for possession, high status, wealth, fame, etc.

Epicureanism sees that the primary task of any government is to provide security and establish a strong system to combat chaos and forces of evil, and thus there is no objection to the establishment of an authoritarian individual government if it is capable of achieving security and protecting individuals’ interests.

Epicureanism asserts that social agreements and government are merely means to protect individuals from harm by each other, and that the concept of justice in human society has a relative value resulting from the voluntary contract between individuals. The interests and circumstances of individuals may require agreeing to establish certain laws that achieve their goals and interests and protect them from harm and pain that may result from interactions between individuals. These laws and legislations agreed upon embody the concept of justice in society and clarify the rights and duties of each individual. In the absence of this contract or agreement, there is no meaning to justice or the moral values that bind individuals in their dealings, and thus justice itself is a concept without value in the eyes of Epicureans.

Epicureanism calls upon the wise man to stay away from politics and not involve himself in it, as it affects and exhausts him. The school believed that the judgment of laws and political systems should be based on the benefit they provide to the individual and the facilitation of interactions between people. Therefore, Epicureans preferred types of governments that achieve security, as there is no objection to individuals submitting completely to any government that works to achieve peace and order, regardless of whether it is authoritarian or democratic.

Epicurus distinguishes between individuals, considering some as wise and others as common people. He believes that laws were legislated to protect society from the transgressions and injustices of fools, as only the wise can lead a just and righteous life. As for the common people, they must be deterred by the force of the law due to their inability to self-regulate. He believes that laws are established based on a contract between individuals in society, and thus they must be respected and obeyed to the best of their ability.

Epicurus expressed his rejection of the Greek reality in which he lived, which lacked a sense of security and justice, and emphasized that the criterion by which the validity of the concept of justice on which the state is based is measured is the mutual benefit and utility that leads individuals in the society they form. Therefore, there should be no dominance of one individual’s interests over another’s, or of one group’s interests over another’s. Epicurus said:

“If someone establishes a law that does not serve the interests of all, then that law can never possess the quality of justice.”

The intellectual trend of the Epicurean school was characterized by escapism and selfishness, attacking religion and customs, and rejecting anything that contradicts the individual’s personal happiness.

03- Cynic School:

Cynicism is considered a philosophical school founded in the fourth century BCE by Antisthenes (445 BCE – 365 BCE), one of Socrates’ followers. Antisthenes believed that the wise person is the one who looks down upon all common desires in life and lives without being concerned with wealth. He emphasized that constant happiness is impossible as long as a person has needs and desires that cannot be satisfied, and he is not bound by any obligations towards society, the state, or the family. The term “Cynic” as a description of this school derives from the word “Cynosarges,” a place in Athens where the Cynics first gathered, and it is also said that the name is derived from the Greek word meaning “dog,” expressing their frequent criticism and neglect, and their pursuit of acting according to human nature. Cynicism is also manifested in frustration and lack of trust towards organizations and authorities, and other aspects of society.

The Cynics rejected all traditions, whether in the name of religion, morals, or other social constraints, and thus expressed conformity to nature and disregard for conventions. The Cynics were characterized by a pessimistic tendency, stemming from their lack of trust in the existence of good in human nature. The intellectual trend of the Cynic school was embodied in its adoption of a philosophy of extreme escapism, to the extent that its followers rejected everything prevalent in society and all the pleasures of life. They broke away from the social and political systems of the city-state and called for the elimination of differences between people. To achieve this, they advocated disregarding moral principles and good reputation, denying social conditions, and breaking away from systems of ownership, marriage, and family, as well as all social relationships and citizenship. They also called for equality among all members of society, where there is no difference between the rich and the poor, the Greek and the non-Greek, the citizen and the foreigner, the free and the slave.

The goal of the Cynics was to create a kind of anarchy or communism, where the government and systems of family and ownership would disappear, and a return to a society of nature according to their concept would occur. In their view, this is the good life, and only the wise embrace it, while those who deviate from it are fools. Since the wise are present everywhere, they form a global community and have their global city or state, in which each wise person lives based on the principle of self-sufficiency. From the concept of the global state in its negative sense presented by the school, it was adopted by the Stoic school and given a positive meaning, and this was the political impact of the Cynic school, considering it the starting point for Stoic thought.

04- Stoic School:

Stoicism expressed a philosophical school that flourished around the fourth century BCE and continued until the fourth century CE. Stoicism is attributed to “Zeno of Citium” (335 BCE – 265 BCE), who used to meet his students in a stoa, urging them towards virtue and wisdom. Stoic philosophical interest covered three areas: nature, ethics, and logic. Within this framework, the Stoic idea emerged, stating that “a calamity occurs when emotion destroys reason.”

