Aristotle wrote about it, later political science has been quite specific: governments can be relatively benign, or they can be corrupt, even severely so. 

Power can be gathered into the hands of one person, spread amongst a relatively limited group of insiders, or distributed widely within a political society. Whether it be government by one, few, or many, what most characterizes a political regime is this: on whose behalf is power wielded?

Watching the Harper government move to close off debate, and use its majority of seats to force votes in the House of Commons, so as to railroad through legislation on crime, one is reminded of a deeper problem. As Quebec Justice Minister Jean Marc Fournier said: this is being tough on democracy, not on crime. 

For Aristotle, government could be in the interest of all. Whether it was power held by one, few or many, working in the common interest had to be the over-riding pre-occupation of the regime. Otherwise, regimes became unjust.

A ruler interested only in perpetuating personal power became a tyrant. An aristocracy chosen on merit to administer public affairs in the common interest could be replaced by an oligarchy interested in accumulating property and wealth for themselves. Citizens living together in harmony, could be manipulated into a mob by demagogues.

Democracy arises because people living together have practical concerns about the best way to live. Aristotle thought people were political animals, meaning as they engaged together in managing the collective household, it became a polity, a political community in his language.

Democratic societies today seek a balanced regime. Some centralized power is required for decisive leadership. A cadre of capable non-partisan administrators protects citizens from corruption in government. Ultimate authority must rest with an engaged, informed citizenry, voting, and participating in public affairs.

For Aristotle, a good constitution was one where the best people came forward to make it work for all. From this perspective, a public service, chosen by merit, contributes greatly to well-being. The Canadian public service is under direct attack from the Harper government, taking away the basis for good government.

Aristotle thought rule by one could serve to exclude the many from power, acting the way a master would with slaves, to deny change, perpetuate power and injustice. A prime minister, like Harper, who pretends he holds a mandate from the people, when his party received less than 40 per cent of the vote (and he was elected only in his riding, not directly by the entire population) diminishes the idea of majority rule, a basic democratic ideal.

Before the 2011 election, the Harper government was found in contempt of parliament, for refusing to present its spending plans on jets and prisons to the House of Commons for consideration and debate. The prime minister rejected the very reason parliament first arose in 13th-century Britain: to bring representatives together to discuss (parler from the French to talk) expenditures made by the king.

The antidote to a corrupted government-by-one regime exists in an informed public. The parliamentary press gallery is afforded a privileged role to observe government on our behalf. The media occupy space within the institution of parliament itself because the “fourth estate” are recognized as playing an essential role as part of our constitutional practice.

The Official Opposition plays a leading constitutional role as well, exposing injustice, denouncing wrong doing, and rallying support for open government. To combat centralized control by the prime minister, members of opposition parties need to do all in their power to animate debate and discussion on public affairs, in their ridings, and in the wider public.

When Stephen Harper closed the doors of parliament shortly after the 2008 election, shutting down debate and discussion over the looming world economic crisis, in order to prevent a coalition Liberal-New Democrat government from taking power, he put his own interest in remaining in office before the public interest. 

As Aristotle explained in the 4th-century BC, such is the act of a tyrant.

Duncan Cameron is the president of rabble.ca and writes a weekly column on politics and current affairs.