Politics by Aristotle is one of the fundamental work on the topic of the beginnings of

social and political philosophy. The work examines the questions regarding the definition of
family as part of the state, slavery, citizenship. Also, Aristotle provides us with a definition of
the states, as well as the forms of its government and their goals. The final task set by Aristotle in
Politics is the theoretical construction of an ideal polis.
The definition of citizens has a crucial meaning for Aristotle. Aristotle examines the
problem of citizenship. A citizen is a member of the state, that is, a member of the jury and the
people's assembly. Aristotle denied citizenship to slaves and craftsmen. For Aristotle, the citizens
should be free from everyday tasks, so they would have time for things which have much
influence on the polis like participation in politic affairs. The state, notes Aristotle, is a complex
concept. In its form, it is a certain kind of organization and unites a certain set of citizens. From
this point of view, we are no longer talking about such primary elements of the state as the
individual, family, etc., but about the citizen. The definition of the state as a form depends on
who is considered a citizen, i.e. is based on the concept of a citizen itself. A citizen, according to
Aristotle, is one who can participate in the legislative and judicial authorities of a given state.
The state, however, is a collection of citizens sufficient for a self-sufficient existence.
According to Aristotle, a human is «by nature a political animal»[1], i.e. social, and it carries an
instinctive desire for cooperation and coexistence (Aristotle had not yet separated the idea of
society from the idea of the state). A person is distinguished by the ability for an intellectual and
moral life. Only a human being is capable of perceiving such concepts as good and evil, justice
and injustice. The first result of social life, he considered the formation of a family - husband and
wife, parents and children. The necessity for mutual exchange has led to communication between
families and villages. This is how the state arose. The main difference of the city-state from other
forms of cooperation is that the city-state should be ruled by free people.
The next step for Aristotle is to define how many constitutions exist, and, also, to consider
deviant constitutions, which bring profit only to one class but no common profit hence they can
not be useful for the polis. Aristotle also characterized the form of the state as a political system,
which is personified by the supreme power in the state. In this regard, the state form is
determined by the percentage of citizens, who have access to power. (one, few or majority).
Three correct forms of the constitution are monarchy, aristocracy and politeia. The opposite
forms of these are tyranny from kingship, oligarchy from aristocracy, and democracy from
polity. For tyranny is ruled by one person for the benefit of the monarch, oligarchy is for the
benefit of the rich, and democracy is for the benefit of the poor. But none is for their common
profit as a consequence. The main basis for the separation between oligarchy and democracy is
primal unbalance between the poor and the rich so whether a minority or a majority, rule because
of their wealth, the constitution is necessarily an oligarchy, and whenever the poor rule, it is
necessarily a democracy. However, in both of these cases, a consensus could not be reached.
This situation leads to unbalance and inability to achieve general happiness and the good as a
result. 
The philosopher seeks to make his scheme flexible, capable of embracing all the diversity of
reality. Analyzing contemporary states, Aristotle provides us with many historical examples. In
the book IV we can see, that Aristotle notices the existence of the different political structures: «
But one must not overlook the fact that it has happened in many places that constitutions which
are not democratic according to their laws are none the less governed democratically because of
custom and training. Similarly, in other places, the reverse has happened: the constitution is more
democratic in its laws, but is governed in a more oligarchic way as a result of custom and
training».[2] The ideal constitution provides a happy life for citizens, since it has no obstacles to
the realization of the good. Such a situation, according to Aristotle, develops where the middle
class overcomes the rich and the poor combined, or at least one of them. Aristotle considers the
main cause of instability in society as the lack of a balance between the poor and the rich. Crisis
turns out to be the result of a violation of the relative nature of equality and a distortion of the
principle of political justice. Thus, the democratic base is that relative equality entails absolute
equality, and the oligarchy proceeds from the base that relative inequality determines absolute
inequality.
To summarize the definition of constitutions given by the author, I would like to define
politeia as the most profitable form of the state organization. The majority rules for personal
achievements are visible in politeia. All other forms represent one or another definition from
politeia. On the other hand, politeia itself, according to Aristotle, is a mixture of oligarchy and
democracy. This element of politeia (combination of a balance between wealth and freedom for
the citizens), is presented in most states, so this proportion is a general characteristic of the state
as a political organization. 

[1] Politics, Book III, p.76

[2] Politics, Book IV, Chapter 5, p. 112, 15