The Politics Book
Page 5
"The basis of a democratic state is liberty."
Aristotle
Aristotle argues that the self-interest inherent in the defective forms of government leads to inequality and injustice. This translates into instability, which threatens the role of the state and its ability to encourage virtuous living. In practice, however, the city-states he studied did not all fall neatly into just one category, but exhibited characteristics from the various types.
Although Aristotle had a tendency to view the polis as a single “organism”, of which the citizens are merely a part, he did also examine the role of the individual within the city-state. Again, he stresses Man’s natural inclination to social interaction, and defines the citizen as one who shares in the structure of the civil community, not merely by electing representatives, but through active participation. When this participation is within a “good” form of government (monarchy, aristocracy, or polity), it fosters the ability of the citizen to lead a virtuous life. Under a “defective” regime (tyranny, oligarchy, or democracy), the citizen becomes involved with the self-interested pursuits of the ruler or ruling class – the tyrant’s pursuit of power, the oligarchs’ thirst for wealth, or the democrats’ search for freedom. Of all the possible regimes, Aristotle concludes, polity provides the best opportunity to lead a good life. Although Aristotle categorizes democracy as a “defective” form of regime, he argues that it is only second best to polity, and better than the “good” aristocracy or monarchy. While the individual citizen may not have the wisdom and virtue of a good ruler, collectively “the many” may prove to be better rulers than “the one”.
The detailed description and analysis of the Classical Greek polis seems on the face of it to have little relevance to the nation-states that followed, but Aristotle’s ideas had a growing influence on European political thought throughout the Middle Ages. Despite being criticised for his often authoritarian standpoint (and his defence of slavery and the inferior status of women), his arguments in favour of constitutional government anticipate ideas that emerged in the Enlightenment.
ARISTOTLE
The son of a physician to the royal family of Macedon, Aristotle was born in Stagira, Chalcidice, in the north-east of modern Greece. He was sent to Athens aged 17 to study with Plato at the Academy, and remained there until Plato’s death 20 years later. Surprisingly, Aristotle was not appointed Plato’s successor to lead the Academy. He moved to Ionia, where he made a study of the wildlife, until he was invited by Philip of Macedon to be tutor to the young Alexander the Great.
Aristotle returned to Athens in 335 BCE to establish a rival school to the Academy, at the Lyceum. While teaching there he formalized his ideas on the sciences, philosophy, and politics, compiling a large volume of writings, of which few have survived. After the death of Alexander in 323 BCE, anti-Macedonian feeling in Athens prompted him to leave the city for Euboea, where he died the following year.
Key works
c.350 BCE
Nicomachean Ethics
Politics
Rhetoric
See also: Plato • Cicero • Thomas Aquinas • Giles of Rome • Thomas Hobbes • Jean-Jacques Rousseau
IN CONTEXT
IDEOLOGY
Realism
FOCUS
Utilitarian
BEFORE
6th century BCE The Chinese general Sun Tzu writes his treatise The Art of War, bringing an analytical approach to statecraft.
424 BCE Mahapadma Nanda establishes the Nanda dynasty, and relies on his generals for tactical advice.
AFTER
c.65 BCE The Mauryan empire, which Chanakya helped to found, reaches its height and rules over all but the southern tip of the Indian subcontinent.
1904 Texts of Chanakya’s treatises are rediscovered and, in 1915, are translated into English.
During the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, the Nanda dynasty slowly gained control over the northern half of the Indian subcontinent, defeating its rivals one by one and holding off the threat of invasion by the Greeks and Persians from the West. The rulers of this expanding empire relied on generals for tactical advice in battle, but they also began to recognize the value of ministers to advise on matters of policy and government. Scholars, especially those from Takshashila, a university established c.600 BCE in Rawalpindi, now part of Pakistan, frequently became these ministers.
Many important thinkers developed their ideas at Takshashila, but perhaps the most significant was Chanakya (also known as Kautilya and Vishnugupta). He wrote a treatise on statecraft titled Arthashastra, meaning “the science of material gain” or “the art of government”. It combined the accumulated wisdom of the art of politics with Chanakya’s own ideas, and was remarkable in its dispassionate, and at times ruthless, analysis of the business of politics.
The lion capital of Ashoka stood on top of a pillar in Sarnath at the centre of the Mauryan empire. Chanakya helped to found this powerful empire, which came to rule almost the whole of India.
Advising the sovereign
Although sections of the treatise dealt with the moral qualities desirable in the leader of a state, the emphasis was on the practical, describing in forthright terms how power could be gained and maintained, and for the first time in India, it explicitly described a civil structure in which ministers and advisors played a key role in the running of the state.
