Section 10: Political regimes and analogies with family relations

There are three kinds of political regime, and an equal number of deviation-forms, perversions of these, as it were. The regimes are monarchy, aristocracy, and thirdly that which is based on a property qualification, which it seems appropriate to call timocratic, although most people generally call it a “polity.”

The best of these _[35] is monarchy, the worst timocracy. The deviation from monarchy is tyranny, for both are forms of one-person rule, but there is _[1160b1] the greatest difference between them. The tyrant looks to his own advantage, while the king looks to the advantage of his subjects. For a person is not a king unless he is sufficient to himself and excels his subjects in all good things. and such a person needs nothing further. Therefore, he will not look to his own interests but to those of his subjects. _[5] For a king who is not like that would be a mere titular king. Now tyranny is the very contrary of this, since the tyrant pursues his own good. And it is clearer in the case of tyranny that it is the worst deviation-form. But it is the contrary of the best that is worst.

Monarchy changes into tyranny, since tyranny is the bad _[10] form of one-person rule. The bad king becomes a tyrant. Aristocracy changes into oligarchy by the badness of the rulers, who distribute contrary to equity what belongs to the city–giving all or most of the good things to themselves, and office always to the same people, paying most regard to wealth. Thus the rulers _[15] are few and are bad men instead of the worthiest. Timocracy changes into democracy. For these are coterminous, since it is the ideal even of timocracy to be the rule of the majority, and all who have the property qualification count as equal. Democracy is the least bad of the deviations, for in its case the form of the regime is but a slight deviation. _[20] These then are the changes to which political regimes are most subject, since these are the smallest and easiest transitions.

One may find resemblances to these regimes and, as it were, patterns of them even in households. For the association of a father with his sons bears the form of monarchy, since the father cares for his children. _[25] This is why Homer calls Zeus “father.” It is the ideal of monarchy to be paternal rule. But among the Persians the rule of the father is tyrannical, since they use their sons as slaves. Tyrannical too is the rule of a master over slaves, since it is the advantage of the master that is brought about in it. But while this form of rule _[30] seems to be a correct, the Persian type is erroneous. For the modes of rule appropriate to different relations are diverse.

The association of husband and wife seems to be aristocratic. For the husband rules in accordance with his worth, and in those matters in which a husband should rule. But the matters appropriate to a wife he hands over to her. If the husband rules in all matters, the relationship changes into an oligarchy. _[35] For in doing this he is not acting in accordance with their respective worth, and not ruling in virtue of his superiority. Sometimes, however, women rule because they are heiresses. _[1161a1] So their rule is not because of their excellence but due to wealth and power, as in oligarchies.

The association of brothers is like timocracy, since they are equal, except in so far as they differ in age. Hence, if they differ greatly in age, _[5] the friendship is no longer of the fraternal type. Democracy is found chiefly in masterless dwellings–since there everyone is on equal terms–and in those in which the ruler is weak and everyone has the authority to do as he pleases.