The Stoics believed that all people have an inner perception that connects each individual to all other people, to truth, and to the god that governs the world. This belief led to a theory of the universe, the idea that individuals are citizens of the world, not just of one country or specific region. This vision led to a belief in a natural law that transcends civil law and provides a standard for human laws. In this context, the Stoics place ethics at the central position and relegate the state to a marginal role.

The external circumstances created by Alexander, his military victories, and his subjugation of most Greek cities had an impact on political thought, manifested in the destruction of loyalty to the city-state, so the idea of cosmopolitanism, the global state, and global law became attractive.

The essence of the Stoic school’s philosophy lies in the theory of the global state and the political ideas and ethical goals it encompassed, as well as the development of the principle of self-sufficiency to achieve individual happiness. The idea of the global state – as the highest ideal – among the Stoics is based on their philosophy regarding the concept of natural law.

Two political ideas emerged in Stoicism, contradicting each other regarding the individual:

• The first: the idea of the individual’s personality, considering them as a living being, and based on the fact that they are a distinguished human being in the scope of their individual life.
• The second: that this human being is merely a member of the community, based on the fact that it forms a comprehensive human society, in which individuals are all connected by a shared nature.

From this conception of the individual, two conceptions of society emerged:

• A narrow society,
• A broad, global society.

From the idea of cosmopolitanism, the idea of global equality for all individuals without any discrimination emerged, and as a result, an important outcome arose, which is the necessity of the existence of a general rule governing this global equality. Thus, the idea of natural law as a universal and binding principle in achieving this equality was born, as a constant and eternal law emanating from the nature of things.

According to the Stoics, differences do not lie in origin but in abilities, and thus they called for equality among individuals, so there is no difference between the ruler and the ruled. Since everyone is equal, there is no place for slavery in this society, and the only distinction is between the wise and the foolish. The distinction of humans from other beings lies in what humans are endowed with in terms of reason and the ability to distinguish between good and evil, and belonging to the global state is based on the value of the human being, which is determined by their reason and personal merits, not by their personal appearances. While Aristotle considered the slave a living tool in the hands of their master, the Stoics insisted that there is no slave by nature and that the slave should be treated as a lifelong hired worker.

Stoicism crystallized the idea of natural law within its philosophical framework, believing that the highest ideal is submission to the natural law that governs the world and that everyone adheres to, because its authority transcends that of civil law. The global state among the Stoics aimed to achieve individual happiness based on self-sufficiency, through the submission of the will, patience, and sincerity, and the rejection of pleasures and the necessity of believing in the power of the ruler of the universe. The global state is governed by the infallible natural law, which everyone, rulers and ruled, adheres to, and it embodies in its essence constancy and permanence because it is the law of God. Therefore, the Stoics believed in the unity and perfection of nature and a complete ethical system, where the inhabitants of the world, under this global unity, are members of one family.

Stoicism believed that there are two laws for humans: the law of customs and the natural law, but it affirmed the supremacy of the natural law. Consequently, the Stoics believed in the duality of the legal system of the global state due to the multiplicity of places in this state, and thus the diversity and multiplicity of customs within it. Therefore, there must be a law of the city based on customs alongside the natural law.

The Stoics invented the concept of the golden age, which means that individuals, before merging into the state society, lived in an ideal society without differences, and it is the life of individuals in the state that created these differences. The golden age is the time when a society free of differences (the origin in individuals is similarity) existed.

On the other hand, emphasizing the centrality of ethics in social behavior and political action, the Stoics believed that human society is based on the theory of performing duties. The performance of individuals’ duties, the fulfillment of the tasks assigned to them, and the self-restraint are essential factors for the establishment of a society characterized by harmony, cohesion, and respect.

Political Thought of Plato:

Plato (427 BCE – 347 BCE) is considered one of the most important thinkers in the history of Western civilization and is related to the legislator Solon through his mother. The word “Plato” means “wide-shouldered,” while his real name is “Aristocles.” He was greatly influenced by his teacher Socrates, who later became the basis of his philosophical dialogues.

Plato witnessed internal and external conflicts and revolutions in Greece, as well as the regimes of several tyrants. Based on this, Plato sought to search for an environment in which he could embody his ideas and became convinced that knowledge and science cannot be separated from any just political system. It was known about Plato that he was not fond of the democracy that existed in Athens and did not trust it.

Plato’s political ideas can be approached through three main books:

• The Republic (The Moralist Republic);
• The Statesman;
• The Laws.

