While Aristotle and Rousseau lived in a different era, their philosophical thinking behind political participation transcends to the 21st century. With social inequalities ravaging the world, people feel underrepresented and are in need of reviving the social contract Rousseau prescribed. People want a political regime that furthers human development, as noted by Aristotle. Both advocated for political participation, but have their own defenses regarding human nature and combating inequalities. First, Aristotle asserts that, by nature, humans are political animals and they must participate in politics in order to pursue happiness. Political participation allows people reason with one another to create a better state. Doing so allows them to flourish, thereby allowing them to reach happiness. For Rousseau, political participation involves citizens consenting to participate in politics through a social contract. It is important because people will learn of the general will and common good.This creates a sovereign nation that represents the general will of all people, regardless of dissenting opinions. It is crucial for citizens to participate in these gatherings and vote not for their own personal interests, but according the general will. By engaging in politics, they become connected with their community, create laws, and make a difference as a citizen. Both Aristotle and Rousseau believe that human flourishing happens when people participate in politics. Participation gives people moral liberty and positive freedom that allows them to flourish. Rousseau would argue that the social contract must be placed upon citizens to ensure they become political participants and contribute to the general will of society. However, Aristotle believes that participation is already innate in human nature. Rousseau would disagree with this because to create politics and participate in it, citizens must voluntarily do it. They should consciously decide to create government institutions rather than rely on ‘biological intuitions’. According to Aristotle, political participation accompanies human nature. Humans have a natural tendency to associate with one another. In order to be a good political citizen, people should engage in reasoning and develop our functions as human beings. People need external goods to flourish, such as being raised the right way or having property or wealth. Political participation is important in human nature because people can discuss ethical dilemmas and express what is best for the common good. Adversely, Rousseau would argue that political participation is leaving human nature or natural liberty to reach civil liberty. Reciprocal dependence allows people to rely on one another to pursue the greater good. Rousseau would argue that humans are controlled by duty instead of impulse. He is pessimistic on how people can transform from “noble savages” to political citizens, but they can by forming a social contract and agreeing to mutual preservation. Both philosophers would agree that human nature can lend itself to political participation.Equality and inequality have a role in political participation. Rousseau believes that men of different levels of privilege established political inequality. He wants citizens to step away from their natural liberty and subject their nature to the law. By doing so, they can create a system that combats inequalities as each member plays a role in reaching equality. Yet, for Aristotle, equality is a state that the citizens must strive for. There are natural inequalities between the hierarchies of men and women to master and slave. Aristotle would contend that participating in politics would reduce inequalities in society and form an equal state. Both would agree that inequalities are necessary within politics as illustrated by the role of women and slaves in society. They are subjected to “necessary conditions” that allow men to participate in politics. Aristotle would argue that the inequalities of the household provide the means for men to participate in politics while Rousseau would argue that women are insubordinate to men and could not participate. Additionally, both would agree that having the equal distribution property can allow people to participate in politics. Conclusively, I believe Rousseau’s argument is more compelling because political participation is not naturally occurring in humans, as Aristotle would argue. Political association and participation are learned through societal inequalities that cause citizens to come together and govern through the social contract. As Rousseau proved, while people may have vastly different opinions, it is up to the collective to work together and find what is beneficial to society.People should not need external goods such as wealth or property to participate in politics, but rather have a concern and interest towards providing the common good for all.