Examine critically Aristotle's conception of citizenship.[M.U. 2012]
Or, Critically examine Aristotle's concept of distributive justice. [M.U. 2011]
Ans. Citizenship
Aristotle placed the theme of citizenship at the centre of his political analysis because of his belief in a law-based government. This was contrary to Plato, who ignored the issue and placed greater faith on philosophic rule. Aristotle characterized political authority as constitutional between equals, and since an individual was a political animal who found fulfilment only within a polls, it was natural for people to aspire for political positions. Constitutional government with respect to citizenship rights allowed people to compete for political office without civil chaos.
Aristotle defined a state as a collective body of citizens. Citizenship was not to be determined by residence, since the resident aliens and slaves also shared a common residence with citizens, but were not cilizens. Nor could citizenship be defined by the share one had in civic rights, to the extent of being entitled to sue and be sued in courts of law, for this right belonged to aliens as well. A citizen was one who enjoyed the right to share in the deliberative or judicial offices, and was able to exercise his political rights effectively. A citizen also enjoyed constitutional rights under the system of public law.
For Aristotle, a citizen was one who shared power in the polls, and unlike Plato, did not distinguish between "an active ruling group and a politically passive community" (Wolin 1960: 57). Aristotle stipulated that the young and the old could not be citizens, for one was immature and the other infirm. He did not regard women as citizens, for they lacked the deliberative faculty and the leisure to understand the working of politics. As far as the working class was concerned, though some states made them citizens, they clearly did not have the aptitude nor the leisure to display the irue excellence to shoulder civic responsibilities. A good citizen would have the intelligence and the ability to rule and he ruled. He. however, shared with Plalo the perception that citizenship was a privilege and a stains to be inherited.
Aristotle pointed out that in order to discharge functions effectively, citizenship would inhabit a polis that was compact and close-knit. He was critical of Pluto's prescription that a citizen body of 5000 would be the ideal, for that was too large and would require unlimited space, such as the sprawling lands of Babylon, rendering impossible functions like military command, public communications and judicial judgements. A cohesive citizen body, where everybody would know one another intimately, would be able to settle disputes effectively and satisfactorily, and distribute political offices according to the merit of the candidates. The quality of citizenship would suffer in a larger political community due to lack of intimacy.
Aristotle described a good citizen as someone who could live in harmony with the constitution, and had sufficient leisure time to devote himself to the tasks and responsibilities of citizenship. He regarded the existence of diversity of interests within a citizen body as essential to the practice of citizenship, for it was through a balance of these interests that good government was attained. A good citizen would possess virtue or moral goodness that would help in realizing a selfless and cooperative civic life.
Both Plato and Aristotle pleaded for responsible and effective forms of education for citizenship. This, they considered, was a cure for the corruption and political instability of their times. They were equally critical of the casual manner in which the Athenian state regarded the (asks of citizenship. As a corrective measure, both prescribed state-managed and state-controlled education. In the Laws, Plato made it clear that the guardian of laws controlled the educational system by selecting teachers only from among those who weere willing to teach the laws and traditions of the state in a manner determined by the guardians. Both Plato and Aristotle were committed to the idea of state-controlled education. They "believed that different styles of civic education should be used for different purposes. Plato emphasized training in self-sacrifice for rulers and obedience for the ruled; Aristotle emphasized the need to match the educational objectives to the form of government".
Criticism:
Aristotle assigned to his citizens the functions of a jury and legislator because of direct democracy in his days. His concept of citizenship, therefore, is not applicable to a modern state, particularly one with representative government where every citizen can not be legislator and there may be jury system. In modern a citizen does not rule, but chooses his rulers. Aristotle failed to foresee the possibilities of representative government. He excluded a major portion of population from citizenship to arrive at a lofty concept of citizenship. But in so doing he deprived them from the educative and ennobling effect of the functions of citizenship. Every voice in the choice of government has its own civic and ethical value. A large indifferent and unenfranchised class is bound to tone down the civic excellence of the state. In this respect, Aristotlelian idea citizenship is very conservative. One should not forget that every philosopher is the child of his time and so was Aristotle in advocating citizenship to leisured persons.
www.maniipursana.in