A set of theorists such as Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, John Locke, Edmund Burke, and Thomas Paine have been acknowledged for their pivotal role in the development of the study of politics as not only a rational but also as a scientific enterprise. On this area, it has been reported that these theorists share some vast similarities, as well as, differences. The present paper will attempt to document these. Also, the paper will present a person opinion in which the theory that potentially helps a person to understand the modern day world politics will be illustrated.
One of the major similarities is that they all agree that man is political in nature. Each of the theorists talks about a man and his political tendencies. He usually set up governance approaches including monarchy and anarchy. The theorists also discuss treatises of government, the issue of rights, as well as, dominion of others. All these are concerned with the political realm and, based on the advances of the theorists; they all originate from the man. Undeniably, this tendency makes the man as an entirely political animal.
Another similarity is that they all seem to agree that politics’ are transformative. This is to say that the man’s political regime usually change to take up different forms. For instance, in the words of John Hobbes, politics can take the form of total obedience and at the same time, it can evolve into absolute leadership. The same thoughts can be traced in the theory by John Locke. The theorist purports that politics can exist in two different treatises. The theorist named these as contract or consent and one that is based on Christian theology. Similarly, Aristotle claims that a government can evolve to take up different forms. According to him, the government can become a tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy and polity among others.
While this is the case, the theories advanced by the philosophers as mentioned above shares vast contrasting grounds. For instance, Aristotle seems to disagree with the others by claiming that a correct form of government could potentially devolve into indifferent or what he mentions as deviant governmental forms in which corruption mars its institutions. Machiavelli’s thoughts seem to diverge from those of Aristotle. He seems to favor one form of government, which in this case is absolute ruler. He even theorizes about the practical approaches through which an absolute ruler could ensure that his or her type of regime is maintained. The theorist deems that the absolute form of leadership is primarily the legitimate one. Jack Hobbes does not agree with the other theories, especially Machiavelli. He prefers a type of political leadership that is based on democracy. The theorist stresses on a political regime in which each person has equal rights to every resource that the nature presents and the freedom to use any means to obtain such resources. In this regard, it follows that the theorist is advocating for absolutism. John Locke has an entirely distinct thought on the right type of government. He supposes that the legitimate regime is one that is founded on the Christian morals and values. John Burke, just like Thomas Paine, is in between absolute monarchy and democracy. Therefore, it is evident that each theorist, despite their points of convergence, shares different thoughts on the right type of the government.
In my opinion, I believe that Aristotle’s theory helps a person to understand the present day politics better. The theorist clearly informs the audience about different types of governments and the manner in which they come into being. This theory, unlike the others, provides an in-depth reflection of the political sphere in the modern world. Therefore, with Aristotle’s thoughts, a person is more likely to gain proper knowledge of the existing regimes and why they come into being.