Comment: ‘The aims persued by revolutionaries, like the origins of revolution, are the same in tyrannies and kingships as they are under regular Constitutions.’ (1991)
The statement opens Aristotle’s treatment of monarchy in Politics Book V, chapter 10. Having explained why democracies, oligarchies, aristocracies and polities fall, he says the same account applies almost equally to royal and to tyrannical rule. The psychology of revolt, he claims, is universal: one-man rule changes how people rebel, not why. That holds for causes, less well for aims and outcomes.
Revolution in Book V
- Meaning. Any change of constitution, of rulers or of degree within one type is a revolution (metabolē); faction (stasis) drives it.
- Origins. Everywhere inequality is a cause of revolution, but an inequality in which there is no proportion. Democrats think equal freedom entitles them to equality in everything; oligarchs think unequal wealth entitles them to inequality in everything. Each mistakes a partial conception of justice for the whole.
- Aims. The objects fought for are gain and honour, or escape from loss and dishonour (V.2).
- Occasions. Insolence, fear, contempt and disproportionate growth of one element; the occasions may be trifling, but great interests are at stake.
Why Monarchies Are No Exception
- Same origins. Subjects attack monarchs from injustice (above all insult), fear and contempt. Harmodius and Aristogeiton struck at the Peisistratids after an insult to Harmodius’s sister. Pausanias of Orestis killed Philip II of Macedon (336 BCE) after Philip left an outrage unpunished. Dion of Syracuse attacked Dionysius the Younger because he despised him.
- Same aims. Monarchs hold great wealth and honour, which are objects of desire to all mankind: the prize is the one fought over in any constitution.
- Different mode. Tyranny falls to a stronger opposite regime from outside or to conspiracy within. Kingship falls to quarrels in the royal family or when kings rule like tyrants. Kingship therefore survives by limiting its powers.
Assessment
Ted Robert Gurr (Why Men Rebel, 1970) grounds revolt in relative deprivation, the gap between what people think they deserve and what they get. Bashar al-Assad‘s dynasty in Syria, in power since 1970, collapsed in December 2024. In September 2025 Nepal’s elected government under K. P. Sharma Oli fell within two days to Gen Z protests against corruption and the displayed privilege of politicians’ children. A hereditary tyranny and a parliamentary constitution fell over the same unequal honour and gain.
The limits are real:
- Karl Marx saw revolution as a change in the mode of production, driven by class and historically progressive. It is not a timeless struggle over office.
- Hannah Arendt (On Revolution, 1963) held that modern revolutions aim at freedom and a new beginning. Gain and honour cannot explain 1776.
- Karl Popper (The Open Society and Its Enemies, 1945) defined democracy by the ability to remove rulers without bloodshed. Regular constitutions have the same grievances, but elections and courts turn them into a change of government, not a revolt.
Conclusion
Aristotle is right that inequality felt as injustice, together with the desire for gain and honour, drives revolt under every regime. What differs is the outlet. Constitutional government converts grievance into turnover, while kingship and tyranny leave only conspiracy or collapse. That is also his own lesson: self-limitation preserves a regime.