Arendt, Hannah. "The Great Tradition: II. Ruling and Being Ruled". Social Research, Vol.74, No.4 (2007): 941-954.

Arendt, Hannah. "The Great Tradition: II. Ruling and Being Ruled". Social Research, Vol.74, No.4 (2007): 941-954.

• The terms distinguishing the difference between pure and corrupted forms of rule changes again, with the positive forms of government being terms 'kingship', 'aristocracy', and 'polity', with their respective corrupted forms labeled 'monarchy', 'oligarchy', and 'democracy' (941).
• These three pure forms are praised as the best systems of possible government, but the way to keep them uncorrupted is unclear. Cicero recommends a form of mixed government, using elements of all three systems, but this implies something very different than our interpretation -- since each form is defined by the number of actors and cannot therefore coexist and retain their distinction (941).
• The new definitions provided for the distinction between 'kingship' and 'monarchy' make the two systems entirely different in their forms of rule, because the difference is now between a system with potential for extralegal power and system where power is clearly legislated. A system where power is entirely concentrated in one person is really an entirely different system from a constitutional kingship, despite both having a one-person head of government (942).
• These definitions totally defy the previous definitions of the forms of governance, as they cannot be defined as 'pure' one-person or small-group systems of rule without being tyrannies or oligarchies, cannot be clearly divided into rule by laws without more pluralization of power, and resist the dichotomy of ruling versus being ruled (943).
• During the Ancient Greek period when many of the philosophy referenced by Arendt were writing, the division between ruling and ruled was really emphasized in the domestic sphere. The definition therein was the distinction between the ruling, who had their physical needs provided for them by slaves, and the ruled population of the household required to labour to fulfill their physical needs (944).
• The historical realities of Greek society have been reflected in the development of modern Western philosophy on the issue of freedom. There remains an idea, created by the Greek distinction that freedom could only belong the ruling class, that freedom is a condition for a full life and that that freedom can only be realized by engaging in activities which are not goals unto themselves -- i.e., those activities which most do not have the leisure to be involved in (945).
• The very concept of the dichotomy between rulers and the ruled stems from the historical realities of this period, as this divide over control in private life was transposed by later scholars onto the public political sphere (945). 
• Within Greek political thought, the centrality of wealth to achieving political status meant that public life was the ultimate aspiration and elitism reinforced the idea that private life was worthless in comparison to public achievements. In the Greek conception, true human greatness could only be achieved in the public sphere and with the knowledge of others (946).
• Although these same lines, the greatest danger of tyranny was that it monopolized public political life and thus denied wealthy individuals from attaining their true potential through public action (946).
• Showing the all previous distinctions suggested have been useless in separating the concepts of 'kingship', 'monarchy', etc., Arendt now establishes the difference between these forms of government. The author states the chief difference between these lies in the role of action in their public organization (947).
• A 'kingship' begins when individuals capable of political action come together out of a desire to start a new enterprise through action -- like in Arendt's other works, action necessitates a group of individuals -- and elect one among them to be a leader through voluntary action. When the element of free engagement is removed, it becomes a monarchy, and ultimately devolves into a tyranny (947).
• In this way, Montesquieu was correct about the definition of kingship in terms of actions being motivated by a desire for honor. People voluntarily accepted the authority of the king so that their collective action could bring about political effects which would win them honor and eternal glory (948).
• The nature of the polis is defined by a lack of action in the public sphere. In contrast to the conditions of kingship, a polis exists where private individuals coexist and their commonalities stem from living in the same location rather than acting in unison. The moment when action is required, this organization can change back into a kingship (948).
• However, the act of reforming a kingship during times of war does not necessarily change the nature of the government within the city-state. Even during war, the kingship established for military purposes does not become the sole body politic, but coexists with the inactive body politic of the polis, distinguishing this from 'true' kingship. Furthermore any action by the kingship to destroy the polis body politic would result in involuntary rule and thus monarchy (949).
• The conditions of politics within both Republican Rome and Ancient Greece were partially defined by equality and difference within the autonomous city-state. The definition of equality in this time was not universal, because slaves and women were distinctly unequal in both societies, but the mutual recognition of various powerful men as equals (949).
• This recognized community of equals allowed for the construction of a body politic, and generated the competition which is required for the formation of an aristocracy as men constantly try to demonstrate their superiority over others through deeds done in the public sphere (950).
• The spirit of intense competition which allowed for the formation of an aristocracy in the Greek city-states did not exist at the time of the Roman Republic, which was by virtue of its treaties with former enemies based on promoting the common welfare to the degree of discouraging exceptionalism for fear of upsetting political balances (951).
• In an attempt to create this atmosphere of equality and resist urges to show up other in the public sphere, people were encouraged to move private activities into the public sphere and public places. The creation of public baths, libraries, and gymnasiums was intended to bring people into fuller engagement with their follow citizens and foster a dedication to public institutions and the common welfare (951).
• Each of the three proposed forms of government created different experiences of living in communities. Kingship was a unique system meant for the beginning of important actions and single enterprises, not everyday experience. Aristocracy was primarily Greek and consists of living in a city-state with one's equals and in limited competition to win fame and renown. Polity was primarily Roman and consisted of a love for equality between men and the prioritization of actions in the public sphere for the promotion of common welfare (952).
• Using these definitions for the terms introduced at the beginning of this essay, it is clear that different forms of government can exist. In many societies, there will be people motivated by polity-esque love for equality, aristocratic love for distinction, and kingly love of honor (952).
• The absence of any distinction between ruler and ruled in the public sphere in Greek thought was a direct factor in the cruelty and destructiveness of any Greek attempts at foreign rule or colonization. Since the only 'ruled' people existed in the private sphere as women and slaves, the Greek polis could not accept the idea of vassal elites or rulership in the public sphere. Without this option, all oppression had to end in either death or the conversion of public men into slaves, who could be ruled in the private sphere (953).
• The division between rulers and ruled in the public sphere really only began to appear in the late Roman Republican period, as the increased power of private households to act politically blurred the distinction between public and private. The transformation of 'public' properties into private possessions further erased the distinction, gradually resulting in the present scenario where the dichotomy between ruler and ruled exists in both the public and private spheres (954).