Plato wrote The Republic in his youth and studied in it the virtuous individual and the virtuous life that should exist in a virtuous state. He examined the nature of good and the means of obtaining it, as well as individual and collective activity, ethics, economics, and philosophy. The fundamental idea embodied in The Republic is that virtue is knowledge, and true knowledge is the ideal, which led these ideas to fall under the theory of ideals. According to this vision, politics for Plato becomes justice in the city, just as virtue is justice in the individual.

Plato based his ethical theory on the proposition that all people desire happiness. He believed that happiness is the natural result of a healthy soul, and since acquiring moral virtues leads to a healthy soul, people should be virtuous. Plato affirmed that the soul is divided into three parts: the mind, the will, and desire; and he likened the ideal society to the soul, which is also divided – in his opinion – into three classes: the philosopher-kings, the guardians or soldiers, and the common citizens (farmers, craftsmen). Thus, Plato created the transitive relationship in this virtuous state, through the control of the philosopher-kings over the common citizens through the soldiers.

Plato believes that the ideal virtuous government must be based on intellectual excellence, not on wealth and status. Under this government, the principle of absolute equality among individuals is not applied, but rather a distinction is made among them based on their abilities, and rights are distributed to citizens based on this principle alone. The concept of the virtuous republic was based on a strict principle of division of labor, whether in terms of the individual abilities of each person or within the activity of the three major classes. There is a threefold intertwined hierarchy in Plato’s theory:

• Epistemological, between intellectual abilities inherent in nature (the difference in levels of thinking);
• Social, regarding the positioning of the three classes in society;
• Political, regarding the exercise of power, where governance is entrusted to philosophers.

Plato retreated from some of his ideas in his book The Statesman (The Politician), as these ideas contradicted the prevailing sentiment among Athenians regarding democracy. He also did not focus much on the idea of the philosopher-ruler, especially with his experience of a reality completely different from what he desired, where he lived through tyranny and ignorance among rulers. He gave the example of the state of Sparta, and The Statesman represents a dialogue that attempted to bring Athenians together and reflected Plato’s political vision in a more mature and deeper form.

The Laws is Plato’s third political book, written about 30 years after The Republic, and expresses more realistic ideas. Through it, Plato acknowledged the necessity of the rule of law, that is, he reconsidered the constitutional laws, which are an integral part of Athenian culture. The turning point in Plato’s political thought was his new conviction that both the philosopher-ruler and the ruled must equally submit to the law and the constitution. Plato admitted that what he had previously demanded was highly idealistic, and that reality necessitated the participation of other citizens in governance.

In his book The Laws, Plato discussed several concepts, the most important of which are constitutions and legislations. He also proposed organizing society based on ownership and retreated from the idea of not forming families, favoring mixed systems of governance that include aristocracy and democracy.

Plato ranked the systems of governance in order of preference as follows:

• Aristocratic government: the government of the virtuous individual, where they do not need laws to restrain them, as their virtue and wisdom make them take the right decision and always suppress corruption;
• Timocratic government: the government of the military minority that reaches power through its strength, resulting from the corruption of the aristocratic government, and it is a manifestation of the disintegration of the ideal state;
• Oligarchic government: the government of the wealthy minority versus the poor majority, emerging under the widening gap between the two sides and as a result of the corruption of the military minority;
• Democratic government: the government of the people achieved through the spread of freedom and equality in society, and achieved by the desire of the poor majority harmed by the corruption of the wealthy minority’s government;
• Dictatorial government (tyranny): this government emerges when democracy becomes corrupt and chaos spreads in society, leading an individual to seize power and monopolize it, establishing the government of the individual tyrant, where there is insecurity and instability.

These forms of systems represent a recurring cycle under certain conditions and reasons.

Political Thought of Aristotle:

Aristotle (384 BCE – 322 BCE), also known as Aristotle Thales, meaning lover of wisdom or perfect in virtue, represents the most prominent philosophical figure in the history of ancient political thought, especially in the Greek era. In addition to being the teacher of Alexander the Great, he invented a logic and philosophical thinking that lasted for centuries after him, known as Aristotelian logic. He was an encyclopedic thinker to the extent that he was described as the first teacher, and throughout his life and after his death, he attracted many followers and supporters. His ideas continued to be supported, criticized, or objected to by philosophers of the Middle Ages from Muslims and Christians, and were the starting point for raising rational ideas during the Renaissance and modern era. When he taught in his time, he delivered his lessons while walking and wandering with his students, so he and his students were called “Peripatetics,” and his philosophy was known as “Peripateticism.”

Aristotle defines the city-state as the most comprehensive and encompassing political bond and defines the constitution as the organization of the city-state regarding the existing positions in it in general, but with particular attention to that position that has sovereignty in all matters.

