Tuesday, October 17th | 27 Tishri 5778

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
August 24, 2017 11:49 am

The Consent of the Governed

avatar by Jonathan Sacks

Email a copy of "The Consent of the Governed" to a friend

A Torah scroll. Photo: Rabbisacks.org.

The contribution of the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) to political thought is fundamental, but not well known.

In this article, I want to look at the institution of monarchy. What does it tell us about the nature of government, as the Torah understands it?

The Torah command relating to a king opens with these words:

When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,” be sure to appoint over you the king the Lord your God chooses…”(Deut 17:14-15).

The passage continues by warning against a king acquiring “great numbers of horses for himself.” The king “must not take many wives,” nor may he “accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.” He must write a Sefer Torah, and “he is to read it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and … not consider himself better than his brothers, or turn from the law to the right or to the left.”

This entire passage is fraught with ambivalence. The dangers are clearly spelled out. There is a risk that a king will exploit his power, using it to acquire wealth, wives or horses (one of the status symbols of the ancient world). This is exactly what Solomon is described as doing in the Book of Kings. He may be tempted to consider himself “better” than everyone else.

The most resonant warning note in this passage is struck at the outset.

Rather than commanding the appointment of a king, the Torah envisages the people asking for one, so that they can be “like all the nations around us.” This is contrary to the whole spirit of the Torah. The Israelites were commanded to be different, set apart, counter-cultural.

To aim to be like everyone else is not a noble wish, but a failure of imagination and nerve. Small wonder then that a number of medieval commentators held that creating a monarchy is not a biblical imperative. Ibn Ezra held that the Torah did not command it, but merely permitted it. Abarbanel — who favoured republican government over monarchy — regarded the Torah’s language about kings as a concession to popular sentiment.

The key passage to our analysis can be found in I Samuel 8. As predicted in Deuteronomy, the Jewish people do eventually request a king. They come to Samuel, the prophet-judge, and say: “You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.”

Samuel is displeased. God then tells him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected Me as their king.”

This seems to be the heart of the matter. Ideally, Israel should be under no other sovereign but God.

Yet God does not reject their request. To the contrary, God had already signaled, through Moses, that such a request would be granted. He therefore says to Samuel: “Listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.”

The people may appoint a king, God says, but not without having been forewarned as to the likely consequences.

Samuel gives the warning in these words:

This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. … He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves, and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants … and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the Lord will not answer you in that day.

Despite the warning, the people are undeterred:

“No!” they said. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.” When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”

What is going on here?

The sages were divided as to whether Samuel was setting out the powers of the king, or whether he was merely trying to dissuade the Jewish people from the whole project. The entire passage, like the one in Deuteronomy, is profoundly ambivalent. Is God in favor of monarchy or against it? If He is in favor, why did He say that the people’s request was tantamount to rejecting Him? If He is against, why did He not simply command Samuel to say no?

The best analysis of the subject was given by one of the great rabbis of the 19th century, R. Zvi Hirsch Chajes, in his Torat Nevi’im. Chajes’ thesis is that the institution of monarchy in the days of Samuel took the form of a social contract — as set out in the writings of Locke and Rousseau, and especially Hobbes. The people recognize that they cannot function as individuals without someone having the power to ensure that the rule of law and the defense of the nation is carried out. Without this, they exist in what Hobbes calls a “state of nature.” There is anarchy, chaos. No one is safe.

Instead, in Hobbes’ famous phrase, there is “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” This is the Hobbesian equivalent of the last line of the Book of Judges: “In those days, Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.”

The only way to escape from anarchy was for everyone to transfer some of their rights — especially the use of coercive force — to a human sovereign. Government comes at a high price. It means transferring to a ruler rights over one’s own property and person. The king is entitled to seize property, impose taxes and conscript people into an army if these actions are necessary to ensure the rule of law and national security. People agree to this because they calculate that the price of not doing so will be worse: total anarchy or conquest by a foreign power.

That, according to Chajes, is what Samuel was doing — at God’s command: proposing a social contract and spelling out what the results would be.

If this is true, many things follow. The first is that Ibn Ezra and Abarbanel were right. God gave the people the choice as to whether or not to appoint a king. It was not compulsory,, but optional.

The second truth of this interpretation — and this is the fundamental feature of social contract theories — is that power is ultimately vested in the people.

To be sure, there are moral limits to power. Even a human king is under the sovereignty of God. God gives us the rules that are eternal.

But politics is about the laws that are temporary — of this time, this placed  these circumstances. What makes the social contract distinctive is its insistence that government is the free choice of a free nation.

This idea was given its most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence: “to secure these rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

That is what God was telling Samuel.

If the people want a king, give them a king. Israel is empowered to choose the form of government it desires, within the parameters set by Torah law.

Something else follows — spelled out by R. Avraham Yitzhak HaCohen Kook:

Since the laws of monarchy pertain to the general situation of the people, these legal rights revert [in the absence of a king] to the people as a whole. Specifically it would seem that any leader [shofet] who arises in Israel has the status of a king [din melekh yesh lo] in many respects, especially when it concerns the conduct of the people. … Whoever leads the people may rule in accordance with the laws of kingship, since these encompass the needs of the people at that time and in that situation.

In other words, in the absence of a king of Davidic descent, the people may choose to be ruled by a non-Davidic king — as they did in the age of the Hasmoneans — or to be ruled instead by a democratically elected parliament, as currently exists in the state of Israel.

The real issue, as the Torah sees it, is not between monarchy and democracy; it is whether the government was chosen by the people, and whether the people are being freely governed.

To be sure, the Torah is systematically skeptical about politics. In an ideal world, Israel would be governed by God alone. Given, however, that this is not an ideal world, there must be some human power that has the authority to ensure that laws are kept and enemies are repelled.

But that power is never unlimited. It comes with two constraints: first, it is subject to the overarching authority of God and His law; second, it is confined to the genuine pursuit of the people’s interests. Any attempt by a ruler to use power for personal advantage (as in the case of King Ahab and Naboth’s vineyard in 1 Kings 21) is illegitimate.

Free society has its birth in the Hebrew Bible.

Far from mandating a retreat from society, the Torah is the blueprint for a society — a society built on freedom and human dignity, whose high ideals remain compelling today.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner

Algemeiner.com