Explain Aristotle Forms Of Government

935 Words4 Pages
Aristotle’s forms of government include three ‘true’ forms following deviations to each form. The first type of constitution is kingship; the rule of one aiming at the good of all. The second is aristocracy; the rule of the elite aiming at the good of all. The third is polity “politea”; rule exercised by the populous aiming at the good of all 116. Kingship, aristocracy, and polity are considered the ‘just’ forms because their focus is on the common good. Tyranny, deviation to kingship, is sole rule for the benefit only of the ruler. The deviation to aristocracy, oligarchy concerns itself with only the wealthy and the benefit of the rich. Democracy, deviation to polity, is exploited by the poor to serve only their own benefit. Aristotle explains…show more content…
First looking at Tiberius, Rome was unstable due to the divide in its citizens. As the Roman Republic expanded, aristocrats became richer and the populous became poorer. Aristotle would have considered this government to be an oligarchy, because of the major divide between the rich and poor. Product of the elite, Tiberius was educated and well liked. As elected tribune, Tiberius proposed a land reform that would make land available for redistribution 26. Aristocrats owning more than a certain amount of allotted land would be forced to give up the surplus to the State, and the State would redistribute the land to the poor. Although there were advantages to this bill, the Senate did not approve, mainly due to Tiberius’ methods of passing the reform. Tiberius insulted the Senate by sidestepping them and going straight to the Assembly to pass his bill. When a tribune tried to veto him, Tiberius had the tribune removed from office. This resulted in the passing of the bill, and the Senate’s last sympathetic ties with Tiberius. As the bill was enacted, questions of its funding started to arise. Tiberius proposed using money from a fortune left to Rome that was rightfully senatorial money. The threat of Tiberius to the power of the Senate then became too much. With Tiberius up for re-election, the Senate had to take action and beat Tiberius and 300 of his followers to…show more content…
In line with Aristotle’s characteristics of tyranny, Tiberius did act in a way that benefitted him. Although it appeared that he was acting in sole interest of the people, Tiberius did gain power and influence, creating many faithful followers. Moreover, granted he was born an elite, Tiberius conned his reform into play. Sneaking around the Senate and using illegitimate means is not ‘power exercised by law’ cite. On the other hand, it could be argued that Tiberius was an aggressive ruler who fought for the right of the people. From the onset he advocated for the redistribution of wealth and worked towards Aristotle’s preferred form of government; a government in which the people aim at the good of the people. In this sense, Tiberius was not only proposing land reforms, but he was working towards the reversal of Plato’s degeneration. With Rome in its oligarch state, it was only time until Rome would start to decline, and Tiberius was arguably trying to get Rome back to a place of
Open Document