(a) Machiavelli on corruption
The first person to examine how corruption functions in politics was Machiavelli. He maintained that the erosion of civic virtues caused by a lack of martial virtue made Italian civilization vulnerable to moral decay and political corruption. A republic can only exist as a whole if its citizens are civically responsible. The greatest threat to the republic’s freedom, according to Machiavelli, is a connection between extravagant lifestyles and moral decay. He was even more certain that politics could not exist in the republic if people gave up their personal interests. The prince may also need to pass legislation to encourage individuals to put their country before themselves. Law and order can thus be easily maintained in a state when inhabitants are aware of the legal repercussions of their acts. So, according to Machiavelli, a hybrid constitution may guarantee that political power is used for the benefit of the republic. It is crucial to keep the republic free from corruption. Machiavelli advocated a legal system to implement laws effectively because of this and guaranteed legal equality to get rid of arbitrariness.

(b) Hobbes on state of nature
The notion of the state of nature, which is his conceptualization of the pre-political society before the development of the formal state or government, is one of the key and fundamental ideas in Hobbes’ political theorising. Hobbes builds the fundamental elements of his state of nature on the basis of his mechanistic, materialist view of nature, which reduces everything to matter and motion, as well as his perspective on human nature. It is reasonable to argue that his fundamental psychoanalytical presumptions about human nature and his mechanistic conceptions of reality serve as the geometric foundation for his beliefs about the condition of nature. To better comprehend his conception of the condition of nature, it is helpful to elaborate on how he accomplishes this.

Aristotle prioritises the state over individuals. He recognised that different contexts would result in the formation of various types of states and governments. Aristotle used the terms governments and constitutions interchangeably in his writings. He distinguishes several types of rule based on the nature of the ruler’s and the subject’s souls. He first considers despotic rule, as exemplified by the master-slave relationship. Aristotle believes that this type of rule is justified in the case of natural slaves, who lack the deliberative faculty and thus require the guidance of a natural master. Though having a master allegedly benefits a natural slave, despotic rule is still primarily for the benefit of the master and only incidentally for the slave.

Aristotle then considers paternal and marital rule, both of which he defends. For him, unless he is constituted in some way contrary to nature, the male is by nature more capable of leadership than the female, and by nature, the elder and perfect are more capable than the younger and imperfect. This sets the stage for Aristotle’s central claim in his constitutional theory: constitutions aimed at the common good are without qualification correct and just, whereas those aimed solely at the benefit of the rulers are deviant and unjust because they involve despotic rule, which is inappropriate for a community of free people.

Aristotle’s constitutional theory is founded on his theory of justice, as developed in ‘Nicomachean Ethics’. Aristotle distinguishes two distinct but related definitions of “justice” (universal and particular), both of which are important in his constitutional theory. To begin, “justice” in the broadest sense means “lawfulness,” and it is concerned with the common good and happiness of the political community. The distinction between correct (just) and deviant (unjust) constitutions is shaped by the concept of universal justice. However, what exactly the “common advantage” (koinionsumpheron) entails is a matter of academic debate. Second, “justice” in this context means “equality” or “fairness,” and this includes distributive justice, which holds that different individuals have equal claims to shares of a common asset such as property. Aristotle examines arguments for and against various constitutions as different applications of the distributive justice principle. The distinction between correct and deviant constitutions is combined with the observation that the government can be made up of one person, a few people, or a multitude of people. As a result, there are six constitutional options:

In his book ‘Politics’, Aristotle discusses various types of constitutions. There are three with correct natures (orthai), namely kingship (the good rule of one man), aristocracy (the good rule of few), and republic or polity (the good rule of the majority), and three with corrupted or deviated natures (parekbáseis), namely tyranny (the perverted rule of one man), oligarchy (the perverted rule of few), and democracy (the perverted rule of the majority). Thus, good political rule can take various and heterogeneous institutional forms, resulting in different legitimate ways of dealing with the problem of sovereign authority within the city.

Even though kingship appears to be the system with the most elevated concentration of power and whose monocratic nature would appear, at least on first glance, to contradict what is proper of the political organisation of the city, the rule put into practice by a king is explicitly stated as a form of government as legitimate as that found in an aristocracy or even in a republic, because the principle that defines the essence of the genuine exercise of political power. Aristotle attempts to demonstrate how each of the right political regimes mentioned above–kingship, aristocracy, and republic (or polity) – can be considered the best if the different social contexts are examined and the plurality of political and moral circumstances are taken into account. Aristotle defends the monarchy on two grounds.

The first ground is purely theoretical in nature, based on the argument that, with the achievement of virtue being the primary goal of political life, if an exceptional political situation occurs in a city involving the emergence of a man of extraordinary or transcendent virtue, there is no other procedure to be followed with regard to this outstanding man but to grant him full powers, elevating him above the law itself and instituting an aristocracy. The second ground, on the other hand, is sociological and historical in nature, and it stems from empirical evidence that the absolute monarchical rule that exists in some nations and cities, exercised by an actual king entrusted with unfettered powers over every issue, is best suited to the character of certain people and the specific situation of some political associations. When man’s rule deviates from the common good and serves only one man’s interests, the system of government shifts from kingship to tyranny (perverted form).

He observes that the wealthy are typically the dominant class in oligarchy (literally rule of the oligoi, that is, few), whereas the poor are typically the dominant class in democracy (literally rule of the dêmos, that is, people), so these economic classes should be included in the definition of these forms. Polity is defined as a “mixed” constitution characterised by the rule of the “middle” class of citizens, a moderately wealthy class between the rich and poor.
Aristotle studies a comparable range of constitutions: first, the constitution which is best without qualification, that is, “most according to our prayers with no external impediment”; second, the constitution that is best under the circumstances “for it is probably impossible for many persons to attain the best constitution” and third, the constitution which serves the aim a given population happens to have, that is, the one that is best “based on a hypothesis”. As a result, we can see that Aristotle seeks not only the best constitution but also the next best constitution.

Regarding the ideal or “according to prayer” constitution, Aristotle is highly critical of Plato’s ‘Republic’s’ ideal constitution on the grounds that it overestimates political unity, holds a communist system that is impractical and inimical to human nature, and disregards the happiness of individual citizens. In Aristotle’s “best constitution,” each citizen will own moral virtue and the tools to put it into practice, achieving a life of excellence and complete happiness. Because “one should call the citystate happy not by looking at a part of it but at all the citizens,” all citizens will hold political office and own private property. Furthermore, because everyone is working towards the same goal, there will be a unified educational system for all citizens.

The second-best system is typically a polity in which citizens have a lower, more common level of virtue. Polity is also viewed as a hybrid constitution that combines elements of democracy, oligarchy, and where possible, aristocracy, so that no group of citizens can abuse its rights. According to Aristotle, the best constitution for city-states that fall short of the ideal is one governed by a large middle class that stands between the rich and the poor. It is “easiest to obey the rule of reason” for those who have the goods of fortune in moderation. As a result, they are less likely than the rich or poor to act unjustly towards their fellow citizens. A constitution based on the middle class strikes a balance between oligarchy (rule by the wealthy) and democracy (rule by the poor). “That the middle constitution is best is evident, for it is the freest from faction: where the middle class is numerous, there least occur factions and divisions among citizens”. As a result, the middle constitution is more stable and just than oligarchy or democracy.

Democracy is classified as a deviant constitution by Aristotle (although the best of a bad lot). The central claim is that when many people work together, they can outperform the virtuous few, even if the many are inferior when considered individually. For example, if each individual possesses a portion of virtue and practical wisdom, they may pool these assets and emerge as better rulers than even the most wise individual. According to Aristotle, reforming a constitution is no less a political task than establishing one from the start, and politicians should assist existing constitutions in this way. Aristotle also warned of political change forces that could destabilise an existing regime. Aristotle criticises his predecessors for their excessive utopianism and disregard for a citizen’s practical duties.

Plato defined education as a conversion, or a complete shift from the world of appearances to the world of reality. ‘The conversion of the souls’, says Plato, ‘is not to put the power of sight in the soul’s eye, which already has it, but to insure that, instead of looking in the wrong direction, it is turned the way it ought to be’. Because everyone has the ability to learn within their soul, all that is required is to turn our soul in the right direction, i.e., to create a good learning environment. It has been demonstrated that the more you advance in your career, the more knowledge you gain. Teachers and students are both required in the learning process; teachers are the ones who are familiar with the subject matter to be taught. It was proposed that the learning process take the form of a discussion between students and teachers. Plato’s concept of education was primarily aimed at those who aspired to be statesmen. The reason he emphasised statesmen more was to avoid incapable leaders; because these statesmen will be given a state, and if they are not educated, they could lead the country or state into a terrible situation. The entire educational system would be physical, intellectual, and moral in nature. If a man cannot resist moral temptation, he may sacrifice the interests of society in order to satisfy his own. The goal of education is to turn the soul towards the light. Plato stated that the main function of education is not to instill knowledge in the soul, but to bring out the latent talents in the soul by directing it towards the right objects.