Aristotle is considered the first to introduce methodology into political science and analyzed Greek constitutions and studied systems of governance before expressing his opinion on political matters, relying on logic. His reliance on logic and his combination with the idealism of his teacher Plato helped him study the reality of Greek states more deeply. Aristotle studied at Plato’s Academy and used to say: “I love truth and I love Plato, but I prefer truth to Plato.”

Aristotle taught Alexander for six years, then opened his own school and built his ideas and theories based on the previous experiences of Greek states. There was a shift in the method of political thinking, as it was deductive with Plato and became inductive with Aristotle (from abstract to sensory).

In his book “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle emphasized that true politics is built on ethics and the will for good, and that politics and ethics should take pleasure and pain as their subject matter. As a result of this close connection between the ethical and the political, and based on the fact that virtue is a mean between two extremes, both of which are vices, Aristotle believes that the virtuous state is the one that forms a mean between the aristocracy of wealth and the democracy of the people, and he did not always see good in democracy.

Aristotle interpreted, commented on, and compared the constitutions of 158 cities from Greek cities and concluded that the state represents the result of historical development, as it went through social stages before reaching the stage of the state. The only guarantee for just governance in the state is the law, and Aristotle had a concept of the ideal state, believing that the most effective and highest ideal state is the one that enables the constitution to produce its effect. Based on this premise, Aristotle does not believe in or trust absolute rule, no matter the qualities of the ruler, even if they were a philosopher.

In Aristotle’s view, constitutional government is the best practical form of government because it combines the good elements in both democracy and oligarchy, but without extremism in either. It is embodied in Aristotle’s view in the city-state with limited area and population, similar to what Greece knew at the time.

Aristotle considers the relationship in the constitutional state to be a relationship between free individuals and not a class or family relationship, and thus the ruler’s authority is not the authority of a master over his slaves, nor is it the authority of the head of the family towards his family members.

Aristotle’s contribution to political thought is evident in his classification of politics as a science, although he sometimes merged economics with politics and linked politics to ethics. He said that humans are political animals, and their function is to exercise reason to achieve happiness, whether in their family or in society. Aristotle talks about the transition from family relationships to a broader framework, which is social relationships, where the state is higher than the individual, family, and kin. On the other hand, Aristotle believes that war, conquest, occupation, and expansion are legitimate means of possession and are only permissible for Greeks, as humans in Aristotle’s view are divided into two: masters, who are the Greeks, and the rest, who are slaves. As for women, Aristotle viewed them with contempt and considered them subordinate to men.

Aristotle classified governments into three types: government of the individual, government of the minority, and government of the majority. He also focused on the issue of separation of powers in all his research, and through this separation, he was able to distinguish between just and corrupt governments. The just governments in Aristotle’s view are:

1- Government of the individual; 2- Aristocratic government; 3- Democratic government;

As for the corrupt governments, they are a deviation from the three previous governments:

1- Dictatorial government; 2- Oligarchic government; 3- Demagogic government (government of the mob).

Aristotle prefers the democratic government based on a constitution that defines its powers for the following reasons:

• Laws serve the public interest, and the constitution protects public interests.
• The constitution is a method of work for the entire government.
• The rule of law instills a sense of psychological comfort and national sentiment in individuals, as well as their ability to choose. Aristotle explains this in his book “Politics,” stating that the law is the master in the state, and governments are its servants and emanate from it.

Aristotle points out the necessity of the government responding to the interests of society as a whole, instead of its narrow self-interest, which he called the public good.

Aristotle did not consider democracy itself to be one of the just forms of governance, but he considered it to be a just form of governance only if the government’s work is directed towards serving the public good. He did not call it democracy but rather “Politeia” or what it means, constitutional governance. Politeia differs from democracy not only in its purpose and inclination through its commitment to the public good instead of the benefit of a faction, but also in its different and more complex institutional structure. The purpose of this structure is not to strengthen the will of one faction over another and at its expense, like oligarchic rule or tyrannical rule, but rather its goal is to distribute powers and responsibilities according to enabling abilities. Thus, it benefits from the widest range of talents and skills and also requires a wide range of support and loyalty.

Aristotle grants three conditions for the just city:

• The city must have a limited population, not exceeding 100,000 people, and to control this number, reproduction must be regulated through abortion and the execution of deformed individuals, and marriage must be subject to supervision (no early marriage, preventing the mentally ill from marrying, no reproduction in old age);
• The city must be fortified against enemies, with a strong army, and its location must be on the sea for its supply in case of siege;
• The city must consist of several factions (rulers, workers, farmers), and no faction should replace another.