Why
Don’t We Have a King?
Last week I wrote about why the founding fathers rejected a pure democracy that would lead to a tyranny of the majority. But what about the opposite? Why did the founders reject a consolidation of power? Does their wisdom hold true today?
The founders understood that government is a reflection of human nature—which is corrupted by sin. They wrote the Constitution to restrain our leaders from inevitably abusing their power. My last article gave a brief overview of the brilliant republican structure of our government.
When the founders created our republic, they rejected other forms of government that give great power to one or a few individuals:
Monarchy
A monarch’s power can be absolute, or limited by a constitution and/or legislative body like a parliament. Monarchs are usually chosen by heredity and rule for life. The United Kingdom, Japan, and Spain are examples of parliamentary constitutional monarchies, while Qatar and Saudi Arabia are absolute monarchies.
The Bible records that the people of Israel, fed up with their corrupt judges, wanted a king to rule them. God warned that the king would take advantage of them and restrict their freedom, but the people didn’t care. They wanted a strong leader (1 Samuel 8). Sadly, many of the kings were just as corrupt as Israel’s judges.
We can learn a lesson: a ruler with broad powers is not automatically an answer to society’s ills because he or she is a sinful human like everyone else. The nation depends on their character and competence, without being able to elect or hold them accountable.
Oligarchy
An oligarchy is the rule of a few individuals over the rest of the country. Oligarchs aren’t chosen by the people; they aren’t accountable to anyone but themselves. This poses the same problem as an absolute monarchy. A few sinful individuals can be just as bad as one sinful individual without a check on their power.
Dictatorship
Roughly a decade after our Constitution was ratified, the founders witnessed the French Revolution end in the dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte.
A dictator usually comes to power, and stays in power, by force. He or she wields absolute authority without being restrained by laws.
Dictators are not accountable to their citizens. In fact, they often fear the people and suppress their rights, like North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong-Un. The country is called the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and even has a constitution and legislature! In reality, it is an oppressive communist dictatorship.
This makes me appreciate our Constitution even more. Even though it has been ignored and abused many times, its brilliant structure—and the willingness of Americans to uphold it—has prevented a dictator from seizing power.
Communist State
While the term “communism” wasn’t coined until the 1840s by Karl Marx, the founders would have been familiar with the idea, which was already discussed and attempted at various points in history.
In communist countries, the government owns the means of production and controls the economy. In pure communism, private property would be abolished, with everything owned in common by the people. Communist countries like China and Cuba, however, actually allow some private enterprise to prop up their economy. But overall, their governments exercise considerable control.
In pursuing the goal of equal
outcomes, communist countries are willing to use force to impose equality. Of
course, the rulers in charge are exempted from this equality.
Our constitutional republic was intended to protect our rights, allowing equal opportunity in the “pursuit of happiness.” It was never intended to guarantee equal outcomes, because that would mean imposing control at the expense of individual rights and liberty.
The Lesson For Us Today
What do all these systems have in common? They place too much faith in humans—specifically, in the person or people in charge. The founding fathers, recognizing that we are all sinners, weren’t willing to do this. They gave us a constitutional federal republic, which obtains its authority from “We the People,” as a safeguard against those who would infringe on our rights.
The question of how much power the government should have is still debated today . . . often by people vying to make, enforce, and interpret the laws that govern your life. Ronald Reagan reminded us that “man is not free unless government is limited.” When you hear candidates and elected officials talk about increasing the size and scope of government, think of our forefathers and the timeless truths they understood.
The underlying philosophies of government are still important today. Will those wishing to govern us keep us on the road of a republic or take us on a path toward authoritarianism and despotism?
We must keep this in mind as we evaluate our candidates!
