by Charles Bobbitt

Created on: September 28, 2008

Aristotle, in his "Politics," declared that for democracy to work, the citizens should be, as much as possible, "equals." Not only that, but they should be equals with enough leisure time to gather together and debate issues, and equals whose jobs are not harmful to virtue (he ruled out such people as mechanics and tradesmen). By equals, then, he not only meant equal as in the equal intrinsic worth of all humans, but also equal in net worth and social position.

Nor was this idea limited to Aristotle and the early Greeks. In the sixteenth century Machiavelli reiterated this viewpoint in his writing. Later, in the eighteenth century (more than two thousand years after Aristotle) this requirement for equals again resurfaced in America's fledgling democracy.

"All men are created equal," the founding fathers declared, with the caveat that by "all men," they meant all white male landowners over the age of 21. These requirements theoretically established the perfect conditions for democracy, but they also once again left poor (along with women, children and ethnic minorities), without representation.

Over the years, though, democracy in America has apparently made great progress. Now men and women, black and white, bankers and barbers, rich and poor all have equal right to take part in the government. We have managed to make democracy work, more or less, despite the fact that Aristotle would not call us a nation of equals.

Or have we?

Aristotle would say no. In fact, he would say that America is the perfect example of how democracy fails because of dissimilar people.

First, we must clearly understand the logic behind democracy. Democracy is not based on the idea that the majority will be wise enough to act in the best interest of everyone. It is instead based on the belief that everyone will act in his own best interest, within certain moral limitations.

The reason democracy works is that, in the case of equals (using Aristotle's definition), what is best for me also happens to be best for you. It is a win-win situation.

If, however, the group is made up of dissimilar people (for example rich and poor) the whole foundation for democracy falls apart. The rich, as a minority, will attempt to hold power and keep what they have. The poor, as a majority, will want to redistribute the wealth for their own benefit. If the rich succeed, it is at the expense of the poor. If the poor succeed, it is at the expense of the rich.

Aristotle's predictions have been realized in American democracy. This truth is reflected in our two main political parties. The Republican Party is often called the party for the rich. The Democratic Party is called the party for the poor. In this environment, there is seldom opportunity for a win-win situation. One wins at the expense of the other.

Because of our differences in America, we can't have the simple, democratic system of one person, one vote, majority rules. We instead have to make due with a complex, kludged together, quasi-democratic system that includes such things as consenting to the will of the majority without infringing on the rights of the minority. This system is far from perfect, but given the situation, it is also far better than anything else available.

The same situation will be true for any country where there is a wide gap between the rich and poor. A prerequisite for democracy is equality, which includes economic equality. Otherwise, instead of a free, democratic country, there will be a country of "masters and slaves, the one despising, the other envying." (Aristotle, "Politics", Book 4 Part 11).

Learn more about this author, Charles Bobbitt.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.