The Best Political Regime

The question of the best political regime has been discussed since the Ancient Greeks. It is not an easy topic to discuss, especially in today's society that is so "pro-Democracy."

Today in my class (Graduate PolySci seminar on Thomistic Ethics and Law), we had an absolutely fascinating two and a half hour discussion of the best regime. It began with a discussion of ends. One of my colleagues attempted to argue his view (which I have heard before) that there are, in fact, two ends for humans in St. Thomas Aquinas; the natural end and the supernatural end. The supernatural, and more perfect end, is life with God, the Beatific Vision, seeing God as God sees Himself. The natural end(s) are marriage, friendship, success, etc (and one could argue, the common good). He argued that in fact, a contemplation of God cannot be our natural end for it cannot be achieved by our nature; it needs grace.

We debated in the classroom for a bit on this point that included a discussion of the separated soul, life in Heaven (of course, highly speculative), and Aristotle. I concluded by raising the point that it seems that the end in line with the nature of angels - the natural end of angels - is a contemplation of God and the angels are equally created and finite before God. Thus, it seems, as though it may not need to seem so odd that our end as humans is Life with God, even if it is an end we cannot achieve on our own.

We moved then, to the specific discussion of the best political regime in De Regno and the Summa Theologiae. Aquinas describes the monarchy in De Regno as a rule by “shepherd who looks after his people before himself...for the sake of peace...so that virtue, the necessary conditioning for beatitude, can flourish.” The king guides a group of men, each of which are motivated by their own self-interest. The monarchy is the best regime because it is the most capable of attaining peace because, for the very same reason a government is needed to guide the group of people that, due to their own self interests, more than one ruler will result in “quarrels between rulers that will tear the regime from its path to unity.”

In the ST., IaIIae, xc, 1, Aquinas similarly argues that law works for peace within the political community and for virtue. However, in the Summa, Thomas argues for a mixed regime of a monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. It is a mix of the three justly ruled goverments (as opposed to the unjustly ruled governments) and argues that, for the sake of peace which grounds a flourishing in virtue among the citizens, “everyone should have some role in government if peace is to be maintained.”

Thus, on the one had, Aquinas argues for the monarchy; on the other hand, for a mixed regime. In the so-called Treatise of Law, Aquinas, like in the rest of the Summa, is combining Aristotle and St. Augustine. ( I refer to it as the 'so-called Treatise of Law' since it is not a treatise of Law as such; it is a small set of questions in a much larger book geared towards the origins and end of man in God.) Aristotle wrote in Politics about three distinct versions of regimes but also detailed what had to be accomplished in the society for those regimes to prosper; all geared toward an understanding of the polis as working towards the common good. St. Augustine, in City of God, argues that Rome and secular powers, through their glory, have twisted politics towards themselves in pride rather than keeping their eyes focused on God in respect to politics. St. Thomas Aquinas' notion of human law is rooted in his attempt to integrate St. Augustine and Aristotle. In the Politics, Aristotle argues that human beings are by nature political animals (1253a1-3). By nature, human beings are animals that belong in a polis, engaging in the activities of the polis. Thus, the human being that is without a polis is the “worst of all animals”, lacking not only justice, but also phronesis and virtue (1234a29-38). Thus, Aquinas accepts the Aristotelian notion that human beings are by nature political animals and that the state, with its laws, are formed naturally from the political nature of man, not from the man's Fall as Augustine argues with his very negative functional understanding of law.

Law, for Aquinas, is a type of 'signposts of happiness;' they are geared toward an end beyond the common good. Law must root itself in Natural Law for it to be a law and the monarch must be intimate with the Scriptures and rule according to NL and DL or he is not Aquinas. Therefore, on a side note, there is really no notion of a divine right of kings; for Aquinas, the monarch must have the consent of the people and his ruling power comes from the people. This is something Aristotle is quite aware of and hence, the eventual conclusion that all must have a say in the government if they are to abide by said government and support it. Looking back to questions 90-92, we see that law “properly speaking, regards first and foremost the order to the common good,” (ST, IaIIae, xc, 3) and that “it is evident that the proper effect of law is to lead its subjects to their proper virtue: and since virtue is “that which makes its subject good.” (ST, IaIIae, xcii, 1)

