Human Rule Weighed in the Balances
Part 3—Is ‘Government by the Best’ Really the Best?
Aristocracy: government by the nobility, a privileged minority, or an elite class thought best qualified to rule; oligarchy: government by the few, either of persons or of families, often for corrupt and selfish purposes.
IT SEEMS logical that the best kind of government would result if it was composed of the best people. The best people are better educated, more qualified, and more competent—so goes the argument—and therefore better able to lead others. An aristocratic government headed by such an elite class may be one of several kinds; for example, rule by the wealthy, a plutocracy; rule by the clergy, a theocracy; or rule by officials, a bureaucracy.
Many primitive societies, under the rulership of tribal elders or chiefs, were aristocracies. At one time or another, Rome, England, and Japan, to name but three, all had aristocratic governments. In ancient Greece, the word “aristocracy” was used in reference to the city-states, or poleis, in which a small group governed. Often a number of prominent families shared power. In some cases, however, single families seized power illegally and set up a more tyrannical type of rule.
Like other Greek city-states, Athens was originally an aristocracy. Later, as cultural changes weakened class distinctions and disrupted its unity, the city took on democratic forms. Sparta, on the other hand, reputedly founded in the ninth century B.C.E., was ruled by a military oligarchy. This city soon rivaled the much older Athens, and both cities fought for supremacy of the Greek world of their time. Thus, rule by the many, as in Athens, came into conflict with rule by the few, as in Sparta. Of course, their rivalry was complex, involving more than just a disagreement about government.
A Noble Ideal Perverted
Political differences were often the subject of philosophical arguments among Greek philosophers. Plato’s former student Aristotle made a distinction between aristocracies and oligarchies. He classified pure aristocracy as a good form of government, a noble ideal that enabled persons with special abilities and high morals to devote themselves to public service for the benefit of others. But when headed by an oppressive and selfish elite, a pure aristocracy deteriorated into an unjust oligarchy. This he considered a perverted form of government.
While advocating rule by ‘the best,’ Aristotle admitted that combining aristocracy with democracy would probably produce the desired results, an idea that still appeals to some political thinkers. In fact, the ancient Romans actually did combine these two government forms with a measure of success. “Politics [in Rome] was everyone’s affair,” says The Collins Atlas of World History. Nevertheless, at the same time, “the richest citizens and those who were fortunate enough to be high born formed an oligarchy which shared out among itself the offices of magistrate, military commander and priest.”
Even in late medieval and early modern times, European urban centers combined democratic and aristocratic elements in their government. Says Collier’s Encyclopedia: “The extremely conservative Venetian Republic, which Napoleon finally overthrew, provides the classic example of such an oligarchy; but the Free Cities of the Holy Roman Empire, the cities of the Hanseatic League, and the chartered towns of England and western Europe reveal the same general tendencies toward tight oligarchial control by a relatively small but proud and highly cultured patriciate [aristocracy].”
It has been contended, and with some justification, that all governments are aristocratic in nature, since all of them strive to have the best qualified people in charge. The concept of a ruling class has served to strengthen this view. A reference work therefore concludes: “Ruling class and elite are becoming synonymous terms to describe as actual what Plato and Aristotle argued for as ideal.”
In Search of ‘the Best’
Centuries before these Greek philosophers made their appearance, a feudal society (based on lords and vassals) was bringing a measure of stability and peace to ancient China under the royal house of Chou. But after 722 B.C.E., during what is called the Ch’un Ch’iu period, the feudal system gradually weakened. In the last part of this period, a new elite emerged, composed of the former “gentlemen,” who served in feudal households, and the descendants of the old nobility. Members of this new elite moved into key government positions. Confucius, the renowned Chinese sage, as The New Encyclopædia Britannica points out, stressed that “ability and moral excellence, rather than birth, were what fitted a man for leadership.”
But in Europe over two thousand years later, the process of picking the elite, those best qualified to rule, had little to do with “ability and moral excellence.” Harvard professor Carl J. Friedrich notes that “the elite in aristocratic England of the eighteenth century was an elite based primarily on blood descent and riches. The same thing was true in Venice.” He adds: “In some countries such as eighteenth-century Prussia, the elite was based on blood descent and military prowess.”
The idea that the good qualities of ‘better people’ were passed on to their offspring accounts for the marriage practices of monarchs in bygone days. During the Middle Ages, the idea of biologic superiority prevailed. Marrying a commoner was equivalent to diluting the nobleness of the clan, an offending of divine law. Monarchs were obliged to marry only those of noble birth. This idea of biologic superiority later gave way to a more rationalized justification—that of a superiority based on better opportunities, education, talents, or achievements.