A commitment to the prosperity of the state lies at the heart of Chanakya’s political thought, and he makes repeated references to the welfare of the people as the ultimate goal of government. This, he believed, was the responsibility of a sovereign who would ensure his people’s wellbeing and security by administering order and justice, and leading his country to victory over rival states. The power to carry out his duties to his country and its people is dependent on several different factors, which Chanakya describes in Arthashastra: the personal qualities of the ruler, the abilities of his advisors, his territory and towns, his wealth, his army, and his allies.
The sovereign, as head of state, has the central role in this system of government. Chanakya emphasizes the importance of finding a ruler with the appropriate qualities, but then goes on to say that personal qualities of leadership are not sufficient on their own: the sovereign must also be trained for the job. He must learn the various skills of statecraft, such as military tactics and strategy, law, administration, and the arts of diplomacy and politics, but in addition he should be taught the skills of self-discipline and ethics in order to develop the moral authority necessary to command the loyalty and obedience of his people. Before taking office, the sovereign needs assistance from experienced and knowledgeable teachers.
Once instated, a wise sovereign does not rely solely on his own wisdom, but can turn to trusted ministers and advisors for counsel. In Chanakya’s view, such individuals are as important as the sovereign in governing the state. In Arthashastra, Chanakya states: “Governance is possible only with assistance – a single wheel does not move.” This is a warning to the sovereign not to be autocratic, but to arrive at decisions of state after consulting his ministers.
"All things begin with counsel."
Chanakya
The appointment of ministers with the necessary qualifications is therefore just as important as the people’s choice of leader. The ministers can provide a range of knowledge and skills. They must be utterly trustworthy, not only so that the sovereign can rely on their advice, but also to ensure that decisions are made in the interests of the state and its people – if necessary, preventing a corrupt ruler from acting in his own interests.
In Chanakya’s analogy, the state is like a chariot with the sovereign forming one wheel and his ministers making up the other; in order to move and be steered in the right direction, the chariot needs both wheels.
The end justifies the means
It was this recognition of the realities of human nature that distinguished Chanakya from other Indian political philosophers of the time. Arthashastra is not a work
of moral philosophy, but a practical guide to governance, and in ensuring the welfare and security of the state it often advocates using whatever means are necessary. Although Arthashastra advocates a regime of learning and self-discipline for an ideal ruler, and mentions certain moral qualities, it doesn’t flinch from describing how to use underhand methods to gain and maintain power. Chanakya was a shrewd observer of human weaknesses as well as strengths, and he was not above exploiting these to increase the sovereign’s power and undermine that of the sovereign’s enemies.
"Through ministerial eyes others’ weaknesses are seen."
Chanakya
This is particularly noticeable in his advice on defending and acquiring territory. Here he recommends that the ruler and his ministers should carefully assess the strength of their enemies before deciding on a strategy to undermine them. They can then choose from a number of different tactics, ranging from conciliation, encouraging dissent in the enemy’s ranks, and forming alliances of convenience with other rulers, to the simple use of military force. In deploying these tactics, the ruler should be ruthless, using trickery, bribery, and any other inducements deemed necessary. Although this seems contradictory to the moral authority Chanakya advocates in a leader, he stipulates that after victory has been achieved, the ruler should “substitute his virtues for the defeated enemy’s vices, and where the enemy was good he shall be twice as good”.
Intelligence and espionage
Arthashastra reminds rulers that military advisors are also needed, and the gathering of information is important for decision-making. A network of spies is vital in assessing the threat posed by neighbouring states or to judge the feasibility of acquiring territory; but Chanakya goes further, suggesting that espionage within the state is also a necessary evil in order to ensure social stability. At home and in international relations, morality is of secondary importance to the protection of the state. The state’s welfare is used as justification for clandestine operations, including political assassination should this be necessary, aimed at reducing the threat of opposition.
This amoral approach to taking and holding on to power, and the advocacy of a strict enforcement of law and order, can be seen either as shrewd political awareness or as ruthlessness, and has earned Arthashastra comparison with Machiavelli’s The Prince, written around 2,000 years later. However, the central doctrine, of rule by a sovereign and ministers, has more in common with Confucius and Mozi, or Plato and Aristotle, whose ideas Chanakya may have come across as a student in Takshashila.
Elephants played a big role in Indian warfare, often terrifying enemies so much that they would withdraw rather than fight. Chanakya developed new strategies for warfare with elephants.
A proven philosophy
The advice contained in the pages of Arthashastra soon proved its usefulness when adopted by Chanakya’s protegé Chandragupta Maurya, who successfully defeated King Nanda to establish the Maurya empire in around 321 BCE. This became the first empire to cover the majority of the Indian subcontinent, and Maurya also successfully held off the threat from Greek invaders led by Alexander the Great. Chanakya’s ideas were to influence government and policy-making for several centuries, until India eventually succumbed to Islamic and Mughal rule in the Middle Ages.
