Today, Spinoza served up a heavy dose of ancient Hebrew politics. I thought he wrote very clearly on this subject and I would like to reflect upon it.
He first defined theocracy. That the ancient Hebrew state was a pure theocracy, God being the head of state. I immediately thought of the modern famous theocracy - Iran. I don't know much about Iranian politics, but I would doubt they are a true theocracy. I don't believe the people have entered into a covenant with Allah, and sworn to serve him as devotees and citizens alike. I wonder just how different the two governments are.
But the meat of this section, as it pertains to this post at least, was on the political setup after Moses' death. The high priests alone could interpret God's word. However, they could only do it when the Generals of each of the 12 tribes requested it. And the tribes were never confederated - they acted as individuals, sometimes allying and sometimes fighting, but always as individual tribes. I suppose the Romans and earlier empires also had such checks and balances, but the Hebrews must have been the first to shrug off a despotic system.
The last part of the book covers why the first instance of the Hebrew state ended. It essentially boils down to people losing faith in the government. They wanted a seat at the table but couldn't have one, and so they ended up tearing the state apart from the inside. The way Spinoza addressed this issue was actually quite Machiavellian in terms of style.
Can a true theocracy ever exist? I don't think so. The opportunity for corruption is simply too obvious. This seems to be the case with many of the Middle Eastern countries. In principle there is nothing wrong with the idea. A pure theocracy would require active participation by God, leading the state and giving orders and laws. This seems unlikely. A modern theocracy could, however, simply be built around worship and right action. I see no reason why that couldn't work. If you could find an honest, righteous group of people to lead the government, that is.
I wonder if that supports Hobbes' notions of man's nature that good governments simply don't just develop. Good men just don't get that far. I can't see this being ingrained corruption either, because a really just man would endure whatever he had to to get his high position, and would then enact beneficial reforms. You just don't see that happening. Maybe it is true that power corrupts. Or maybe man is inherently evil, and it is only the exceptional man who can follow the straight and narrow.
He first defined theocracy. That the ancient Hebrew state was a pure theocracy, God being the head of state. I immediately thought of the modern famous theocracy - Iran. I don't know much about Iranian politics, but I would doubt they are a true theocracy. I don't believe the people have entered into a covenant with Allah, and sworn to serve him as devotees and citizens alike. I wonder just how different the two governments are.
But the meat of this section, as it pertains to this post at least, was on the political setup after Moses' death. The high priests alone could interpret God's word. However, they could only do it when the Generals of each of the 12 tribes requested it. And the tribes were never confederated - they acted as individuals, sometimes allying and sometimes fighting, but always as individual tribes. I suppose the Romans and earlier empires also had such checks and balances, but the Hebrews must have been the first to shrug off a despotic system.
The last part of the book covers why the first instance of the Hebrew state ended. It essentially boils down to people losing faith in the government. They wanted a seat at the table but couldn't have one, and so they ended up tearing the state apart from the inside. The way Spinoza addressed this issue was actually quite Machiavellian in terms of style.
Can a true theocracy ever exist? I don't think so. The opportunity for corruption is simply too obvious. This seems to be the case with many of the Middle Eastern countries. In principle there is nothing wrong with the idea. A pure theocracy would require active participation by God, leading the state and giving orders and laws. This seems unlikely. A modern theocracy could, however, simply be built around worship and right action. I see no reason why that couldn't work. If you could find an honest, righteous group of people to lead the government, that is.
I wonder if that supports Hobbes' notions of man's nature that good governments simply don't just develop. Good men just don't get that far. I can't see this being ingrained corruption either, because a really just man would endure whatever he had to to get his high position, and would then enact beneficial reforms. You just don't see that happening. Maybe it is true that power corrupts. Or maybe man is inherently evil, and it is only the exceptional man who can follow the straight and narrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment