The Form of Government

Philosophos: The next issue we must resolve is the form that government should take . . . but before we conclude what form is best, let us first discuss the possible forms of government. What forms may a government take?

Nomodiphas: There are three basic structures a government may take: rule by one, rule by some, or rule by all.

Philosophos: And what do we call each of these systems?

Nomodiphas: We call the rule by one a monarchy, the rule by some a republic, and the rule by all a democracy.

Philosophos: And is that all there is? Can we break these terms down further?

Nomodiphas: Of course, there are numerous differences and types within each form. You may have a constitutional monarchy, an absolute monarchy, a monarch who functions as an executive with a parliamentary legislative branch—do you want me to go on?

Philosophos: No, let me rephrase my question. The three forms you gave: monarchy, republic, and democracy are the terms we use when government is functioning well. Is there not a flipside to each system? Can we not have the rule by some that is not a republic or the rule of all that is not a democracy?

Nomodiphas: Yes, of course. The corrupt rule of one we call a tyranny, the corrupt rule of a few we call an oligarchy, and when the rule of all is corrupted we call it anarchy.

Philosophos: So no form of government is always good?

Nomodiphas: Correct. If the monarch is a good man, monarchy will be a good system. If the wise and virtuous few rule, a republican form of government will be good. If the people are civic minded, wise, and involved democracy will work well. But, if the monarch is selfish, arbitrary, and cruel he will tyrannize the people. If the few that rule are foolish and haughty they will oppress the people in an oligarchy. And if the people are corrupted and rule, there will be anarchy.

Philosophos: So if each system has the potential for both good and evil how can we decide on a best system?

Nomodiphas: If one had all wisdom and was all good, it would be best to give that one all power to rule. That would be the best form of government and we will in fact have that form of government during Christ’s millennial reign. As for humans the problem is that no man is all good or has all knowledge. As far as a monarchy goes there seems to be some inherent flaw in it. It is too much power for one individual to hold alone. The worst men in history have been those who control all power. Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Napoleon, Louis XIV, the pharaohs, the Caesars, the Tsars, Lenin, Stalin—because they held all power they were able to do an incredible amount of damage to their countries and people. I cannot think of any person who seized all power and actually used it on behalf of the people. This last century is full of broken promises by men like Castro and I guarantee people who put their trust in men like him or Chavez will be let down.

Besides the problem of giving monarchical power to evil men, monarchical power seems to corrupt good men. Think of King David. He was a man after God’s own heart, Israel’s ideal king anointed to be king by God’s prophet Samuel. Despite being such a good man, he too misused his power. He had an affair with one of his men’s wives and had the man killed in order to cover up the ensuing pregnancy. In fact, well before this debacle the prophet Samuel warned the Israelites about the innate problems contained within the very institution of monarchy. He said:

These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment 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 orchards and give them to his courtiers. He will take one-tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and his courtiers. He will take your male and female slaves, and the best of your cattle and donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take one-tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves.

Samuel painted a very bleak picture of monarchy. As the Hebrew nation moved from self government to a system of monarchy, they would lose all liberty and cease to be citizens and at once become subjects, or better yet, slaves of the king. Despite this stern warning “the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel; they said, “No! but we are determined to have a king over us.” This was the social contract in practice. The people gathered together as a whole and relinquished their liberty to an artificial sovereign of their creation. Though this system was not the most advantageous it was legitimate because it was freely willed from a place of natural freedom.

Philosophos: Yes, monarchy has its failings for power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Nomodiphas: Then what is the solution?