The classification of constitutions in the preceding chapter was on the basis of the number and aims of the rulers.
Now, in a somewhat Marxist vein, Aristotle argues that the really crucial criterion of classification is an economic one (cf. IV iv init.): an oligarchy is the rule of the wealthy, whether they are few or many (though in practice they are invariably few), and democracy the rule of the poor, whether they are many or few (though in practice they are invariably many). ‘Democracy’ is in fact to Aristotle and the Greeks in general a brutally realistic word: its literal meaning is ‘power of the people’ (dēmos), and it means what it says – rule by a particular class, the numerous poor, and in their own interests. Today we think of ‘democracy’ as being, ideally at any rate, ‘rule by and for everybody at large’, whether rich or poor (cf. p. 362).
1279b11 We must however go into a little more detail about what each of these constitutions is. Certain difficulties are involved, which one whose aim is strictly practical might be allowed to pass over; but a man who examines each subject from a philosophical standpoint cannot neglect them: he has to omit nothing, and state the truth about each topic.
1279b16 Tyranny, as has been said, is a monarchy which is exercised like a mastership1 over the association which is the state; oligarchy occurs when the sovereign power of the constitution is in the hands of those with possessions, democracy when it is in the hands of those who have no stock of possessions and are without means. The first difficulty concerns definitions. Suppose the majority to be well-off, and to be sovereign in the state; then we have a democracy, since the mass of the people is sovereign. So too, if it is somewhere the case that those who do not own property, while fewer in number than those who do, are more powerful and in sovereign control of the constitution, then that is called an oligarchy, since the few are sovereign. It looks therefore as if there were something wrong with our way of defining constitutions.2
1279b26 Even if we try to include both criteria of nomenclature, combining wealth with fewness of numbers in the one case (calling it oligarchy when those who are both wealthy and few hold office), lack of wealth with large numbers in the other (calling it democracy when those who are both poor and numerous hold office) – even then we are only raising a fresh difficulty. For if there is not in fact any other constitution than those with which we have been dealing,3 what names can we give to the two just mentioned, one in which the wealthy are more numerous, and one in which the poor are less numerous, each category being in its own case in sovereign control of the constitution? The argument seems to show that it is a matter of accident whether those who are sovereign be few or many (few in oligarchies, many in democracies): it just happens that way because everywhere the rich are few and the poor are many. So in fact the grounds of difference have been given wrongly: what really differentiates oligarchy and democracy is wealth or the lack of it. It inevitably follows that where men rule because of the possession of wealth, whether their number be large or small, that is oligarchy, and when the poor rule, that is democracy. But, as we have said, in actual fact the former are few, the latter many. Few are wealthy, but all share freedom alike: and these are the grounds of their respective claims to the constitution.4