Aristotle on the Rule of Law

By Judge Eliza B. Yu, LLM, DCL

In Aristotles Politics, the debate is the question whether political authority is better
exercised through a rule of law or a rule of men. His answer is the Rule of Law. His
reasons are:

1. Laws are products of reasons not passions;

2. The sovereignty of a ruler or assembly tends to tyranny i.e. rule in interests of a section,
not common good;
3. Equality demands that each mature person have some share in governing; and
4. Rotation of offices and office-holders is desirable and can hardly be managed without
legal regulation.

So for Aristotle, the central case of practical authority is government of a polis by law and
legally regulated rulers.

To quote Aristotle in Chapter XVI, (1287a) of Politics: We will next consider the absolute
monarch that we have just mentioned, who does everything according to his own will: for
a king governing under the direction of laws which he is obliged to follow does not of
himself create any particular species of government, as we have already said: for in every
state whatsoever, either aristocracy or democracy, it is easy to appoint a general for life;
and there are many who entrust the administration of affairs to one person only; such is
the government at Dyrrachium, and nearly the same at Opus. As for an absolute
monarchy as it is called, that is to say, when the whole state is wholly subject to the will
of one person, namely the king, it seems to many that it is unnatural that one man should
have the entire rule over his fellow-citizens when the state consists of equals: for nature
requires that the same right and the same rank should necessarily take place amongst
all those who are equal by nature: for as it would be hurtful to the body for those who are
of different constitutions to observe the same regimen, either of diet or clothing, so is it
with respect to the honours of the state as hurtful, that those who are equal in merit should
be unequal in rank; for which reason it is as much a man's duty to submit to command as
to assume it, and this also by rotation; for this is law, for order is law; and it is more proper
that law should govern than any one of the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is
advantageous to place the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be
appointed to be only guardians, and the servants of the laws, for the supreme power must
be placed somewhere; but they say, that it is unjust that where all are equal one person
should continually enjoy it. But it seems unlikely that man should be able to adjust that
which the law cannot determine; it may be replied, that the law having laid down the best
rules possible, leaves the adjustment and application of particulars to the discretion of the
magistrate; besides, it allows anything to be altered which experience proves may be
better established. Moreover, he who would place the supreme power in mind, would
place it in God and the laws; but he who entrusts man with it, gives it to a wild beast, for
such his appetites sometimes make him; for passion influences those who are in power,
even the very best of men: for which reason law is reason without desire.

1
For Aristotle, the Rule of Men is susceptible to tyranny of a one person called the King in
a society composed of equals. A King as a supreme ruler can be a legislator, executor
and judicator at the same time. He has the final say of everything. No one is allowed to
disobey him. It is unnatural that one and only person rules over all others who can be
abused, maltreated and oppressed. What more, if the subjects of the King are smarter
and wiser than him, they will plot for his ouster that means constant chaos. Since a Kings
word is the law, he himself is above his own law that is not good in a society where the
people can view it as disputable and unfair. No one is capable to challenge or question
the Kings action whether or not it conform in his own law. A King with an impaired
judgment can result to a bad decision-making that injures his people. The King is
responsible for anything that may happen to the people, economy, and territory. If the
King is abusive, bad, ignorant, or wicked, he and his actions have disastrous effects to
the people governed by him. As a King, he cannot be held liable by the people. If the
masses want to remove him from leadership, it can cause economic, political and social
disruption in the society. If the people will revolt against a King, the revolution will not
succeed because of a Kings army, power and wealth. The Rule of Law is a polite removal
of a King in a society. In a Rule of Law, a King is treated as equal to a slave contrary to a
natural social hierarchy and order, where the King is at the top, who gives order, while a
slave at the bottom, who follows an order. The Rule of Law destroys the concept and
power of a King who is capable of acting evil and feared by people as such. In a Rule of
Law, a King cannot abuse a slave without a corresponding criminal liability. In modern
times, a King, who loves to exercise power and who does not want to be equal with all
others, will establish an autocratic government in the Rule of Men as opposed to
democratic government in the Rule of Law. In a Rule of Men, a King can be in perpetual
power that can be taken away by his death only thus people who suffered abuses,
cruelties and plunders by him will not be able to exact justice. In a Rule of Law, a King is
called an elected President who has a fixed term of office that serves a limit of his power,
once he finishes his public tenure, the people who suffered abuses, cruelties and plunders
by him will be able to make him accountable and obtain justice.

Aristotles Rule of Law in 350 B.C. Politics is embedded in the 1987 Philippine
Constitution.