Mishlei and Government - Part Five
Balancing the instinct for power against the dangers of overconfidence
This is the fifth in my series using the thoughts of Rabbi S.R. Hirsch to explore Shlomo Hamelech's insights into the nature of government. Part one discussed the importance of transparency in the exercise of authority, part two looked at the relationship between monarchies and Divine authority, part three explored the value of large populations, and the most recent edition explored how the scope of government engagement should be limited.
Here, we’re going to discuss the balance any successful government institution must find between the sometimes-competing values of openness and authority.
To illustrate, I recently read how, historically, the US Navy submarine service consciously sought to create an open-communication culture among its officers. Since many lives depend on maintaining a constant state of virtual technical perfection, if a crew member of any rank had a concern with an existing policy or decision, it would be heard and considered. But at the same time, the chain of command and responsibility remained: the captain still got the last word.
Put a different way, it’s natural for powerful people and institutions to assume there’s no one better qualified to run their particular domain. And it’s also natural to resist criticism. It doesn’t require a lot of imagination to see how those instincts can be corrupting and destructive.
Here, as Rabbi S.R. Hirsch would have it, is how this is expressed by Mishlei (29:12).
מושל מקשיב על דבר שקר
כל משרתיו רשעים
If a ruler pays attention to lies, all his servants will be lawless
Why would any rational person choose lies? When that’s where his instinct leads him.
Sure, there will always be cynical politicians who know it’s all an illusion but play the game to maintain their positions. But I suspect that powerful psychological forces drive many bureaucrats and apparatchiks to genuinely believe in the toxic rubbish they’re pushing.
Rabbi Hirsch considers the impact such instincts have on people standing adjacent to power. If the captain or CEO or king or community leader doesn’t want to hear bad news, the people around him are incentivized to give him the lies he wants. But that means a bureaucrat’s success depends on his willingness to create and sustain dishonest narratives. And sooner or later those narratives are bound to disrupt the rule of law.
So openness is a critical requirement for just and wise government. But opening yourself up to criticism can make it hard to maintain enough authority to operate effectively. That, I believe, is why Rabbi Hirsch added a reference to Mishlei 14:35.
רצון-מלך לעבד משכיל
ועברתו תהיה מביש
A king should desire a wise servant; and his fury should be directed against those who would betray confidence.
The one unshakable condition of openness must be loyalty. As long as a governing group remain confident that their open and frank deliberations will never be used against them out of context, they can afford to be open and frank. But if there’s a threat of political maneuvering, then things break down.
This isn’t to say that the processes used in the exercise of power should happen invisibly. Transparency is indeed important for building trust between government and the governed. But the “sausage-making” process does demand some level of privacy.