WHETHER IT IS MORE EXPEDIENT FOR A CITY OR PROVINCE TO BE
RULED BY ONE MAN OR BY MANY
[16] Having set forth these preliminary points we must now inquire what is better for a province
or a city: whether to be ruled by one man or by many.
[17] This question may be considered first from the viewpoint of the purpose of government. The
aim of any ruler should be directed towards securing the welfare of that which he undertakes to
rule. The duty of the pilot, for instance, is to preserve his ship amidst the perils of the sea. and
to bring it unharmed to the port of safety. Now the welfare and safety of a multitude formed into
a society lies in the preservation of its unity, which is called peace. If this is removed, the benefit
of social life is lost and, moreover, the multitude in its disagreement becomes a burden to itself.
The chief concern of the ruler of a multitude, therefore, is to procure the unity of peace. It is not
even legitimate for him to deliberate whether he shall establish peace in the multitude subject to
him, just as a physician does not deliberate whether he shall heal the sick man encharged to him,
for no one should deliberate about an end which he is obliged to seek, but only about the means
to attain that end. Wherefore the Apostle, having commended the unity of the faithful people,
says: “Be ye careful to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.” Thus, the more
efficacious a. government is in keeping the unity of peace, the more useful it will be. For we call
that more useful which leads more directly to the end. Now it is manifest that what is itself one
can more efficaciously bring about unity than several—just as the most efficacious cause of heat
is that which is by its nature hot. Therefore the rule of one man is more useful than the rule of
many.
[18] Furthermore, it is evident that several persons could by no means preserve the stability of
the community if they totally disagreed. For union is necessary among them if they are to rule
at all: several men, for instance, could not pull a ship in one direction unless joined together in
some fashion. Now several are said to be united according as they come closer to being one. So
one man rules better than several who come near being one.
[19] Again, whatever is in accord with nature is best, for in all things nature does what is best.
Now, every natural governance is governance by one. In the multitude of bodily members there
is one which is the principal mover, namely, the heart; and among the powers of the soul one
power presides as chief, namely, the reason. Among bees there is one king bee’ and in the whole
universe there is One God, Maker and Ruler of all things. And there is a reason for this. Every
multitude is derived from unity. Wherefore, if artificial things are an imitation of natural things’
and a work of art is better according as it attains a closer likeness to what is in nature, it follows
that it is best for a human multitude to be ruled by one person.
[20] This is also evident from experience. For provinces or cities which are not ruled by one
person are torn with dissensions and tossed about without peace, so that the complaint seems to
be fulfilled which the Lord uttered through the Prophet [Jer 12:10]: “Many pastors have
destroyed my vineyard.” On the other hand, provinces and cities which are ruled under one king
enjoy peace, flourish in justice, and delight in prosperity. Hence, the Lord by His prophets
promises to His people as a great reward that He will give them one head and that “one Prince
will be in the midst of them” [Ez 34:24, Jer 30:21]. (Chapter 3- On Kingship To The King Of Cyprus-St. Thomas Aquinas)
0 comments:
Post a Comment