Aristocracy, Democracy, and Phronetocracy

In the history of Political Philosophy, no term seems to have been more abused than 'Aristocracy'. These days, it is a derogatory term meaning, approximately, 'corrupt Oligarchy'. Hence, it is taken both as conflicting with Democracy, and as antithetical to any form of ideal government in general. But that meaning completely reverses its literal sense, as it was understood by the originators of the field. Literally, 'Aristocracy' means 'rule of the best', and, as Aristotle argues, Oligarchy is a degenerate form of it. However, even with that correction, Aristocracy and Democracy can still be taken to be mutually exclusive, primarily because, in an uncharacteristic lapse of analytical thoroughness, Aristotle never asks 'the best WHAT?', leaving the implication that he means 'the best Human', which contradicts the Equality entailed by Democracy. However, the contradiction can be easily dissolved, with the specification, 'the best qualified to lead', for, after all, Democracy is itself in part nothing but a means of determination of who the best-qualified leaders are. Furthermore, that specification is entirely indeterminate regarding quantity, i. e. it does not preclude a plurality, or even a universality of equally well-qualified leaders. Now, according to Evolvemental Phronetics, the criterion of leadership ability is comprehensiveness of perspective, or, to put it in more familiarly, wisdom. Hence, to avoid any terminalogical confusion, the best Political system for Evolvementalism can be called 'Phronetocracy'.