Thucydides was an Athenian historiographer. general and political philosopher boy of Olorus. He is considered as the male parent of the school of political pragmatism. This is because he viewed the dealingss between states as establishing on might alternatively of right. Thucydides exhibited involvement in developing an apprehension of the human nature to seek accounts of behaviour in crises such as pestilence. slaughters. as in that of the Melians. and civil war ( Everson. 1996 ) . Another philosopher was Aristotle. He was born in in 384 BCE in Stagirus. northern Greece. His male parent was Nicomachus who died when Aristotle was still a kid. The two work forces provide good information on democracy and ancient political relations ( Everson. 1996 ) .
In extremist democracies. the involvements of the hapless are paramount ; Aristotle. therefore. argues that democracy is non the best signifier of authorities. He states that oligarchy and monarchy are besides non the best signifiers of authoritiess. Harmonizing to him. regulation in democracy benefits those people who are named in the authorities type and it is for the needy. In a democratic province. regulation is by the needy and for the needy. Aristocracy is a better type of authorities because the swayer has the involvement of the state at his bosom. He says that a state ought to be ruled by people who have adequate clip and are willing to prosecute virtuousness. This is different from current leaders who are career politicians whose motive is create wealth at the disbursal of the citizens. He thinks regulations are at that place to be leisured and propertied ( Grube & A ; Reeve. 2010 ) .
Aristotle holds a positive position in the regulation by the bulk when it is moderated by a good fundamental law and regulation of Law ; he argues that a good structured democracy can make a high degree of virtuousness compared to the single virtuousness of the citizens doing up the province. He specifically opposes the regulation by the elect groups such as the defender of Plato’s Republic ; he argues that a inactive opinion group can do great hostility among the other groups in society. He farther argues that cipher in such a province can truly be truly happy.
Aristotle believed that an ideal province is one whose fundamental law is written by people who agree on a common good. He said “In making so we shall non presume a criterion of excellence beyond the range of an ordinary adult male. or a criterion of instruction naming for exceeding gifts of nature or luck. or. yet once more an ideal signifier of authorities. No. we shall restrict ourselves to the kind of life that most work forces are able to portion. and a fundamental law to which most provinces can attain” ( Tredennick. 2010 ) . Unlike the hapless and the rich. Aristotle argues that the in-between category have much to lose or derive in a societal revolution and. hence. can supply impartial counsel. He believed this is the best group to keep offices.
On the other manus. Thucydides does non swear the common adult male with leading. He nevertheless feels that it is necessary to see the positions of the common adult male in the personal businesss of the province but should be influenced to a great extent by the likes and sentiment of a higher standing citizen like Pericles. He believed that human nature was wild and unmanageable. and hence needed to be guided by a individual of higher position. This is apparent from the manner he stressed the address of Pericles and his positions that Athenian should endorse what he said. He believed that democracy needed to be controlled by Pericles. He argued that the human being should continually be watched and trained by a strong adult male like Pericles ( Grube & A ; Reeve. 2010 ) .
He brought to illume the fact that one adult male had the capableness of possessing people who had become wild. weak and unmanageable. He argues that for a authorities to map good. leaders must utilize the human nature to carry mean minds of Athens that what they were stating was good for everyone. However. he sees it as an avenue for talker to prosecute their ain involvement. For this ground. he sees human nature as holding little misrepresentation and ailment will. He felt that people who possess least of these human nature defects that must lift to the place of leading and authorization ( Grube & A ; Reeve. 2010 ) .
The two philosophers clearly differ on their position of democracy. Aristotle supports democracy where in-between category are the swayer while Thucydides advocators for one individual to govern others because of their failings. I support Aristotle on democracy because in the current universe the rich are the swayer that has no involvement of people in their bosom. They lack virtuousnesss and do non hold a batch to lose in instance of societal revolution. With good fundamental law the rights of the hapless and everyone else are safeguarded and guaranteed.
Aristotle high spots several jobs associated with wealth distribution on democracies. He argues that whenever the hapless addition much power. they use that power to enrich themselves from the public exchequer doing the state hapless. Similarly. job arises when the rich addition much political power because the province terminal up going an oligarchy and the hapless citizens suffer a batch. The hapless suffer because oligarchs insist on handling people otherwise harmonizing to the wealth they possess. They believe wealth is a mark of virtue and virtuousness hence the hapless deficiency these qualities. He concluded that “A big in-between category is perfectly indispensable for a stable and well-run authorities because the in-between category does non covet regulation. are non covetous. Foster friendly relationship because of their similarity. and can move as impersonal arbiters between the rich and the poor” ( Tredennick. 2010 ) .
Aristotle argues that wealth is about life and that is a necessary art that t aid people larn how to obtain. maintain and utilize their ownerships to populate good. The agencies of geting these ownerships determine different sorts of life that people live. He states that people live to satisfy their bodily desires and non to run into their basic demands. He observed that resources that belong to common people were treated with less attention unlike private ownerships. He proposes that the ownership of resources be private but their usage is common because there are resources in a province that are portion hence reflecting unit of a many people. This is difficult for legislators to do them common in usage even through revenue enhancement and proviso of public services. He observed that people take pleasance in naming things their ain ( Tredennick. 2010 ) .
