Do We Want a Monarchy?

On the surface, a monarchy does not seem to be a very attractive form of government. Even according to halakha, the king has tremendous powers and his monarchy is irrevocable. For this reason the Torah limits his pursuit of wealth (there are limits on the amount of horses he may have, how much gold and silver he much have) and the quantity of wives he may take. He is obligated to write a Torah scroll which must accompany him wherever he goes. These are safeguards against the despotism.

So why travel down that path in the first place?

The full context of the commandment to appoint a king is as follows:
"When you enter into the land.. and you say 'I shall put upon myself a king like all of the other nations…'"

So we see that the commandment to appoint a king is conditional upon the people asking for it. At least that's the way it seems. The sages of the Talmud disagree on this exact point. Rabbi Yehuda is of the opinion that "three Commandments were given to the people upon entry into the land: 1. Appoint a king. 2. Destroy the remnant of Amalek. 3. Build the holy Temple."

To his opinion, then, appointing a king is a positive obligation. This is also the opinion of the Rambam who codified it in his Mishna Torah. But, according to this opinion, the people's prefacing statement of "I shall appoint upon myself a king" is unnecessary! Let the Torah simply command us to appoint a king and be done with it. We will come back to this later.

The dissenting opinion in the Talmud is that of Rabbi Nehorai, who argues that the commandment of appointing a king is only as a response to the complaints of the people. In other words, if they ask for a king, the prophet and the Sanhedrin may appoint one. In that case, all the laws of the King which follow become obligatory. But if they do not ask for a king, rather they prefer God as their permanent king, then that is the optimal arrangement. The Ran (Rabenu Nissim of Gerundi) and other commentators are of this opinion.

When this comes to pass, when the people approach the prophet Samuel and request a king "to judge us like all the nations," Samuel becomes upset. He issues a stark warning to the people about how they are being disobedient to God, and how the experiment with a monarchy will bring them great suffering.

Why is he upset? If, especially as according to Rabbi Yehuda and the Rambam, it is a positive commandment to appoint a king, he should be pleased that they are fulfilling that commandment! According to the other opinion that it is conditional upon the people asking, it would seem that Samuel was upset with the request. He was saddened and disappointed by the fact that they pushed that button in the way that they did.

One could see the Torah formulation requiring the people to ask as a precondition in one of two ways. 1. The asking is a negative development, reminiscent of the "rebellious son." The Torah would rather it not happen, but tells us that if it does, here is the procedure. The problem with this approach is the emphatic expression, "You shall surely appoint a king." This gives an impression of a positive development, not a tragedy, so why would Samuel be upset?

Rabbenu Nisim explained that the phrase "to judge us," irked him because they are sought to give judicial powers to the King which properly belonged to the Torah scholars and the Sanhedrin. Others find the phrase "like all the nations" to be problematic. That second objection, however, seems odd since the Bible itself uses that phrase in formulating the people's future request.

Two scholars disagree over this question of democracy versus monarchy. The Kli Yakar prefers a strong leader who keeps order in society. A state where the people call the shots can quickly become chaotic. Witness politicians pandering to every segment of society in order to get elected. They do not lead, they follow the polls.

On the other side, Rabbi Isaac Abarbanel, who observed monarchies in action as a government minister in Spain just before the expulsion, warns of the dangers of despotism. He looks admiringly on the fledgling democracies in some of the Italian city states. The fact that the leaders are accountable to the populace prevents them from becoming corrupt dictators like the ones he witnessed in Spain and Portugal.

Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin suggests a compromise based on the psychological makeup of countries. Some peoples require a strong leader to keep society together while others bristle at the thought of being ruled over. All we need to do is look at the recent history of the Middle East to see what happens when we try to install a democracy in a society with a tradition of strong leadership.

I believe that the Torah is formulating the situation in an optimal fashion. Perhaps Rabbi Yehuda sees the people's statement "I shall appoint upon myself a king like all the nations" as, in itself, a positive development. When the people sinned by the episode of the spies, they saw themselves as being very small. "We look like insects in their eyes, and so were we in our own eyes." In requesting a king in this fashion, the people are expressing their desire to be big, powerful, and influential in the world. It is as if they are saying, "Let us take our rightful place among the nations."

But when they requested of Samuel, they are saying something else. They are seeking to ape the other nations, to be just like them. Thus, when they specify that the king should judge them, they are calling up the foreign model of a king and not the Jewish model.

In any event, the people of Israel indeed do have a suspended monarchy. Once King David became the anointed one, his descendants have a claim on the throne. A righteous king such as King David is the Torah ideal, and when one of his descendants reaches that high level, the monarchy may be restored organically. This is what we refer to as "The coming of the Messiah." May it be speedily in our days.