"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Winston Churchill
Events of the past months and years in Israel have made it easy to understand Churchill's reservations regarding democracy. Some are even questioning whether the 'except' clause is correct, seeing the chaos that democracy can cause and the fact that we may be no closer to a solution than we were after the first set of elections in the last two years. I do not plan to make the practical arguments for or against any form of democratic elections here. Instead, I would like to examine, from a halachic perspective, the main form of government described by the Torah (and the rest of Tanach) – monarchy.
An Ideal or an Improper Request?
The articles I have seen on this topic concentrate on the ancient debate surrounding the statement of the Torah "שום תשים עליך מלך" (you shall appoint a king over you).[1] The Tana'im dispute the nature of this verse – R' Yehuda understands this as a positive commandment, whereas R' Nehorai argues that the idea of appointing a king is only a response to the improper demand in the previous verse, "אשימה עלי מלך ככל הגוים אשר סביבותי" (I shall appoint a king over me, like all the nations around me).[2]
A common narrative here is that R' Yehuda sees monarchy as the ideal, whereas R' Nehorai prefers a limit on the power of any individual leader (e.g. through some form of democracy[3]) or even the absence of leadership (anarchy).[4] However, this understanding of the Tana'ic dispute is questionable.
If we look at the time when the events foretold in the Torah actually take place, when Shaul is appointed as king, we see that Hashem tells Shmuel Hanavi that the demand for a king is not merely a rejection of Shmuel – it is a rejection of Hashem.[5] This statement would seem to imply that the problem was not to do with the specific dangers of monarchy as a system of government. The people were expected to see only Hashem as their leader, with any human representative appointed directly by Hashem. In other words, the better alternative to monarchy is theocracy rather than democracy or anarchy.
R' Yehuda also cannot deny the fact that the demand for a king in the times of Shmuel was severely criticised. According to R' Yehuda, the criticism must have been specific to the circumstances (the timing or manner of the demand), but the problem is similar. The rejection of Shmuel, Hashem's prophet,[6] or the desire to be similar to other nations,[7] was symptomatic of an underlying rebellion against Hashem and theocratic rule.
In an era without prophecy, such that a literal theocracy is not possible, the ramifications of the dispute between the Tana'im are limited. Although according to R' Nehorai there is no command to appoint a king, and it would be permissible to alter the system of government, there is no proof from his words as to whether this would be recommended. Furthermore, after an interruption in the monarchy, even according to R' Yehuda the appointment of a new king requires a prophet.[8]
I therefore conclude that according to either opinion, halacha has very little to say regarding which form of government should be used nowadays. We should look for whichever system works best.
Future Aspirations
The question remains as to whether our end goal, after the restoration of prophecy, should include the restoration of the monarchy. Many will baulk at the idea of the end of democracy (despite the events of recent years) – is their view compatible with the Torah?
The answer is a conditional yes. We have already seen that according to R' Nehorai, there is no mitzvah to appoint a king (or any other government). Although the Rambam rules according to R' Yehuda,[9] there is no guarantee that the Sanhedrin (also required in order to appoint a king[10]) will agree. Ultimately, we will anyway need a prophet to inform us of Hashem's will.
One thing that does seem clear is that the special status of the tribe of Yehuda in general and the Davidic dynasty in particular, is ensured. Ya'akov Avinu assures that "rulership will not depart from Yehuda,"[11] and David is promised by Hashem (through Nasan Hanavi) that his throne and kingdom will be firm (נכון) forever.[12]
These assurances present a challenge to the view of R' Nehorai. If ideally we would never have had a monarchy, why does Hashem promise that the monarchy will stay in the hands of the family of David forever? It does not seem reasonable that one mistake in the time of Shaul resulted in a curse of eternal monarchy.