This Plato’s explanation of education highlights his object of education and directs readers in the right direction to unravel the ramifications of his education theory. “Education is the first and fairest thing that the best of men can ever have,” he says in ‘Laws’. According to Plato, the goal of education is to ensure both the safety of society and the food of individuals. He believed that education should instill in people the ability and motivation to carry out their assigned tasks. Thus, the goal of education is to enable a person to acquire knowledge of the absolute good. Plato defined education as the welfare of both the individual and the society. “Nothing must be admitted in education that does not contribute to the promotion of virtue,” he says as his guiding principle. According to V.K. Maheshwari, Plato’s treatment of education in the ‘Laws’ differs from that in the ‘Republic’. Education in the ‘Laws’ is to be universal rather than restricted to the guardian class as it was in the ‘Republic’, and it is to be compulsory. Children should attend school not only if their parents wish, but there should also be compulsory education. Plato believed that the highest goal of education is to instill knowledge of the Good and to mould a man into a better human being. Education prepares a man for the vision of absolute reality, and thus education is a preparation for the future from the start.

System of Education
Plato believed that young minds could be easily shaped if they were properly directed. He emphasised the tremendous receptive potential of the human mind, which is why, in his opinion, early education is critical in the overall development of the individual. At this point, the educator may attempt to train the individual to restrain desires, as control and harnessing of non-rational aspects of the soul was an important prerequisite for the full development of the rational.

Plato believed that elementary education contributed to the first goal, while higher education ensured the development of rationality.

Primary Education
Plato considered primary education to be until the age of eighteen, followed by two years of compulsory military training, and then higher education for those who qualified. While primary education made the soul more sensitive to its surroundings, higher education enabled the soul to seek truth, which illuminated it. Plato believed that education began at the age of seven, and that prior to this, children should stay with their mothers for moral education and that genders should be allowed to play with each other. Plato believed that the first ten years of a child’s life should be devoted to physical education. In other words, every school must have a gymnasium and a playground to help children develop their physique and health while also making them resistant to disease. Aside from physical education, Plato recommended music to help people refine their character and bring grace and health to their soul and body. Plato also prescribed subjects such as mathematics, history, and science. Gymnastics, literature, music, and elementary mathematics were included in the curriculum. Gymnastics is essential for both physical and mental development. Music is chosen as the medium of education, an avenue for spiritual growth, and ideas are the contents of education at this stage. After the age of six, boys and girls should be separated, and boys should play with boys and girls with girls, and both should be taught to use different arms.

Plato advocated for the censorship of literature and music in order to encourage the virtues required in the guardian class and to make reason supreme. Poetry, stories, and tales were censored to protect impressionable young minds from harmful ideas. Plato was particularly adamant that children not fear death; otherwise, they would not develop the courage required on the battlefield. To ensure a good moral upbringing, children were told stories about gods and great personalities. Plato’s idea was to remove all vices from the lives of children. Training in the right virtues would produce the ideal members of the guardian class. Education in these subjects was followed by two years of mandatory military training. The guardians had honed their skills as warriors. Luxury and self-indulgence were forbidden in order to strengthen the spirit. Plato reiterated the Athenian practice of compulsory military service between the ages of seventeen and twenty. Elementary education refined those souls that were susceptible to habit and conditioning.

Higher Education
Plato states that at the age of 20, the child must take an examination to determine whether or not to pursue higher education. Those who failed the examination were encouraged to work in the community as businessmen, clerks, workers, farmers, and the like. These decisions were made based on the students’ ages and stages of development. Plato stressed the importance of early childhood education. The first course in the scheme would last ten years from the age of twenty-five to thirty-five years, and during this time they would receive training in mathematical calculation, which would last another ten years after which the selected ones would be admitted to the study of dialect. Students here receive mathematical training prior to beginning dialectic. Plato emphasised the characteristics required for entry into higher education. He declared that the surest, bravest, fairest, and those with natural gifts should be given preference in their education. Plato restricted the study of dialectic to the ages of thirty and thirty-five because he believed that an individual should be mature enough to continue the study of dialectics, particularly about ultimate principles of reality. According to Plato, after 35 to 50 years, an individual is ready to return to practical life as a philosopher or ruler, to command in war and hold such offices of state as befits him. After the age of 50, one should spend their life contemplating “the Good” as their primary pursuit, and should participate in politics and rule for the good of the people as a matter of duty.

The Platonic approach to education included the following components: sciences and arts, which teachers were to communicate to their students; moral virtue, which was required of both teachers and students; and finally, political institutions, which were linked to the learning process. For Plato and Aristotle, the true goal of education was to instill civic virtues. They framed an educational curriculum that would impart “a moral liberal education rather than a study of political science. What they sought was rather a frame of mind which will respond in a just, responsible and self restrained manner to public issues”. Both believed that instilling in citizens a sense of rights and obligations would be an effective remedy for the corruption and instability that plagued their respective states. They were convinced that a state-controlled and regulated education system would teach citizens the state’s traditions and laws.