So which account satisfies these requirements? Which political regime will produce laws that will work towards the common good and educate its citizens in the virtues (in the most perfect way). Aquinas defends his argument for a monarch as the best regime in De Regno on the grounds that government of many is more likely to become unjust than the government by one (Aquinas Political Writings, pg. 17, “If, however, one man rules…” and “For when dissension arises.” (Bk.1, chapter VI)). The question of government by many is explained by Aquinas as, “For there is no beauty in a body unless all its members are properly disposed, and ugliness arises when even one member is improperly so” (Aquinas Political Writings, pg. 13. (Bk.1, Chapter IV)).

On the other hand, the best regime in the Summa is a mixed regime for it has the most authoritative law. Looking back to questions 90-92, we see that law is “properly speaking, regards first and foremost the order to the common good,” (ST, IaIIae, xc, 3) and that “it is evident that the proper effect of law is to lead its subjects to their proper virtue: and since virtue is “that which makes its subject good.” (ST, IaIIae, xcii, 1).

Thus, in a sense, with the whole mindset of the Summa as the guide of one's assent to a life with the Divine Godhead, law must allow man to know and participate in the Divine. Further, leaning heavily on Aristotle's notion that we are, by nature, political animals (i.e., we belong to a polis for the sake of obtaining our ultimate telos, which is necessarily tied to a common good so that we can 1) practice the virtues and 2) fulfill our social natures) it seems that though in terms of preserving the peace and the common good, theoretically a monarchy would be ideal - have the philosopher king, the magnanimous statesman, dictate the laws that will help guide the rest who lack magnanimity towards it – but in terms of allowing the people as a whole to be practically active, we must extend the right of rule to the people; we must extend to the aristocracy and monarchy to the plebs. To be sure, good men are often called to stand up heroically against tyrants (ST, II-II, 42.2, ad 3), but the full potential of the good citizen will never be realized unless he lives in best of all possible regimes. In other words, only in the best regime do the good citizen and the good human being coincide (Commentary on the Politics, Book 3, Lecture 3 [366]) and this would seem to be a regime in which all are able to engage in practical activity.

The Magnanimity of Scipio

I think the distinction here between the monarchy and the mixed regime is one of a theoretical best and a practical best. The mixed regime seems to preserve the monarchy but it seems to be best only on the practical level. The best of all regimes, the monarchy, has the greatest tendency to become the worst (especially mixed with the a theological understanding of pride and sin and evil and the Fall). This is why, whereas monarchy is the best regime simply speaking, the best possible regime seems to be the mixed regime which maintains the monarchy but puts a necessary check on his power to avoid this big danger and risk. Though, I do not wish to claim that the movement from a monarchy to a mixed regime is a downward move; to simply put a check on the evil-tended monarch. Rather, the monarch must be one who is intimate with the Scriptures and excel in all virtues (if he is to be a true monarch) and these people just don't exist (except for me of course).

Some last notes; 1) Aquinas didn't necessarily write all of De Regno, 2) it is a treatise specifically dealing with the merits of a monarchy, and 3) it is written as a favor to a monarch and 4) De Regno was written 5 years (roughly) before the so-called Treatise on Law. Thus, it can't be viewed as an authoritatively Thomist treatment of Law. Furthermore, the use of democracy in De Regno is not even remotely similar to its appearance in the Summa. He treats democracy as an unjust regime in De Regno. Thus the inclusion of the democracy in the best regime in the Summa is strange but he is not actually advocating a democratic rule as we understand it; how could those who need to be educated in the virtues create laws to teach the virtues. Rather, I think it is an attempt, since our nature is political and our end involves us acting in accord with our nature, to extend the capacity for political activity to the whole of the polis. The monarch must, of course, come from the people and be accepted and supported by the people. 

Finally, an interesting is the uniqueness of the Order of Preachers, the Dominicans, of which the Angelic Doctor was a member. Unlike most religious orders before their time that simply had an abbot (monarch), they have chapter meetings with a Head Master, his higher ranking counselors, and the rest of the friars all discussing the missions they find themselves in. OK I am tired. Goodnight. Enjoy the following picture: