{"id":28880,"date":"2026-04-30T20:16:56","date_gmt":"2026-04-30T17:16:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/?p=28880"},"modified":"2026-04-30T20:16:56","modified_gmt":"2026-04-30T17:16:56","slug":"aristocracy-as-a-political-system-part-i","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/?p=28880","title":{"rendered":"Aristocracy as a Political System – Part I"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

“Aristocracy” is understood as that form of government (the set of institutions according to which a State or a State is governed, this particular order according to which each state regulates the organization of power and the position of citizens within this order) which, according to Aristotle of Nicomachean Stagirite, is based on the rule of the aristocracy. The definition and name of Aristocracy comes from the ancient word aristokratia which is a compound of the words (from Ancient Greek \u1f00\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u1fb1 (aristokt\u00e1r\u00ed\u0101) ‘rule of the best’; from \u1f04\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (\u00e1ristos) ‘best’ and \u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 (kr\u00e1tos) ‘power, strength’) is a form of government that places power in the hands of a small, privileged ruling class, the aristocrats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over time, the term was used more broadly to denote the “hereditary” classes of the nobility, resulting in a relative confusion of the pure concept of aristocracy with that of oligarchy (where political power is simply exercised by a “logically” small part of society).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The “nobles” in the colloquial language of recent times gradually became identified with the upper classes, especially with the large landowners and the feudal system or feudalism (the social, political and economic system that was formalized as a complete system, around the 11th century and prevailed after the dissolution of the Carolingian Empire. Feuds have their roots in the last period of the Roman Empire, while many trace elements of feudalism to Egypt and Japan). The so-called “golden age of the aristocracy” in modern history is associated with the period 1688\u20131832, during which the monarchy was gradually curtailed, while democracy was still a distant vision [see “A Dictionary of British History”, edited by John Ashton Cannon, Oxford University Press, 2009, entry “aristocracy” -page 34]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Aristocracy” is a form of government, a system of social control which has the right to enact laws, where the right to implement them is given to a particular social group, a small, capable and privileged ruling class, that of the aristocrats [see the twenty-volume “Oxford English Dictionary”, Oxford University Press, 1989, volume 1, (A-Bazouki), entries “Aristocracy” -“Aristocrat” -page 630]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The great primary qualities of aristocrats for the leadership of a nation were defined in our time with completeness and clarity in the manifesto \u201cRight Revolution\u201d (\u201cR\u00e9volution droitiste\u201d, Jupilles editions, 1980) written by the publisher, pamphleteer and writer Michel-Georges Berthe [(Michel-Georges Berthe), 1945 \u2013 2013], who provocatively claimed to be a \u201cright anarchist\u201d and a Frenchman. Together with his friend and like-minded person Fran\u00e7ois Richard (Fran\u00e7ois Richard, 1939-2019), he defends in 1988, in their book \u201cRight-wing Anarchism in Contemporary Literature\u201d, a pro-aristocratic position, based on the following axioms: \u201cRight-wing anarchists are clearer, more demanding and more sincere thinkers than all others; because they disrupt the general mediocrity and the prevailing consensus, they are systematically hidden from the public and ridiculed by the establishment, they are victims of a conspiracy of silence and hatred. Those responsible for this rejection are mainly \u201cintellectuals\u201d, and especially the \u201ccreators of the history of ideas\u201d. The two anti-establishment intellectuals in question write about aristocracy \u201c[\u2026] it provides a quick and complete understanding of a situation, an immediate ability to make a decision, a very broad knowledge of things and beings and a moral rigor that adapts perfectly to the game of imagination\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[\u201cRight-wing anarchism\u201d is a philosophical and political sensibility characterized by the refusal to adhere to a society or a system based on parliamentary democracy, on established ideas about social order and, more generally, on any form of power that claims to be based on these ideas. This way of thinking maintains ideals and values \u200b\u200bthat are considered politically, morally, and ideologically far-right.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the time the word “aristocracy” first appeared in ancient Greece, the Greeks understood it as a form of government by the most capable, responsible, and educated citizens, and often contrasted it (favorably) with monarchy, the rule of one individual. The term was first used by ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle (“Politics”) and Plato (“Politics” and “Politics”), who used it to describe a system where only the best of the citizens, chosen through a careful selection process, would become rulers and hereditary power would be prohibited, unless the children of the rulers performed better and were better endowed with the characteristics that make the individual capable of ruling compared to anyone else citizen in the city.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this view, the form of government is more closely related to \u201cOligarchy,\u201d a corrupt and perverse form of Aristocracy where the few, but not the best, rule. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon, and the Lacedaemonians viewed Aristocracy (the form of government by the few worthy and capable) as inherently better than the ideal form of government by the many\u2014\u201cDemocracy.\u201d But they also viewed the corrupt form of Aristocracy, \u201cOligarchy,\u201d as worse than \u201cMobocracy,\u201d the corrupt form of democracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This core belief was rooted in the fundamental assumption that the masses could only produce mediocre politics, while the best people could produce the best politics, if they were indeed the best. Later, the eminent Megalopolis historian Polybius of Lycorta, in his analysis of the \u201cRoman Constitution\u201d, used the concept of aristocracy to describe his own concept of a democracy as a mixed form of government, (along with democracy and monarchy in their understanding since then), as a political system of checks and balances, where each element curbs the excesses of the other. That is, it is about the state powers and their distinction (legislative-executive-judicial), as Aristotle clarified in the \u201cPolitics\u201d: \u201cEvery state has three elements, the expediency of each of which must be examined by the great legislator. If these function correctly, the state also functions correctly. To the extent, again, that there are differences in each of these, the regimes also differ from each other. Of these three elements, the first consults on the commons, the second concerns the authorities (what they should be, what powers they should have and how they should be elected), and the third administers justice\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In practice, aristocracy often led to hereditary rule, after which the hereditary monarch appointed officials as he saw fit. In modern times (i.e. in the 20th century, with European states at the height of their power and wealth, with most of the world under their direct rule, but also the rest under their strong influence) aristocracy is usually understood as rule by a privileged group, the aristocratic class. Thus it contrasts with democracy.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The idea of \u200b\u200bAristocracy evolved in Ancient Greece, where a council of leading citizens had collective power. By the 8th century BC, the monarchy had begun to decline. During this period, which defined the institution of the city-state, major social and political upheavals and continuous wars were observed. The requirement for appropriate military training and constant military readiness was imperative. A man’s political power was directly linked to his ability to contribute financially to military expenditures, as well as to the maintenance of his own cavalry or war fleet, i.e. military structures which sometimes served to acquire wealth and other times determined the outcome of a war).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The assumption of power by the aristos, that is, the noble and wealthy landowners, arose as a natural consequence of this historical requirement. This was of course in contrast to representative democracy, in which a council of citizens was appointed as the “senate” of a city-state or other political unit. The concept of monarchy was generally not particularly popular with the Greeks, so as their democratic system collapsed, the aristocracy as a polity was retained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The development of the aristocracy in ancient Rome can be traced over a period of over a thousand years. In its early form, from the founding of Rome to the beginning of the Republic, the patricians constituted the Roman aristocratic class. Presenting themselves as descendants of the companions of Romulus, they alone possessed sacred powers and abilities, such as receiving omens or being ordained priests. Members of the Roman Senate, the only ones eligible for judicial office in the early centuries of the Roman Republic, monopolized power and were challenged by the plebeians in the 5th century BC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the height of the Roman Empire, the Roman aristocracy formed the following pyramid:<\/p>\n\n\n\n