Abarbanel contends that these assurances can be fulfilled without a monarchy. Yehuda was the leader of his brothers long before there was a Jewish king, and Chazal tells us that the Babylonian Exilarchs also came from the tribe of Yehuda. He even makes the astonishing claim that "Even today, throughout the long exile until France and Spain, there is no doubt that the presidents and officers that the kings appoint over Bnei Yisrael were all from the Davidic dynasty."[13]
There is one major practical ramification to all of this, in our tefilos every day of the week. An entire beracha of our Shemoneh Esrei is devoted to the restoration of the Davidic line (את צמח דוד). We ask this from Hashem three times a day – according to R' Yehuda we should have the monarchy in mind, whereas presumably according to R' Nehorai (based on the Abarbanel's understanding), it is enough to want a stronger representation of the Davidic line in any positions of power.[14]
Checks and Balances
It is important to point out that when deciding on a form of government, we should not allow any form of idealism to negate real practical concerns.[15] Just as it is not possible to make all decisions via referendum, it may sometimes be necessary to compromise on democracy in order to facilitate efficiency.
The flip side is that if we are to restore a monarchy, this would need to be accompanied with measures to ensure that the monarch cannot abuse his power. I already wrote at length in Separation of Powers about the limitations the Torah makes on the power of the king, but practically there would need to be a method of enforcing these limitations.
With some creativity, it may be possible to design a system that would fulfil the mitzvah of appointing a king according to R' Yehuda, while simultaneously using a democratic system as a counterbalance.[16] Perhaps this could restore stability, while maintaining the basic human freedoms to which we have become accustomed.
I believe that if such a system could be designed, it could be an improvement even on the reign of David HaMelech. When David erred, there were prophets who could guide him back to the correct path. His willingness to admit his mistakes allowed his kingdom to flourish, but most of his successors were not as righteous and this eventually led to collapse and exile. One of the lessons that we should have learnt over the past two thousand years is that each one of us must take personal responsibility and not rely on human leaders, as great as they may be.
To conclude, Churchill was probably right that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried . However, this should not deter us from striving to achieve an improved form of government, whatever its nature may be.
[1] Devarim 17:15
[2] See Sanhedrin 20b
[3] This was the position of Abarbanel in his commentary to the Torah.
Many have pointed out that his view was influenced by his own experience in the
employ of the kings of Portugal and Spain, the expulsion of Jews from these
countries, and subsequently seeing systems he viewed as superior in Italy.
[4] See for example this
article (in Hebrew) by R' Elchanan Samet.
[5] Shmuel 1, 8:4-9
[6] The Rambam's understanding in Hilchos Melachim 1:2.
[7] Ramban's understanding in his commentary on the Torah.
[8] Sifri, Shoftim 157; Rambam, Hilchos Melachim 1:3. Although the
kings of the Chashmonaic dynasty ruled in the post-prophetic era (and according
to the Rambam there was no problem with this – see for example Hilchos Megila
v'Chanuka 3:1), it would seem that this was not a fulfilment of the mitzvah to
appoint a king in its fullest sense. Any form of Jewish rule was something to
be celebrated, but this could just as easily have been achieved through an
alternative form of government.
[9] Hilchos Melachim 1:1
[10] Tosefta, Sanhedrin chapter 3; Rambam, Hilchos Melachim 1:3
[11] Bereishis 49:10
[12] Shmuel 2, 7:16
[13] Abarbanel, Bereishis 49:8. Although he is primarily referring to
the words of Ya'akov Avinu, his several references to David imply that the same
applies to the later promise (although it should be noted that this is a stretch,
bearing in mind that the promise through Nasan Hanavi specifically mentions
David's throne and kingdom).
[14] Some may have reservations whether the special status given to
descendants of David is consistent with true democracy. However, the truth is
that Abarbanel implies that there is no obligation to check whether a candidate
for a position of power is descended from David – this will happen naturally or
through Divine intervention.
[15] Although I don't discuss politics here, I will state that we would
be in a better situation if politicians from across the spectrum would heed
this message.
[16] I do not mean to replicate a UK-style monarchy, where the monarch
is a mere figurehead. This would clearly not be a fulfilment of the mitzvah according
to R' Yehuda.
