| چکیده انگلیسی مقاله |
Introduction Polybius was a Greek philosopher and historian. One of his most significant theories, and the focus of this paper, is the cycle of constitutions. The collapse of governments, the lack of continuity in legal structures, and public disorder manifested in internal conflicts led Polybius to investigate the causes of these instabilities. Through his theory of the constitutional cycle, he sought to demonstrate that a balanced constitution ensures the interests of all social classes and achieves legal and social stability. The main questions this article addresses are the concept and function of Polybius' constitutional cycle, along with a critical examination of it. The research method is descriptive-analytical, with data collected through library research. The findings suggest that contrary to Polybius' view - which holds that merely designing a balanced constitution through the combination of all powers and different social classes provides an escape from the cycle of decay, and that a perfect constitution guarantees governmental survival - in reality no law or structure is so complete as to be independent of continuous public oversight by citizens. Any restriction on such oversight leads inevitably to corruption and decay. The central question of political philosophy concerns why people obey public authority and what governance truly represents. Governments have traditionally been categorized into two types - healthy and corrupt, or good and bad - based on the number of rulers and their performance. Accordingly, governments can be divided into three forms in each category: good rule by one person constitutes monarchy, while bad rule by one person is tyranny; good rule by a few represents aristocracy, while bad rule by a few is oligarchy; majority rule conducted well constitutes a republic, while poor majority rule represents ochlocracy or mob rule. It is crucial to note that the criterion distinguishing good from bad governments is their consideration or disregard of public interest. When governance aims at universal benefit, the number of rulers becomes secondary. It is on this principle that Aristotle considers any governmental form with this objective to be essentially republican. In practice, however, good governments proved unstable and prone to degeneration into corrupt forms, while corrupt forms themselves lacked durability due to structural deficiencies. Consequently, political philosophers sought solutions that could achieve greater stability, thereby better serving collective interests. Without stability, rights, regulations, peace, and social structures become perpetually disrupted, making individual and group interests difficult to realize and defend. Polybius termed this phenomenon of continuous constitutional transformation the "cycle of constitutional decay." His proposed solution was a mixed government combining all three simple, healthy governmental forms, ensuring the participation, oversight, and cooperation of society's three fundamental powers: the monarchical, the aristocratic, and the popular. Was Polybius the originator of this concept? Or had earlier thinkers identified this cycle of decay and proposed solutions? Furthermore, is Polybius' conception complete and unassailable, or does his theory itself warrant criticism? Polybius developed his ideas through studying great Greek philosophers, particularly Plato and Aristotle. Additionally, the constitutional systems of the Roman Republic and Spartan Republic provided practical models that led him to conclude mixed government was the sole escape from constitutional decay. Methods The research employs a descriptive-analytical method, with data gathered through library research. This article's contribution lies not only in re-examining Polybius and his theory, but in assessing its strengths and weaknesses while evaluating its contemporary relevance. While substantial literature exists on Plato and Aristotle's legal-political thought in constitutional studies, Polybius' contributions to this field have received less attention. Indeed, the Roman Republic's golden age appears understudied by constitutional scholars, making this article particularly novel. The study first presents Polybius' cycle of constitutional decay, then analyzes its characteristics, examines criticisms against it, discusses its contemporary applications, and finally presents conclusions. Results Polybius' conception as an Achaean aristocrat and later Roman Republican aristocrat- regarding the perpetual decay cycle of simple constitutions (where one class or power dominates) and its solution (a government incorporating all three social classes where powers mutually check each other creating balance) - finds precedents in Plato and Aristotle's works, whom Polybius explicitly cites in his Histories' sixth book. However, Polybius made this theory distinctly his own through original elaborations and clear articulation, such that subsequent thinkers accepted it as a comprehensive framework for understanding political history. Notable adherents included Cicero and Machiavelli - both Italians, the former born shortly after Polybius' death, the latter during the Renaissance - who employed his ideas. Both accepted mixed government as uniquely capable of ensuring stability and equilibrium, though Cicero supplemented it with natural law theory and public interest considerations, while Machiavelli emphasized individual agency and the productive potential of class conflict when properly channeled. Polybius viewed political revolutions as natural phenomena, with his emphasis on simple governments' inherent corruption leading to citizen disenfranchisement (though he cautioned the Roman Senate against oppressing the masses, warning that disturbing their natural tranquility could unleash unpredictable destructive forces). Conclusions
As a historian, Polybius provides no empirical evidence or systematic reasoning for his theory beyond historical observation. He fails to explain why governmental corruption must precisely span one generation, or why the cycle must follow his prescribed sequence. Nor does he consider whether oligarchy might directly follow tyrannical monarchy's collapse. However, recognizing that cyclical historical views predominated in ancient Greece makes his constitutional cycle theory more comprehensible. |