§ 1. It ought not to be assumed, as some thinkers are nowadays in the habit of doing, that democracy can be defined off-hand, without any qualification, as a form of constitution in which the greater number are sovereign. Even in oligarchies–and indeed in all constitutions–the majority [ie the majority of those who enjoy constitutional rights] is sovereign. Similarly, oligarchy cannot be simply defined as a form in which a few persons are the constitutional sovereign. § 2. Assume a total population of 1,300: assume that 1,000 of the 1,300 are wealthy; assume that these 1,000 assign no share in office to the remaining 300 poor, although they are men of free birth and their peers in other respects. Nobody will say that here there is a democracy. § 3. Or assume, again, that there are only a few poor men, but that they are stronger than the rich men who form the majority [and are therefore sovereign]. Nobody would term such a constitution an oligarchy, when no share in honours and office is given to the majority who possess riches. It is better, therefore, to say that democracy exists wherever the free-born are sovereign, and oligarchy wherever the rich are in control. § 4. As things go, the former are many, and the latter few: there are many who are free-born, but few who are rich.[The essence, however, in either case is not the factor of number, but the factor of social position.] Otherwise [ie if number alone were the essence] we should have an oligarchy if offices were distributed on the basis of stature (as they are said to be in Ethiopia), or on the basis of looks; for the number of tall or