The text of Arthashastra was rediscovered in the early 20th century, and regained some of its importance in Indian political thinking, gaining iconic status after India won independence from Britain in 1948. Despite its central place in Indian political history, it was little known in the West, and it is only recently that Chanakya has been recognized outside India as a significant political thinker.
CHANAKYA
The birthplace of Indian scholar Chanakya is not certain. It is known that he studied and taught in Takshashila (modern Taxila, Pakistan). Leaving Takshashila to become involved in government, he travelled to Pataliputra, where he became an advisor to King Dhana Nanda. There are many conflicting accounts, but all agree that he left the Nanda court after a dispute, and in revenge groomed the young Chandragupta Maurya to be Nanda’s rival. Chandragupta overthrew Dhana Nanda and founded the Mauryan empire, which governed all modern-day India except the very south. Chanakya was Chandragupta’s chief advisor, but is said to have starved himself to death after being falsely accused by Chandragupta’s son, Bindusara, of poisoning his mother.
Key works
4th century BCE
Arthashastra
Neetishastra
See also: Confucius • Sun Tzu • Mozi • Plato • Aristotle • Niccolò Machiavelli
IN CONTEXT
IDEOLOGY
Legalism
FOCUS
State laws
BEFORE
5th century BCE Confucius advocates a hierarchy based on traditional family relationships, with the sovereign and his ministers ruling by example.
4th century BCE Mozi proposes a purely meritocratic class of ministers and advisors chosen for their virtue and ability.
AFTER
2nd century BCE After the Warring States period ends, China’s Han dynasty rejects Legalism and adopts Confucianism.
589–618 CE Legalist principles are revived during the Sui dynasty in an attempt to unify the Chinese empire.
During China’s Warring States period, between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE, rulers were vying for power over a unified Chinese empire, and a new political philosophy emerged to suit these turbulent times. Thinkers such as Shang Yang (390–338 BCE), Shen Dao (c. 350–275 BCE), and Shen Buhai (died 337 BCE) advocated a much more authoritarian approach to government, which became known as Legalism. Formalized and put into practice by Han Fei Tzu, Legalism rejected the Confucian idea of leading by example and Mozi’s belief in the innate goodness of human nature, and instead took the more cynical view that people naturally acted to avoid punishment and achieve personal gain. The only way that this could be controlled, the Legalists argued, was by a system that emphasized the wellbeing of the state over the rights of the individual, with strict laws to punish undesirable behaviour.
"To govern the state by law is to praise the right and blame the wrong."
Han Fei Tzu
Administration of these laws was handled by the ruler’s ministers, who in turn were subject to laws that held them accountable, with punishments and favours given by the ruler. In this way, the hierarchy with the ruler at the top could be maintained, and corruption and intrigue among the bureaucracy could be controlled. It was vitally important to the safety of the state in times of war that the ruler could rely on his ministers and that they should be acting in the interests of the state rather than for their own personal advancement.
See also: Confucius • Sun Tzu • Mozi • Thomas Hobbes • Mao Zedong
IN CONTEXT
IDEOLOGY
Republicanism
FOCUS
Mixed constitution
BEFORE
c.380 BCE Plato writes the Republic, outlining his ideas for an ideal city-state.
2nd century BCE Greek historian Polybius’s The Histories describes the rise of the Roman Republic and its constitution with a separation of powers.
48 BCE Julius Caesar is given unprecedented powers, and his dictatorship marks the end of the Roman Republic.
AFTER
27 BCE Octavian is proclaimed Augustus, effectively the first emperor of Rome.
1734 Montesquieu writes Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and Their Decline.
The Roman Republic was founded in around 510 BCE along similar lines to the city-states of Greece. With only minor changes, it ruled for almost 500 years. This system of government combined elements of three different forms of regime – monarchy (replaced by the Consuls), aristocracy (the Senate), and democracy (the popular assembly) – each with distinct areas of power that balanced one another out. Known as a mixed constitution, it was considered by most Romans to be an ideal form of government that provided stability and prevented tyranny.
; Checks and balances
Roman politician Cicero was a staunch defender of the system, particularly when it was threatened by the granting of dictatorial powers to Julius Caesar. He warned that a break-up of the Republic would prompt a return to a destructive cycle of governments. He said that from a monarchy, power can be passed to a tyrant; from the tyrant, it is taken by the aristocracy or the people; and from the people it will be seized by oligarchs or tyrants. Without the checks and balances of a mixed constitution, the government, he believed, would be “bandied about like a ball”. True to Cicero’s predictions, Rome came under the control of an emperor, Augustus, shortly after Caesar’s death, and power was passed from him to a succession of despotic rulers.
The Roman standard carried the legend SPQR (the Senate and the People of Rome), celebrating the central institutions of the mixed constitution.
See also: Plato • Aristotle • Montesquieu • Benjamin Franklin • Thomas Jefferson • James Madison