The function of the Queen within the British political system was perhaps best summarised by the 19th century political theorist, Walter Bagehot, who explained that the British political system is built upon a ‘double set’ of institutions. It is the dignified ones which “impress the many” while the efficient ones “govern the many”. The dignified or “theatrical” parts of the system play the essential role of winning and sustaining the loyalty and confidence of the nation; they help the state to gain authority and legitimacy which the efficient institutions can then utilise. “The use of the Queen in a dignified capacity, is incalculable”, he argued, “in that it strengthens the government through its combination of mystique and pageantry”.
Queen Elizabeth certainly excelled as head of the dignified institutions. While she may have lacked formal legal power, she used her “right to be consulted, right to encourage, right to warn” in weekly meetings with Prime Ministers throughout her 70 year reign. Most importantly, by publicly standing apart from the discussions and debates which gripped the “efficient institutions”, the Queen was able to transcend the political squabbles which so often divided the nation – she thereby represented a figure and institution which could unify warring classes and political groups.
It struck me today when I reviewed the passage in the Torah which describes the royal prerogative in Judaism (Devarim 17) that it contains absolutely no reference to any positive role that a monarch should play within the Jewish governmental system. The king does not legislate: Torah law is legislated and enforced by a system of Sanhedrin and its agents (as the Torah sets out in the immediately preceding section). Nor does the king act as a religious leader who conveys God’s word to the people or serve in the Mikdash – that was the job of prophets and priests. An appointed priest is also described as conducting matters of war. While Shmuel’s rebuke to the nation concerning the potential pitfalls of installing a king discloses considerable royal powers, the sages are divided as to whether he is describing legitimate legal rights or warning them of what monarchy would inevitably descend to. Certainly biblical kings assumed greater powers for themselves than those set out by the Torah – perhaps as was required by the realities of the nation at the time.
All that the Torah appears to positively require of a king is largely symbolic and ceremonial. He must write a Torah scroll and “read from it all of his days”. More significantly, a later passage is understood to task him with the commandment of “hakel”, which involves the public reading of the Torah to the entire gathered nation. The Torah emphasises that this includes young children who are incapable of understanding. They must still be included in this ceremonial gathering in which the king can symbolically be seen to unite the Jewish nation around the Torah’s teachings and values.
While the Torah therefore provides little positive guidance as to the role of a Jewish king, it certainly sets out rules as to what he should not do. As I analyse in the chapter of Judaism Reclaimedwhich contrasts Judaism’s approach to that of other political systems, the Torah introduced a revolutionary new concept in the Ancient Near East – that of a limited monarchy which was subject to the rule of law (not to mention frequent prophetic rebuke).
Not only is the Jewish king subject to the law –legal limits are imposed specifically to restrain any potential abuse of his position for the pursuit of personal wealth and glory. He may not amass horses – a symbol of ancient power and prestige – not may he marry many wives. The explicit intention is that Jewish monarchy is not an opportunity for the person seated on the throne to exploit the nation in order to gain personal status and luxury. Rather the kingship is to be a dignified institution – one which transcends the inevitable legal and cultural disputes which divide nations – and serves to unite the Jewish people around the moral and spiritual teachings of the Torah.
Queen Elizabeth was not a Jewish monarch and it was not her role to publicly represent the Torah and its teachings. Nevertheless, the dignity and selfless sense of duty to her nation which she constantly exhibited combined with her ability to transcend national division in order to refocus and inspire her nation may offer some insight into the sort of monarchy that the Torah envisaged.
First posted to Facebook 7 September 2022, here.
