Kinds of State
Al-Farabi describes the varieties of the states other than the Ideal States and the remarkable contribution of this philosopher are very much alive and given serious considerations even today. Al-Farabi divides states into following categories:
1. State of Necessity (Daruriya):
Its inhabitants aim, at the necessities of the life, like food, drink, clothing, a place to live and carnal gratification and they generally help each other in securing these necessities of life.
2. Vile State (Nadhala):
Its citizens strive for wealth and riches for their own sake. The account in the Siyasa includes a description of its ruler. Ibn-e-Rushd also succinctly touches upon this state.
3. Base and Despicable State:
Its inhabitants concentrate on the pleasures of the senses, games and other pastimes. This state is the one in which men help one another to enjoy sensual pleasure such as games, jokes and pleasantries and this is the enjoyment of the pleasures of eating and merry-making. This state is the happy and fortunate state with the people of ignorance, for this state only aims at attaining pleasure after obtaining first the necessities of life and then abundant wealth to spend.
4. Timocracy (Madina Karama):
It contains a variety of honours. Since the Arabic source of Al-farabi is lost in the wealth of legend, we are unable to determine whether this lengthy and diffuse description goes back to it or represents Al-Farabi’s own amplification. The latter seems to be more correct. The citizens of these honor-loving states assist each other in gaining glory, fame and honor. The honors fall into two groups. The first is a personal relationship between one who is worthy to be honored because of some virtue in him, and the others who accord him honor and respect because they recognize him as their superior. The second kind of honor is accorded to men because of their wealth, or because of they have been victorious, exercise authority or enjoy other distinctions. This state in the opinion of Al-Farabi is the best of all the states.
5. Tyranny (Taghallub):
It receives from the aim of its citizens; they co-operate to give victory over others, but refuse to be vanquished by them. Al-Farabi sets out to distinguish between despotic states and define tyranny or despotism according to aim, mastery over others and over their possessions for power’s sake, within or externally, by force and conquest or by persuasion and achieving enslavement. His despotic rule is a mixed one and thus often resembles timocracy or plutocracy. Ibn-e-Rushd avoids this by following Plato’s description of tyranny and the tyrannical man, and the transition from democracy to tyranny and of the democratic to the tyrannical man but done to their common source both Al-Farabi and Ibn-e-Rushd similarly define tyranny as absolute power.
Rosenthal was of the view,
“Tyranny has even more variations for Al-Farabi than timocracy; as many as the tyrant has desires, for this despotism expresses itself in imposing his will on his subjects and making them work for his personal ends. Al-Farabi knows of two kinds of tyranny within which these variations occur, internal and external tyranny. The first consists in the absolute mastery of the tyrant and his helpers over the citizens of the state, and the second is the enslavement of another state or people.”
6. Democracy (Madina Jama’iya):
It is marked by the freedom of its inhabitants to do as they wish. They are all equal and no body has master over another. Their governors only govern with the explicit consent of the governed. Democracy contains good and bad features and it is therefore not impossible that at some time the most excellent men grow up there, so that philosophers, orators and poets come into being. It is thus possible to choose from its elements of the ideal state.
Apart from the afore-mentioned classification of the states, which seems to be idealistic, Al-Farabi has a definite place for the trait of political character over other nations. He initiates reasons for this mastery and says that it is sought by a people owing to its desire for protection, ease ort luxury and all that leads to the satisfactions of these necessities. In this powerful state, they might be able to get all the desire. There is nothing against human nature for the strong to over power the weak, so nations which try to get other nations under their control consider it quite proper to do so, and it is justice both to control the weak and for the weak to be so controlled, and the subdued nation should do it for the good of its masters.
There is no doubt that all the lapse of centuries and the international ideology which is the current coin in politics, the psychology of the nations today is much the same as described by the Master centuries ago.
Al-Farabi said,
“But the more chivalrous among them are such that even when they have to shed human blood they do so only face to face, not while their opponent is asleep or showing his back, nor do they take away his property except after giving him proper warning of their intentions. Such a community does not rest till it thinks it has become supreme forever, nor does it give any other nation an opportunity of over powering it, always regarding all other peoples their opponents and enemies and keeping itself on Guard.”
Colonies:
Al-Farabi is comprehensively clear about the principles of colonization. He opines that the inhabitants of a State must scatter hither and thither in different parts of a State because they have been overpowered by an enemy or by an epidemic or through economic necessity. There are only alternatives to the colonists, either to migrate I such a way as to form one single commonwealth or divide themselves in different political societies. It may come to compass that a large body of these people are of opinion that it is not necessary to change the laws which they have brought from their mother country; they would then simply codify existing laws and begin to live under them. It will thus be clear to understand that A-Farabi not only contemplates colonization but also self-Government of a republican kind which is closer to the modern conceptions.