He believed that this desire is natural and good because it makes wealth holders portion their wealth with the less fortunate hence build the community. However. at times people become avaricious and garbage to portion with their neighbours because of greed and selfishness taking people into a province of corruption. The solution proposed by Aristotle to the job of corruption and wealth limitedness is virtue. Peoples should detect moderateness and liberalness. These are the lone worthy ways of utilizing belongingss because moderateness tends towards luxury and liberalness tends towards adversity. One should larn to populate in moderateness or temperately and liberally. Aristotle proposes two issues in relation to wealth in footings of moralss. That people should give gifts or money liberally to the right people for a good usage. Those will a batch of wealth should be philanthropic. Such people are public spirited and are honored in a state. He had no job with differences that existed between citizens in footings of wealth. He argued that a good fundamental law should endeavour to equilibrate affluent people and the hapless in the state in take parting in the personal businesss of the state. Issues of distributive justness arise in a state of affairs that there are highly hapless people and really rich citizens. These conditions lead to wrongs being committed. happening of civil discord. discontent and revolution unless the rich become broad and philanthropic ( Grube & A ; Reeve. 2010 ) .
Plato argues that in the context of morality of an person. justness is more of import than wealth. He believed that person should hold moderate wealth in order for them to populate moral life and that inordinate wealth every bit good as poorness have negative consequences to persons and the society. Moral unity and internal harmoniousness of a society and single are disrupted and destroyed by inordinate desire for wealth. He values justness more than money. He believes that an utmost poorness lead to decomposition of the province. Political alterations occur as a consequence of struggle amongst power possessing single in society. Conflicts arise as kids of theses dominant persons differences are non similar to that of their parents. He argues that dictators rise because of poorness and wealth. The rich become lawless while the hapless seek to take control of the province ( Everson. 1996 ) .
Plato believes that a good instruction plan is necessary to assist in the distribution of wealth. He argues that defenders should be trained from a good selected group who so tae leading place. Education will enable swayers to handle their topics in a civilised manner and that they would keep good ethical motives. These defenders must maintain other swayers to their occupation. They should besides be allowed to ain resources that are considered indispensable like gold and Ag. Guardians will non be allowed to hold private houses but live in shared houses and eat from muss. Their demands should be met by citizens. He argues that leting defenders to ain belongings will turn them from defenders to directors.
Plato and Aristotle agree that wealth inequality leads to decomposition of the province. They nevertheless. differ in the solutions they propose in distribution of wealth. Aristotle proposes that power should stay in the custodies of the in-between category and that the rich should pattern sharing with the hapless. This is really realistic and practical in our modern society. However. Plato statement that instruction is the solution to wealth inequality is non agreeable. This is because once persons are trained and assume leading places they proceed to enrich themselves. It is true that democracy can open political determination doing to the bulk of citizens who are nescient to do any rational determinations that affect the whole community. This is because ordinary people do non hold cognition and experience to run the personal businesss of province. They are familiar with issues that affect province like economic sciences. conditions in other states. military scheme and elaboratenesss of moralss and jurisprudence. They lack these accomplishments because they take clip to get. attempt and subject yet bulk of people to non bask. Out of ignorance they vote for politicians who deceive them with cloudy talk and visual aspects. They subsequently regret when they find themselves at the clemencies of these politicians but can non make anything about the conditions they have no control over.
On the other manus. Aristotle position of democracy being excessively optimistic is true. He argues that there are four types of democracies. One type is made of husbandmans and persons with moderate resources. He claims that they merely meet in assembly when it is of import and pressing because of the work they have. The 2nd democracy is when anyone portions in the administration so long a citizen of a state. The 3rd type is when anyone is entitled to take part in government of the province. He argues that in this type of democracy there is no gross. The forth type of democracy is where there is gross and everyone are entitled to portion in the administration. He argues that the hapless enjoy take parting because they get paid. However. the rich are hindered by their private concerns. This show that Aristotle position of democracy is excessively optimistic because contrary to his positions the rich are the 1s who dominate the political sphere ( Everson. 1996 ) . Aristotle compares politicians to craftsmen. He argues that a politician should bring forth and keep a legal system. He states that the metropolis should hold a fundamental law which needs an effectual swayer. A swayer harmonizing to him should hold good virtuousnesss that stem from practical wisdom. He should possess virtuousnesss such as friendliness. generousness. moderateness in regard of sex and humor. A swayer should pattern genuine virtuousness since he entirely has a wisdom that is practical. He can therefore direct other people because he understands the terminal of activities. He states that the end of a swayer should be to recognize moral virtuousness. On the other manus. Plato compares leading to a ship. The captain of a ship should hold cognition of conditions. pilotage. weather forecasting among other. Similarly. a political leader should be good educated and experienced in assorted Fieldss such as military. relationships with other state and legal issues. The ordinary citizen does non possess these qualities harmonizing to Plato because they are non easy to get ( Grube & A ; Reeve. 2010 ) .
Plato is more convincing in footings of the makings of a leader. This is because uneducated and inexperient individual can non be trusted with complex issues of province. Education shapes the character of a individual. Though the virtuousness is of import for a political leader to hold. it is difficult for an uneducated individual to dispatch his province responsibilities merely because he has good ethical motives. There Plato is more convincing.
Everson. S. ( 1996 ) . The Politics. and the Constitution of Athens ( Rev. pupil erectile dysfunction. ) . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grube. G. M. . & A ; Reeve. C. D. ( 2010 ) . Republic. Capital of indiana: Hackett Pub. Co. . ( Original work published 1992 )
Tredennick. H. ( 2010 ) . The last yearss of Socrates: The apology. Crito and Phaedo. Baltimore. Md. : Penguin Books. ( Original work published 1954 )