Rabbi Ari Kahn
Parashat Shoftim 5775
Democracy, Theocracy and Monarchy
Running any enterprise, whether it is a home, a business, or
a country, is complex. As in so many other aspects of life, a delicate balance
must be struck between competing considerations.
In Parashat Shoftim, the Israelites’ time in the desert nears its end, and
a new reality awaits them on the other side of the Jordan River. As they begin
the next phase of their life as a nation in their homeland, Israel will face the
dilemma of competing considerations, and much of Parashat Shoftim is taken up
with issues that must be resolved in order for the new commonwealth to thrive.
In the desert, Moshe is the supreme leader. In a certain
sense, he has the authority and status of king, despite what seems an almost conscious
avoidance of the trappings of monarchy on his part. He is also the supreme
religious leader. As it is clear that Moshe will not be crossing the Jordan
with them, a new tension arises: How will their new country be governed? What
is to be the form of authority? Will their nation-state be a monarchy or a
theocracy? Which of the roles filled by Moshe will take precedence, and how
will the polity be structured?
The concept of kingship is introduced in this Parashah, but,
surprisingly, not as a command but as a possibility. It appears that the king
described in the Torah is appointed, if not elected, by the people: Should they
choose to appoint a monarch, he is to be invested with substantial, but not absolute,
authority and power.
On the other hand, this same Parashah introduces the court
system, which has both judicial and legislative powers. This system of courts
is deemed the final arbiter in all instances of interpersonal conflict or
religious issues. Whenever a clarification of law or a decision regarding its
application is required, we are instructed to turn to the courts, and not to
the king, for a decision. (Dvarim 17:8-13) The court of which the Torah speaks is
what we might call a “religious
court,”
and it stands as a counter-balance to the monarchy.
The era of the “one man show,” in which Moshe stood at the top of both the political and
the judicial/religious systems, would now come to an end. Instead, two
competing arms of government would be established: a democratically appointed
monarch, and a legal system based on the principle of majority.
Let us consider this first institution, the seemingly
oxymoronic “democratically
selected monarch.”
A careful reading of Maimonides’ Law of Kings is instructive:
Once a king is anointed, he and his descendants are granted
the monarchy for eternity, for the monarchy is passed down by inheritance, as Devarim
17:20 states: 'Thus, the king and his descendants will prolong their reign in
the midst of Israel.'…This
applies if the knowledge and the fear of God of the son is equivalent to that
of his ancestors. If his fear of God is equivalent to theirs but not his
knowledge, he should be granted his father's position and given instruction.
However, under no circumstance should a person who lacks fear of God be
appointed to any position in Israel, even though he possesses much knowledge. (Laws
of Kings 1:7)
Surprising as this may seem, despite the creation of a
monarchy which is passed down from generation to generation through a chosen
family line, the chain of inheritance is not guaranteed. A determination must
be made that the heir to the throne is in fact a worthy successor. The question
is, who decides? Who determines whether the king is fit, and whether or not his
descendants are worthy? Apparently, this
power is in the hands of the people (perhaps through the agency of their
representatives on the Great Court, the Sanhedrin HaGadol). The process through
which this power is exercised creates the contours of a unique type of
democracy.
The power of the monarch is subject to even more stringent
limits from another quarter: Aside from the role of the people in choosing to
appoint a king and approving the chain of inheritance of the monarchy, the king
is subject to the laws of the Torah as they are interpreted and applied by the
Great Court. The judicial-legislative arm of government stands above the
monarchy; the political arm of government is secondary to the theological arm
of government. We may say, then, that the system of governance prescribed in Parashat
Shoftim is a democratically conceived monarchy ruled by theocracy. Modern
Western sensibilities might cringe at this sort of hybrid, and we might imagine
the impossible tension that this system would create. However, the force intended
to ameliorate this tension is part and parcel of the mandate of the king:
When [the king] is established on his royal throne, he must
write a copy of this Torah… [which] must always
be with him, and he shall read from it all the days of his life. He will then
learn to be in awe of God his Lord, and carefully keep every word of this Torah
and these rules. (Devarim 17:18,19)
With one elegant stroke, the Torah establishes the
dialectic, the mechanism that will maintain the delicate balance: The king, despite
his power and authority, must remain in a constant state of attentiveness to
the Torah and its laws. He must never forget the true nature of the mandate
with which he has been entrusted, and must remain mindful of the true source of
his authority - and its limits. Keeping the Torah close to his heart and mind
at all times will help him stay in touch, stay grounded, and remain accountable
to those below him, parallel with him, and, most particularly, to the One
above.
The ideal Jewish polity described in this Parashah is based
on a system of checks and balances: a judicial system comprised of the wisest
and most honest religious leaders, combined with a king selected by the people,
all of whom are bound by the Torah, the immutable word of God. While this
combination does not guarantee success, its very structure reminds us where our
priorities should lie. In fact, we may say that the system of governance
described in Parashat Shoftim is, in and of itself, a brief mission statement
for the Jewish nation-state.
For
a more in-depth analysis see:
