It's Good to Be the King

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Monarchy: Maimonides vs Abarbanel 

The famous debate between Maimonides and Abarbanel concerning the law of a king is not as clear cut. Maimonides king though obligatory is severely limited in his capacity and Abarbanel’s opposition lies in his own horrid experience. 

Recently, in discussing politics and governance with two friends on separate occasions, both presented monarchy as the most efficient system. They felt that the democratic model for one reason or another did not work. Whether it was because people are ignorant or politicians are snakes, the system was just deeply problematic. Endorsing a monarchical system is a Jewish model as well as a messianic conclusion. Judaism has had kings and believes in the reign of the davidic line till eternity.

The antagonism brought on by moderns against monarchies is the classist dynastic inequality. The power of the country in one man is terribly dangerous. Fidelity to the royal model hasn’t necessarily been all too great. The king’s bias or his fear of the people fuel bad law. The royal attacks on Jews whether directly or indirectly over the years has been abominable. The recent totalitarian regimes mimic some of the regal features. The unrestrained power of the monarch gives him unparalleled power to do as he wishes. Some of the biblical kings were notoriously bad because they could do as they wish. Even the good kings brought about change with their awesome power. This simple movement of the hand to topple social reform is the opposite of democracy. Democracy seeks the people’s choice and a separation of powers that protects individual liberty. The division or power lowers efficiency but at the expense of freedom. 

Starting with Abarbanel’s opposition, his choice was more republican similar to the Venetian model in Renaissance Italy. Though he was an esteemed treasurer to the king, he was expelled with his fellow Jews. He pointed to the practical effects of monarchies. Always vying for power and always committing violence. In Venice, it was peaceful and stable. To this end, he demonstrated how the bible advocated a democratic model. Jethro’s advice was not a hierarchy of judges but a division of labour and elected officials. Though ironically, his biblical-popular vote election was more democratic than the aristocratic representatives in Venice. His reading of the appointment of a king is optional. He saw it as an inevitable reality for the Israelites highlighting their response to Samuel to be like the other nations. Limiting sovereign power to curtail corruption was necessary to avoid autocratic formulation.

Abarbanel opted against the philosopher-king by promoting the obedient prophet. He valued Joshua and Samuel as icons of leadership. They were prophetic leaders who guided the people through tumultuous times. The kings many a time faulted and screwed up. The leadership laws are solely for kings. Kings in their great prestige and power are more susceptible to ruin and chaos then prophets. The divine prophetic choice ensures a deep level of fidelity to God. There are no rogue prophets (though there are false ones). The prophets are divinely linked and lead the people tremendously whether warmly like Joshua and Samuel or harshly like Isaiah and Jeremiah. The prophets were more reliable than the kings.    

The famed five emperors of Rome were autocrats. Despite the totalitarianism, they succeeded in elevating Rome. In this vein, autocrats can be incredibly efficient. The reign of these great emperors expanded the empire from Britain to Iraq. Well defended and consolidated at each corner, Rome prospered. Nerva though a swift reign brought much needed stability. Trajan after him expanded territory via conquest, his popularity was also famed. Hadrian toured and studied extensively. He was a master builder re-polishing Rome. Antoninus Pius’ wisdom brought about a long peaceful reign. Marcus Aurelius embroiled in writing and stoic philosophy was a war hero. 

The success of this dynastic emperorship is due to its lack of hereditary nature. None of these emperors were children of the former. No bloodline but adopted heirs. The bookends of this dynasty that of Domitian, the biological son of Vespasian, and Commodus, the biological son of Marcus Aurelius, were assassinated while the five emperors were famed and honoured. Machiavelli is the foremost advocate of this approach. Biology is what caused the empire to fall. There is some psychology to this point about biological heirs inheriting everything and screwing up due to their lack of external wisdom. This could also be construed with wealthy children. 

Their prosperous reign had internal issues. The autocratic uniformity left unparalleled power to the emperor. The senate became a group of unqualified dogs. The governmental centralisation, financial issues and perpetuated wars lead to the chaotic ending of the golden age. Thus it may not have been the hereditary formulation but the empire itself that was destined for collapse. Still, there is a something to be said of non-heredity continuity. Moses’ successor was Joshua not his sons. Samuel’s successors were his sons who were rejected by the masses. Solomon was David’s youngest and internally rejected son.  

In modern times much of the Hasidic groups are biological successors but this custom was avowed by Rif half a millennium earlier. The geonic custom followed a dynastic hold dismantling the yeshivot. It was this deviation of choosing R Joseph Ibn Migash that empowered new prestige in Spanish yeshivot. This geonic innovation deviated from the talmudic sages who did not give priority to children. None of Rabbi Yochanon’s students were his children and this continued to Rabbi Yehoshua to Rabbi Akiva to Rabbi Meir and so forth. At times, there is intermarrying via a daughter or sister but not a biological connection. While the Tosafists continued the geonic rule, the sephardim did not. Nahmanides court was Rashba to Ritva. Maimonides believed that heredity succession was reserved for secular positions but with a caveat. If they are not God fearers they cannot be in charge. Heredity must be combined with legal submission. 

The succession line in Judaism operates efficiently when placed in scholarship. The best pupil becomes the next teacher. It is about knowledge and traditional value. Monarchies though would not necessarily work this way. The davidic line is always hereditary but as Maimonides notes such an individual must be a God fearing person. It is incumbent on the people and/or the prophet to ensure the stature of the ruler. Despite Maimonides precedence for knowledge if that knowledge is disconnected from fearing God than such an individual is unfit to rule. His political philosophy presupposes the law and divine fidelity amongst all. The political makeup is irrelevant. If monarchies are the most efficient materialistic model than so be it with the legal ramifications obeyed. 

The Jewish king is not the same as the democratic president. Sacks and Berman both present a quasi-democratic model. Judaism’s monarchy differed from Plato’s republic in its dynastic divine chosen individuals versus the elected individuals. Sacks’ focus is valuational and Berman’s is structural. Sack perceives politics as a means to profess divine expression. Values are the core that are protected by political equality. Democracy is the current phase providing freedom but it is not an end in itself but a means to an end. Prophecy plays the role of voiding corruption by acting as a protester for God. For Berman, the hebraic disassociation from surrounding nations demonstrated its uniqueness. The bible was revolutionary in its election of a nation over a single chosen monarch. Revelation was a vassal treaty elevating the Israelites to royalty. This innovative character embarked on a new theo-political ideology of divine concern for man. Both highlight the law as the supreme model. Mortals are subservient to the law. 

In contrast to the strict monarchical model, the biblical model may be better. The prophet is the perfect player who is the critical journalist yet with credible prestige. The king’s secular role to act as he wishes to grow the country is important but to maintain ethical orientation the prophet keeps the king at bay. Maimonides promotion of the exilarch as the secular sovereign needs the prophetic critique to draw his boundaries. The king can act for the best of country within certain lines.