There are various types of political rule in modern democratic societies.

The polis, the body politic, was made up of only the body of citizens in the city-state. It’s rules were the laws and traditions of the city-state.

Aristotle outlines that there are two types of arena, one governed by wisdom, justice and goodness, and another governed by its counter values i.e., de-based moral values, violating the sense of justice in an ideal community. In addition, there are three sub-sets of polis based on the number of rulers in the polis.

Yet, why does Aristotle place democracy and oligarchy in the de-based values type of political arena? Because democracy and oligarchy reward citizens on the basis of qualities having nothing to do with their contribution to the vitality of the community:

• democracy - all citizens are equal irrespective of their contribution; and
• oligarchy - all citizens are unequal on the basis of property holdings.

However, democracy could possess desirable traits:

• as a whole, people can be combined to produce better qualities of judgements; and
• people represent the best judges of their own interests.

Polity is the ideal arena:

• it is a mixed form of government, having features of democracy (such as no difference between rich and poor, and the right to elect) and oligarchy (such as power concentrated in the hands of the few); and
• it is based on a large middle-class, which could eliminate conflicts and tensions evident in democracies and oligarchies; though, in a city-state, the middle-class is small.

Tyranny is the worst arena:

• it benefits the smallest number of citizens; and
• the rule of the law is replaced by the rule of person.

Are the Greek concepts useful?

• there are no longer any city-states, rather nation-states have become the common form of governing territory, and this has implications for the feasibility and desirability of particular political arenas; and
• there is a sense in which economic foundations of the modern world has affected political changes, such that modern societies are described as capitalist democracies.

There are two approaches to democracy.

i) This approach suggests that:

• individuals are the best judges of their own interests;
• individuals could benefit from engagement in institutions and processes in the political arena;
• therefore, all persons ought to have equal opportunity to participate in politics; and
• the process of self-governance is a desirable goal in itself.

ii) The strong or participatory democracy consists of:

• citizens being active and engaging with one another; and
• opportunities and facilities to enable citizens to achieve their engagement.

iii) Deliberative democracy consists of:

• deliberation as the central concept;
• continuity and trust of participants to engage and discuss issues with one another;
• public settings, debates and negotiations as important political mechanisms; and
• plural configurations of actors.

Yet, the moral view of democracy fails to understand the actual workings of democracy.

This approach studies political realities. It shifts the attention away from the qualities of individual citizens towards rulers, and from the rights to self-government towards public competition and political parties:

• citizens have the right to select among the rival sets of leaders;
• leaders merely need to be responsive to the wishes of the majority of the citizens through elections and development of policies in anticipation of citizens’ wishes; and
• the widespread active and continuous engagement constitute a greater danger than benefit (cf. Tocqueville’s principle of the tyranny of the majority).

Yet, the empirical approach justifies existing forms of political regimes; in other words, is equals ought. In addition, it abandons any commitment to the ideal of citizen participation.

It refers to a single party absolutely dominating the nation and its people. Furthermore, it obliterates and destroys existing social ties and social groups, substituting them with new forms of loyalty and commitment; e.g., communal ties and party membership are favoured over nuclear family and kinship.

There are several qualities of totalitarian societies:

• an elaborate ideology;
• a single political party;
• a system of terror;
• a complete control of mass communication; and
• a direction of entire economy by the state bureaucracy.

There are two prominent features of this form of political rule:

• elimination of all autonomous institutions of civil society - indeed the public/private distinction becomes meaningless; and
• genuine dominance of the party, its leaders and its ideology.

In between democracy and totalitarianism, there is authoritarianism.

There are several features of a bureaucratic authoritarian regime:

• a political rule by a small group of leaders backed by the military;
• a reliance of political rulers on the technical personnel;
• efforts to promote economic growth; and
• an extensive repression of various classes.

Many Latin American, African and South Asian countries are authoritarian regimes. Political sociologists have raised two questions:

• what is the long term stability of such authoritarian regimes?
• are there mechanisms to a transition to democracy or totalitarian rule for these regimes?