Deuteronomy 17 closes with verses concerning establishing a monarchy. Abravanel deliberates, asking:
Is a king a good thing? Is it a religious imperative? His enlightening essay follows, really an introduction
to our verse regarding monarchies.
“When you come unto the land which God your Almighty gives you, and
you shall possess it, and shall dwell therein and you shall say: I will set a
king over me, like all the nations that are round about me.”
Political thinkers have pondered the question, some asserting that monarchies are best from of
government. They posit that the service a king offers his subjects something akin to the role a heart
plays within an organism's body. In a cosmic sense, they submit, a king can be likened to God, the Main
Cause. Just as God relates to His subordinate universe, so too do they subscribe to the divine right of
kings.
Furthermore, these philosopher's absolutist position presupposes three assumptions about a king's
mandate. One, signals an innate a oneness, an utter lack of partnership with anything else. Two suggests
something enduring and an absence of mutability. Three implies omnipotence.
Based on these political scientists' three aspects of kings, their answer to our query is obvious. They will
argue vigorously that establishing a monarchy isn't just a good idea, it's a must. To them and to their
hypothesis one word suffices: hooey.
Abravanel has harsher words: It’s all lies, and more lies. There is no compelling reason, he writes,
whatsoever to assume that a body politic cannot get along just fine with a number of leaders sharing
and exerting power. He speaks about a cohesive body of officials banding together, pooling ideas before
deciding on the best direction for their fellow countrymen. Call this deliberative government, one based
on good men forging a consensus. Without hesitation, he believes that such a deliberative body can
lead, and administer justice. This sentiment is a rebuttal to the first point made above (a king's innate
oneness). And why can't such a power-sharing system have term limits, rotating annually? Reasonably, a
term could even last longer, say three years, no differently than labor contracts, or agreements for
shorter durations of time.
Here are the main points. When the pre-agreed upon term concludes, the sitting dignitaries vacate their
chairs to make room for others. Not only can power sharing work, but it must also be fully accountable
to the people. That is, after a new government comes into office, their first order of business will be to
audit the outgoing decision makers' policies. If it is determined that they committed high crimes or
misdemeanors, damages must be assessed. The guilty, outgoing party then must pay for its misconduct.
That evaluation clause, per se, is an answer to the second point (a king's endurance and absence of
mutability).
Now to the third assumption advanced by poly sci hacks regarding how kings are omnipotent. Really?
And must they reign ad mortem? Why can't we limit their time in office, their authority, and clip their
powers so to only allow them to apply local religion and custom? Makes sense. Logic dictates that when
an issue is contested, and opposing representatives present their respective opinions, the matter should
be decided by a vote. Majority rules.
More than that, there is a clear-cut advantage when a multiplicity of views is freely circulated, far
preferable to rule by one. When government consists of a sole autocrat (and his choir), what checks and
balances will there be when he acts foolishly or falls prey to unchecked passion – animal exuberance –
or uncontrollable tirades?
This, in a nutshell, outlines Abravanel’s political opinions, as he applies them to verses in our chapter.
