Aristotle
Aristotle set various guidelines pertaining to politics of the state. In his book, “Politics I”, he stated that in most if not cases, the city-state is the most valuable selection and it is most superior composition of a state. This is since, he states that from the fact that a city state has been developed by individuals who come together clearly knowing that they are unable to exist in cases that they are apart and the since the city states are developed from homogenous communities and by the fact that they come together, they are able to attain the self-sufficiency together with their own personal survival. So in short, the City-state is one which has been set in place by the citizens with the aim of providing the conditions that that the particular group of people thought will be best (Summary 13, P.1)
Once the City-state has been established, the people are able to become citizens by various means, firstly, the fact that one is born in that state and secondly, the sires of an individual, be a citizen of that city-state. So the city-sate will come up with the various rules and regulations and the citizens and inhabitants are required to adhere to it to the latter.
The city was set in place with the aim of providing a comfortable or rather a good life for the citizens and the regulations will be followed by the people of the city differently. Aristotle, tries to explain who, a ‘good citizen’ is and he states that a ‘good citizen’ is one who’s activities reciprocate into the betterment of the city-state, regardless of whether, he or she carried out activities that he may be said not to be in line with the acts that may be carried out by a ‘good man’(Miller 225). This is since, even though the good man will follow the virtues to the latter, this doesn’t make him or her the good citizen not until the process of him following these virtues has trickled down to the betterment of the city state by him being able to perform his duties, if not Aristotle describes this issue by stating that the individual only having ‘complete excellence’.
Although these homogenous societies came together for the purpose of providing a better society and for their own personal survival, the city-states are further stratified into different classes within the society. This stratification is one which is brought about mainly by the fact that the different individuals in the society have different purposes within the same society. As seen, the coming up of these societies, was one which was meant to better their own personal lives, for example, the master and the slave, come together for the master to be able to have a particular function carried out that he or she is unable to perform, whereas the slave comes into the society with the aim of him having the master provide for him the needs that he knows that he is unable to produce for himself.
This society needs to have a way of governance that will ensure that the society is governed as desired and this may be through the participation of the whole masses or by them empowering a certain group of individuals to rule them. He further stipulates the values that a leader must possess in order for him to be considered to be a good leader. The ability of the masses to adhere to the ruling pattern of the rulers and the rulers to rule finely would be considered as the milestones that will lead to the society being considered to be a fine society (Summary, 13, Page 2).
Aristotle, goes ahead to show that the rulers and the ruled are free and like in nature and what this trickles down to is the fact that the ruler cannot just rule as he or she pleases and this is since all the masses have a part to participate in the ruling of the city-state. However the participation in the governance of the society, leads to stratification within the state. He further shows that this stratification is one which is brought about by various factors and the classes are normally, the wealthy, the intelligent, the cultivated and those individuals who prove a certain level of excellence within the society. All these individuals in these classes will have different ways in which they will participate in the governance of the society.
In addition to this, Aristotle further stipulates that at times, an individual’s decent will be a major determinant on the class that this person will belong to. Although Aristotle states that all the citizens are alike and fairness must be vital in the running of the society, he goes further to stipulate that at times inequality in administration may be the best move. At times, the inclusion or exclusion of an individual in a certain class may determine what role this person plays in the society (Edward). Other than the role that the individual would play in the society, the classes will lead to an individual having various rights in the society. The affluent in the society would be in the upper class in the society and this will come with the various rights, for example, voting rights, the right to hold an official position in this given society and the right to have a say in the decisions that will govern the society (Summary 13, page 7).
As per Aristotle, the society only allowed that the upper class to have the administrative role in the society and the lower class are not eligible for ruling. However, Aristotle argues that the lower class should also be allowed to hold an administrative position. He further, proposed that the educated in the society are best suited for these administrative positions.
Lastly in the society, Aristotle, shows that the rulers are gotten from the upper class in the society and from there they democratically choose the people who would govern them. However, the society has gone a further step in showing the society is a democratic state, by them having a difference in their arms of governance. This issue of dividing the way the people are governed is a way of ensuring that justice done in that particular society.
Heidegger
The Nazi ideology was developed with the main aim of showing the superiority of the German race, and under this ideology, the use of force to ensure that the people adhere to these principles. When Heidegger gave his speech at the University of Heidelberg, his speech had various components to the Nazi ideology (Heidegger).
The Nazi ideology was one that required that the German race was pure and that it was not in any way poisoned by the western ideologies and their ways of life. In his speech, Heidegger urged the university students to do away with the issues of Christian ideas. The fascists had the notion that they will go to any length just to ensure that the National Socialist Spirit was embraced by the people (Heidegger). This led to the Holocaust in the years that followed. In his speech he was instilling the Nazi philosophies into the students since, he was telling the students not to allow the Christian ideas and he further told them to embrace the Socialist spirit (Summary 14, page 1).
Further, the Nazi way of power was one that encouraged individuals to be self-governed. This was also seen when in the speech he asked the students to fight for their self-governance. However, when the Nazis were in government, their way of ruling was one which didn’t allow the people of Germany free governance in terms of them choosing who to govern them.
Lastly, from his speech, he urged the students to choose leaders that are up to task, leaders that will steer them in a direction that will in turn lead them to be the cream of the world. He further dismissed the issue of having an opposition and even urged them to eliminate the opposition. This is similar to the Nazi way of governance that ensured that the German people had no opposition party and the government’s law was undisputed.
Similarities between the Mixed Oligarchic System and The Us
When it comes to the governance in the US institutions, then the system of governance is one similar to that of the Aristotle’s mixed oligarchic system. This is since in The United States the government comes into play by the people in the society voting them in. Further, by the fact that in order for one to be a member of the governing authority in the country, for example, the president, he or she must be a citizen of the country and at times he or she must be a citizen by birth. This is similar to the times of Aristotle since, the society was made up of those individuals and the members of the society who were citizens of that particular society.
Further, the individuals who are members of the government achieve a high state in terms of their social class and this is similar to the governing council in Aristotle’s times. They were able to achieve this position through their various ways one could achieve the classes at that time.
However, when it comes to then issue of the governing council being chosen from the upper class, then the two societies contradict since, one is allowed to be a member of the government provided that he or she is duly elected by the members of the society. However, when it comes to the primaries for one to get nominated for him or her to be in the ballot, the individuals who are normally chosen are from the upper class in the society and d this may be said to be similar to those chosen in Aristotle’s society.
Works Cited
Clayton, Edward: Aristotle: Politics online. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) (ISSN 2161-0002). 2010. Web. May 29, 2016.
Martin, Heidegger: The Self-Affirmation of the German University. 1933. Print
Miller, Fred..Nature, Justice and Rights in Aristotle's Politics. 1995 New York: Oxford University Press. Print