A principle known as noblesse oblige was intended to ensure the success of aristocracies. Literally meaning “nobility obligates,” it signified “the obligation of honorable, generous, and responsible behavior associated with high rank or birth.” Because of their “superiority,” those of noble birth were obligated to serve the needs of others responsibly. This principle was found in such aristocracies as the one in ancient Sparta, whose warriors were obliged to put the interests of others before their own, and in Japan among the warrior caste, the samurai.
Aristocracies Found Wanting
The imperfection of aristocratic rule is easily illustrated. In early Rome, only persons of high birth, known as patricians, were eligible for membership in the Roman Senate. The common people, known as plebeians, were not. But far from being men of “ability and moral excellence,” as Confucius had demanded of rulers, members of the Senate became increasingly corrupt and oppressive. Civil strife was the result.
Despite recurring periods of reform, the senatorial oligarchy persisted, at least until Julius Caesar established a dictatorship a few years before his assassination in 44 B.C.E. After his death, aristocratic government was revived, but by 29 B.C.E. it had once again been replaced. Collier’s Encyclopedia explains: “With the growing power, wealth, and geographic extent of Rome, the aristocracy had become a corrupt oligarchy, and its loss of civic spirit was reflected in a loss of public respect. Its collapse ushered in an absolute monarchy.”
For the next 1,200 years or so, aristocratic governments, even though monarchical in name, were the European norm. In time many political, economic, and cultural changes gradually modified the system. But during the entire period, European aristocracy remained powerful, able to retain its landholdings and its stranglehold on military offices, while becoming ever more parasitic, extravagant, arrogant, and frivolous.
In the 1780’s the aristocracy suffered a severe blow. Louis XVI of France, finding himself in financial straits, pleaded with members of the French aristocracy to forgo some of their fiscal privileges. But instead of supporting him, they took advantage of his difficulties, hoping to undermine the monarchy and regain some of their own lost power. “Dissatisfied with government of the people, by the king, for the aristocracy, they [the aristocracy] sought government of the people, by the aristocracy, for the aristocracy,” explains Herman Ausubel, professor of history at Columbia University. This attitude helped precipitate the French Revolution of 1789.
These events in France brought about momentous changes that were felt far beyond the boundaries. The aristocracy lost its special privileges, the feudal system was abolished, a Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen was adopted, as was also a constitution. In addition the powers of the clergy were restricted by decree.
Government by the few—even if the few were thought to be the best—had been weighed in the balances by the many and had been found wanting.
Finally Finding ‘the Best’
The obvious fact that ‘the best’ do not always live up to their name points up one of the major weaknesses of ‘government by the best,’ namely, the difficulty in determining who ‘the best’ really are. To meet the requirements for being best qualified to govern, more is necessary than just being rich, of noble blood, or capable of military prowess.
It is not difficult to ascertain who the best doctors, cooks, or shoemakers are. We simply view their work or their products. “With government, however, the situation is not so easy,” notes Professor Friedrich. The difficulty is that people disagree as to what a government should be and what it should do. Also, the goals of government are continually changing. Thus, as Friedrich says: “It remains quite uncertain as to who the elite is.”
For a ‘government by the best’ to be really the best, the elite would have to be chosen by someone with superhuman knowledge and infallibility in judging. The chosen would have to be individuals of unbreakable moral integrity, completely devoted to the immutable goals of their government. Their willingness to put the welfare of others before their own would have to be beyond doubt.
The Bible indicates that Jehovah God has chosen just such a class—his Son Jesus Christ and a few of his faithful followers—and has appointed them to rule over the earth for a thousand years. (Luke 9:35; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14; Revelation 20:6) Not as fallible humans but as infallible immortal spirit creatures, Christ and his corulers will shower the earth with the blessings of lasting peace, security, and happiness, restoring humankind to perfection. Could any human government—even a ‘government by the best’—offer as much?
[Box on page 26]
Modern-Day Oligarchy
“Oligarchic tendencies . . . have been detected in all the great bureaucratic structures of advanced political systems. The growing complexity of modern society and its government thrusts ever greater power into the hands of administrators and committees of experts. Even in constitutional regimes, no fully satisfactory answer has been found to the question of how these bureaucratic decision makers can be held accountable and their powers effectively restrained without, at the same time, jeopardizing the efficiency and rationality of the policy-making process.”—The New Encyclopædia Britannica.
[Picture on page 25]
Aristotle believed that aristocracy and democracy combined would produce the best form of government
[Credit Line]
National Archaeological Museum, Athens