The Definition of Theocracy[1] The definition of theocracy is simply a tyranny under God. On the political spectrum, theocracy represents the complete absence of freedom and equality. Like most political terms, however, the concept of theocracy has both an ideal and an actual meaning. In contrast to its tyrannical reality, theocracy is the impossible aspiration of religious fanatics who seek to combine the will of God with the wills of both individual and society. This ideal of theocracy was first described by the Jewish historian Josephus in the first century, AD: Some peoples have entrusted the supreme political power to monarchies, some to oligarchies, yet others to the masses. Our lawgiver [Moses], however, was attracted by none of these forms of polity, but gave to his constitution the form of what—if a forced expression be permitted—may be termed a "theocracy," placing all sovereignty in the hands of God.1 [2] Within the definition of theocracy, a few problems arise: From a purely practical point of view, how can God—or to be more apt, a god—become a sovereign on earth? Moreover, if fascism represents "perfect freedom" on the political spectrum, and totalitarianism represents "perfect equality," why does theocracy, which is similar to both, represent the perfect absence of freedom and equality? [3] To answer these questions, let us begin with the most obvious historical example of an actual theocracy: ancient Egypt under the Pharaohs. Here is the inscription on the tomb of a vizier to the king during the 18th Dynasty: The king of Upper and Lower Egypt is a god by whose dealings one lives, the father and mother of all men, alone by himself, without equal.2 [4] The answer to the first question, then, as to how God can practically rule on earth is that an absolute ruler must elevate himself or herself to the status of a god. But why would the ruler's subjects accept the seemingly preposterous notion that a mere human being is a god among them? The historian Chester G. Starr explains that in ancient Egypt the ruler also had great responsibilities, which explains the willingness of his people to heap up the pyramids. He was a god on earth, who assured the rise of the Nile, the prosperity of the land, and its peace and order. The pharaoh's will was thought to become reality as soon as he had spoken. Partly for this reason Egypt never developed the written law codes of Mesopotamia; but the royal fiat was one which incarnated ma'at or justice. To unify itself, in sum, early Egypt took the intellectually simple approach of raising its ruler to the position of a superhuman symbol incarnated in human form.3 [5] In contrast to early Egypt, the societies often called "theocratic"—for example, ancient Israel or modern Iran—are not quite so "intellectually simple." Jews, Muslims, and Christians have historically been amenable to the notion that one particular human being is the closest to God on earth; but to elevate that person to God himself would undoubtedly be considered blasphemy of the very worst sort, and indeed, an invitation to murder God's usurper. [6] The definition of theocracy, then, differs from a monotheistic perspective because theocracy represents an impossible ideal, much like anarchy. The ideal of a theocracy is for the ruler to become a vessel of God, for the ruler's will to become identical to that of the Creator; for this ideal to be practically realized, however, God must become a vessel of the ruler. In other words, the individual must effectively become God since God cannot be reduced to an earthly potentate. [7] Properly understood, neither ancient Israel nor the modern Islamic Republic of Iran are theocracies in the literal sense of the term; one was approximately a monarchy, and the other, while complex, may roughly be called a totalitarian regime. [8] The mere fact that these forms of authority claim to derive legitimacy through God or to implement God's will does not prove the contrary. Few regimes do not make some appeal to the divine. Religion is not, in and of itself, a fixed political position and can thus be married, however awkwardly, to any number of positions on the political spectrum; it does, however, change the color of any given position. [9] This brings us to the second question pertaining to the definition of theocracy above: Why is theocracy the complete absence of freedom and equality? [10] On the freedom side, the liberty of a "human god" is necessarily illusory; a human being is very far from being a god, and incapable of assuming god-like responsibilities. In fact, these responsibilities are so crushing that the ruler is hardly free. On the equality side, the elevation of a leader to a god creates a moral inequality between the sovereign god and average people which does not exist so strikingly under a totalitarian regime. In early Egypt, for instance, the Pharaoh alone could hope to be unified in death with the god Osiris.4 [11] The definition of theocracy, then, in contrast to its ideal of strengthening humanity's will by replacing it with God's, weakens God's will by poisoning it with that of humanity. 2008
|
