Opuscula Kingship
Chapter 4
Why the royal dignity is rendered hateful to the subjects
Because both the best and the worst government are latent in monarchy (that is, in the rule of one man), the royal dignity is rendered hateful to many people on account of the wickedness of tyrants. Some men, indeed, while they desire to be ruled by a king, fall under the cruelty of tyrants, and not a few rulers exercise tyranny under the cloak of royal dignity.
A clear example of this is found in the Roman Republic. When the kings had been driven out by the Roman people, because they could not bear the royal, or rather tyrannical, arrogance, they instituted consuls and other magistrates by whom they began to be ruled and guided. They changed the kingdom into an aristocracy, and, as Sallust relates: The Roman city, once liberty was won, waxed incredibly strong and great in a remarkably short time. For it frequently happens that men living under a king strive more sluggishly for the common good, since they consider that what they devote to the common good they do not confer upon themselves, but upon another, under whose power they see the common goods to be. But when they see that the common good is not under the power of one man, they do not attend to it as if it belonged to another, but each one attends to it as if it were his own. Experience thus teaches that one city administered by rulers, changing annually, is sometimes able to do more than some kings having three or four such cities; and small taxes exacted by kings weigh more heavily than great burdens imposed by the community of citizens. This held good in the history of the Roman Republic. The plebs were enrolled in the army and were paid wages for military service; and when the common treasury was failing, private riches came forth for public uses, to such an extent that not even the senators retained any gold for themselves save one ring and the one bulla, which were the insignia of their dignity.
On the other hand, when the Romans were worn out by continual dissensions taking on the proportion of civil wars, and when by these wars the freedom for which they had greatly striven was snatched from their hands, they began to find themselves under the power of emperors who, from the beginning, were unwilling to be called kings, for the royal name was hateful to the Romans. Some emperors, it is true, faithfully cared for the common good in a kingly manner, and by their zeal the commonwealth was increased and preserved. But most of them became tyrants towards their subjects while indolent and vacillating before their enemies, and brought the Roman Republic to nothing.
A similar process also took place among the Hebrew people. At first, while they were ruled by judges, they were ravished by their enemies on every hand, for each one did what was good in his sight (1 Sam 3:18). Yet when God gave them kings at their insistence, they departed from the worship of the one God and were finally led into bondage on account of the wickedness of their kings.
Danger thus lurks on either side. Either men are held by the fear of a tyrant and they miss the opportunity of having kingship, the best government, or they want a king, and the kingly power turns into tyrannical wickedness.
Chapter 5
That it is a lesser evil when a monarchy turns into tyranny than when an aristocracy becomes corrupt
When a choice is to be made between two things, from both of which danger impends, surely that one should be chosen from which the lesser evil follows. Now, lesser evil follows from the corruption of a monarchy (which is tyranny) than from the corruption of an aristocracy. Group government (polyarchy) most frequently breeds dissension. This dissension runs counter to the good of peace, which is the principal social good. A tyrant, on the other hand, does not destroy this good: rather, he obstructs one or the other individual interests of his subjects—unless, of course, there be an excess of tyranny, and the tyrant rages against the whole community. Monarchy is therefore to be preferred to polyarchy, although either form of government might become dangerous.
Further, it seems that from which great dangers may follow is to be avoided more frequently. Now, considerable dangers to the multitude follow more frequently from polyarchy than from monarchy. There is a greater chance that, where there are many rulers, one of them will abandon the intention of the common good than that it will be abandoned when there is but one ruler. When any one among several rulers turns aside from the pursuit of the common good, danger of internal strife threatens the group because, when the chiefs quarrel, dissension will follow in the people. When, on the other hand, one man is in command, he more often keeps to governing for the sake of the common good. Should he not do so, it does not immediately follow that he also proceeds to the total oppression of his subjects. This, of course, would be the excess of tyranny and the worst wickedness in government, as has been shown above. The dangers, then, arising from a polyarchy are more to be guarded against than those arising from a monarchy.
Moreover, in point of fact, a polyarchy deviates into tyranny not less but perhaps more frequently than a monarchy. When dissensions arise in such a government on account of there being many rulers, it often happens that the power of one preponderates and he then usurps the government of the multitude for himself. This indeed may be clearly seen from history. There has hardly ever been a polyarchy that did not end in tyranny. The best illustration of this fact is the history of the Roman Republic. It was for a long time administered by the magistrates but then animosities, dissensions, and civil wars arose, and it fell into the power of the most cruel tyrants.
In general, if one carefully considers what has happened in the past and what is happening in the present, he will discover that more men have held tyrannical sway in lands previously ruled by many rulers than in those ruled by one. The strongest objection why monarchy, although it is the best form of government, is not agreeable to the people is that, in fact, it may deviate into tyranny. Yet tyranny tends to occur not less but more frequently on the basis of a polyarchy than on the basis of a monarchy. It follows that it is, in any case, more expedient to live under one king than under the rule of several men.