Aristotle on demagogues and Trump’s penchant for decrees

 

A fifth form of democracy … is that in which, not the law, but the multitude, have the supreme power, and supersede the law by their decrees.  This is a state of affairs brought about by demagogues.  For in democracies which are subject to the law, the best citizens hold the first place and there are no demagogues; but where the laws are not supreme, there demagogues spring up.  For the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one; and the many have the power in their hands, not as individuals but collectively …. At all events this sort of democracy, which is now a monarch, and no longer under the control of law, seeks to exercise monarchical sway, and grows into a despot; the flatterer is held in honour; this sort of democracy being relative to other democracies what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy.  

The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens. The decrees of the demos corresponds to the edicts of the tyrant; and the demagogue is to the one what the flatterer is to the other.  Both have great power; – the flatterer with the tyrant, the demagogue with democracies of the kind which we are describing.  The demagogues make the decrees of the people override the laws, by referring all things to the popular assembly.  And therefore they grow great, because the people has all things in their hands, and they hold in their hands the votes of the people, who are too ready to listen to them. … Such a democracy is fairly open to the objection that it is not a constitution at all; for where the laws have no authority, there is no constitution.  The law ought to be supreme over all ….  So that if democracy be a real form of government, the sort of system in which all things are regulated by decrees is clearly not even a democracy in the true sense of the word, for decrees relate only to particulars. [1]

Aristotle, Politics (c. 350 BC)

---

[1] Aristotle, The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. Richard McKeon (New York: Modern Library/Random House, 2001), pp. 1212, 1213 [Politics, Book IV, Ch. 4].  This edition of Politics was translated by Benjamin Jowett.  

The People vs. Democracy: A Comment.

Yascha Mounk, lecturer at Harvard University, has written and interesting book: The People vs. Democracy.  He argues that liberal democracy as we know it – the world over – is cleaving into illiberal democracies run by populists and undemocratic liberalism as represented by ‘elites’ in the EU, for example.  On the whole Mounk does a more effective job with the former as opposed to the latter, which he sometimes has difficulty pinning down, partly because the term liberalism can mean a great deal of different things to many people.[1]

Closely analyzed is the rise of social media, the problem of economic stagnation, and questions of identity in the face of increased levels of immigration, all of which contribute to the populist phenomena.  Along the way Mounk acknowledges a number of historical gems: not only were women and slaves discounted as citizens of Athens but immigrants and their children were as well.  This meant that even individuals such as Aristotle were prevented from full participation in city-state affairs.[2]  In other words, democracy – despite its decomposition into the demos (people) and kratia (rule) - for most of its history has been rather limited.

 

He also points out that democracy flourished in Europe only after it was ethnically cleansed by World War II.  Today’s loss of homogeneity means that older citizens – pensioners, for example, who voted for Britain’s Brexit - are indeed confronting (and retreating from) much more equal and diverse politics.  But Mounk also warns that millennials (those born after 1980) tend to increasingly express appreciation for strongman politics, for example in the USA, but this trend can also be found in Germany, France and Britain.[3]

The People vs. Democracy is an important book because it approaches populist demagoguery as a global problem – not merely a Trump phenomenon, and it is bold enough offer insightful solutions.  One annoying feature of the text is that the language is very plain – almost as if one were reading from a college textbook.  Perhaps the rise of social media means that even works from Harvard need to be boiled down to their simpler elements.  The chapter on “Renewing Civic Faith” is particularly rewarding, and I encourage all to read it, while supplementing it with some of your own rhetorical flourishes.

---

[1] See, for example, Yascha Mounk, The People vs. Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2018), p. 243.

[2] Ibid., p. 162.

[3] Ibid., pp. 109-111.