Aristotle’s typology hinges each good regime on rule for the common interest

Evidence

Thus if a single ruler (a monarch) promoted his own self-interest instead of the common good, he became a tyrant; if an aristocracy similarly used governmental power exclusively for its own advantage, the regime became an oligarchy; and if the majority in a constitutional government likewise sought only their own benefit without regard to the commonwealth, their regime became a democracy. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 75

Categorization

• XREF: Note Aristotle’s ‘democracy’ is the perversion of constitutional government — a usage the reader’s own immodesty article on moral panics would recognize as category-shifting rhetoric. Reader’s broader theme: how dominant groups brand insurgent politics as perversion. — connects to: Classical regime mapping classifies by who rules and whether for common or private interest — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 74; Aristotle defines good and bad governments by ethical intent rather than constitution — Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, 812; Rationalist-universalists hold political theory can establish one universally valid good regime — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 289
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 75

Broader Connections

• Classical regime mapping classifies by who rules and whether for common or private interest #expands (0.95) — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 74
• Aristotle defines good and bad governments by ethical intent rather than constitution #corroborates (0.92) — Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy, 812
• Rationalist-universalists hold political theory can establish one universally valid good regime #complicates (0.72) — Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, 289