Democracy: Its Nature (unfinished)

¹ What is the difference between an aristocracy and a democracy?

An aristocracy depends solely on the will and the free choice of the supreme council that any particular person be made a patrician. Thus:

• no one has a hereditary right to vote and to undertake’ offices of state
• no one can demand that right for himself by law

In a democracy, the following can lawfully demand for themselves the right to vote in the supreme council and to undertake offices of state:

• all who are born of citizen parents, or on native soil
• all who have done service to the commonwealth,2
• all who are qualified on any other grounds on which the right of citizenship is granted by law.

They cannot be refused except for crime or dishonour.

² In so-called democracies, the right to vote in the supreme council and to manage affairs of state can be restricted to:

• older men who have reached a certain age, or
• eldest sons as soon as they are of age,
• those who contribute a certain sum of money to the commonwealth

This will lead to the supreme council being composed of fewer citizens than that of the aristocracy.

Yet they are still democracies because their leaders are are appointed not by the supreme council as being the best men, but by law.

In democracies, it is not the best men who are appointed to govern, but those who happen to be wealthy or to be eldest sons. This might appear as inferior to aristocracies.

Yet if we reflect on what happens in practice, or on human nature in general, the result will be the same.

In both cases, patricians will always think the best men are:

• the wealthy, or
• near akin to themselves,
• close friends.

Patricians would choose their colleagues so that they could:

• free themselves from all bias
• be guided only by zeal for the public good

Then such a democracy would be comparable to an aristocracy.

But the very opposite is the case, especially with oligarchies where the will of the patricians is quite unrestrained by law because of the absence of rivals.

In that situation, the patricians debar the best men from the council and seek as colleagues men who are subservient to them. Such states become far worse because the elections to the patriciate depend on the absolute free choice of a few men unrestricted by any law.

³ There are different kinds of democracy.

However, my purpose is not to discuss every one, but only that kind wherein all without exception who owe allegiance only to their country’s laws and are in other respects in control of their own right and lead respectable lives have the right to vote in the supreme council and undertake offices of state. I say expressly, “who owe allegiance only to their country’s laws” so as to exclude foreigners, who are deemed to be subject to another government.

In addition to owing allegiance to the laws of the state, I added, “and are in other matters in control of their own right” so as to exclude women and servants who are under the control’ of their husbands and masters, and also children and wards as long as they are under the control of parents and guardians.

Lastly, I said, “who lead respectable lives” so as to exclude especially those who are in bad repute for their crimes or for a dishonourable way oflife.

⁴ Perhaps someone will ask whether it is by nature or by convention that women are subject to the authority of men.5

For if this has come about simply by convention, there is no reason compelling us to exclude women from government. But if we look simply to experience, we shall see that this situation arises from their weakness.

For nowhere is there an instance of men and women’s ruling together; wherever in the world men and women are to be found, we find men ruling and women’s being ruled and both sexes thus living in harmony.

Against this, it is said of the Amazons who once held rule that they did not suffer men to stay in their native land, rearing females only and killing the males whom they had borne.

Now if women were naturally the equal of men and were equally endowed with strength of mind and ability-qualities wherein human power and consequently human right consists-then surely so many and such a wide variety of nations would have yielded some instances where both sexes ruled on equal terms and other instances where men were ruled by women, being so brought upas to be inferior in ability. But as such instances are nowhere to be found, one is fully entitled to assert that women do not naturally possess equal right with men and that they necessarily give way to men. Thus it is not possible for both sexes to have equal rule, and far less so that men should be ruled by women.

⁵ If furthermore, we consider human emotions, that men generally love women from mere lust, assessing their ability and their wisdom by their beauty and also resenting any favours which the women they love show to others and so on, soon we shall see that rule by men and women on equal terms is bound to involve much damage to peace. But I have said enough.