In the political thought of Thomas Aquinas, monarchy is a form of government which shows

potential to be either highly successful, or a complete disaster. The factor that determines which of the

aforementioned scenarios become a reality depends upon the extent to which the monarchical authority

is limited, that is, to what extent other elements of society are able to hold authority and account the

ruler, and the checking of absolute monarchy by the introduction of aristocracy and democracy. So long

as it is restricted, monarchy will be manifested in it's ideal sense, as the ruler cannot be a dictator. This

is the best form of governance for Aquinas, and so he advocated this to a great extent. However, the

absence of such accountability is what leads to despotism, in which case monarchy becomes the worst

form of governance. The limitation of the ruler's power is essential to the continuance of political

stability, and is a meaningful topic due to it's great need in any society. Aquinas' attempt to address this

need in his own context provides us insight into how medieval political thought tried to solve this

problem.

In his De regno ad regum Cypri (On Kingship to the King of Cyprus), Aquinas makes it abundantly

clear that monarchy holds both the best and worst of potential, though people recognize the uglier side

of monarchy more so, due to the tyrannical impact it has upon them: “Because both the best and the

worst is to be found in monarchy, or government by one man, many people, knowing the evils of

tyranny, regard the very name of king with hate. For it sometimes happens that those who expect to be

ruled by a king, fall instead under a savage tyranny: and too many rulers mask the injustice of their rule

with the cloak of regal dignity.”1 Aquinas sympathizes with such people, as he himself reflects on the

problems of tyrannical kingship when he recounts the history of the Roman Republic. When doing so,

he relates details of the people deposed their first rulers, as a result of their despotism2. In his

discussion, Aquinas highlights a major problem that political thought attempts to address and resolve,

1 A.P d'Entreves, ed., Aquinas Selected Political Writings (Oxford: B.Blackwell 1954), p.21, accessed November 18th,
2010, http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?
seq=57;view=image;size=100;id=mdp.39015001842742;u=1;num=21;page=root;orient=0

2 A.P d'Entreves, ed., Aquinas Selected Political Writings, part 1, chap. 3, doc. 1
which is the protection of the people from tyranny. Such a problem is perpetual, as power and position

are often coveted by individuals, and once attained, it is fully possible for their abuse to ensue.

Furthermore, when viewing this problem from a theological perspective (as Aquinas himself does),

there is the need to abstain from sin and transgression against God. In a Christian context, this

abstaining from evil must be practiced in all spheres of life, as Satan can tempt any man, irrespective of

the position he holds in society. And so, for one who doubles as both a theologian and political thinker,

it becomes necessary to ensure that the monarchy becomes a force for religious virtue, as opposed to an

outlet of satanic influence. Given Aquinas' firm adherence to Christianity, it is sound to suggest that his

spiritual motivations were a catalyst for his embarking upon an attempt to solve the issue of how to

keep monarchy benign. The solution at which Aquinas arrives is made categorically clear when he

states in De regno: “Next, a monarchy should be so constituted that there is no opportunity for the king,

once he is reigning to become a tyrant. And, at the same time the kingly power should be so restricted

that he could not easily turn to tyranny.”3 With this having been said, several methods are proposed by

Aquinas with which to achieve the above aim.

The first method is to make sure that any potential ruler is benign by nature: “In the first place it is

necessary that whoever of the possible candidates is proclaimed king shall be of such character that it is

unlikely that he will become a tyrant.”4 Aquinas also expresses this is in his Summa Theologiae

(Compendium of Theology) wherein he states: “Hence the best ordering of government in any city or

kingdom is achieved when one man is chosen to preside over all according to virtue; when he has under

him others who govern according to virtue;”5 The monarchy is restricted in this way due to the ruler

being bound by his own ethical principles, and is consequently unable to act against them. This is

convenient for Aquinas, given the fact that Christian ethics would become a reference point for the one

in authority, this allows for a better relationship between the government and the people as the values
3 A.P d'Entreves, ed., Aquinas Selected Political Writings, part 1, chap. 6, doc. 1
4 A.P d'Entreves, ed., Aquinas Selected Political Writings, part 1, chap. 6, doc. 1
5 R.W Dyson, ed., Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought - Aquinas Political Writings (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press 2002), p.54
they have are shared. The ultimate goal of Aquinas' political thought is stability and peace for society,

which can only be attained in the absence of bitter sentiments between those within the state. In light of

this, it becomes necessary for the society to bond upon common values, otherwise there is no basis for

unity. And so, if the ruler acts against this basis of unity, he excludes himself from the fold of the

masses and what they think, consequently making himself more liable to be removed from his post. In

a Christian society, it is only natural that Christian values are the point of adherence, and so the

monarch is limited in what sentiments he can express and what actions he can undertake. This is

because the ruler must always keep the majority in mind, as acting against them is acting against the

state en masse. The rulers being forced to act by Christian values is helpful towards Aquinas' goal,

which is to have a political authority which governs in accordance with what he believes to be the

injunctions of the God. In De regno, Aquinas makes it known that he wishes to have such a

government, also quoting6 from Deuteronomy XVII, 18-19 which reads: “And it shall be, when he

sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that

which is before the priests like Levites: And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days

of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these

statutes, to do them:”7 Aquinas sees monarchy as the instrument for the creation and maintenance of the

ideal Christian society, but this instrument can only bring about the desired end when it is properly

controlled and restricted, as opposed to being given immutable authority. When it also becomes a

matter of religion to try and limit the monarch's power, then it is sound to state that Aquinas would

pursue that end, which shows his advocacy of restricted monarchy to a great extent.

In addition, Aquinas proposes a blending of democracy and aristocracy with monarchy, in order to

ensure that both, the lower and upper classes reserve the right to elect, account and if necessary,

impeach the ruler: “It seems then, that the remedy against the evils of tyranny lies rather in the hands of

6 A.P d'Entreves, ed., Aquinas Selected Political Writings, part 1, chap. 15, doc. 1
7 Moses, Deuteronomy XVII, 18-19 The Bible Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha (New York: Oxford
University Press 1998), p.239
public authority than in the private judgement of individuals. In particular, where a community has the

right to elect a ruler for itself, it would not be contrary to justice for that community to depose the king

whom it has elected, nor to curb his power should he abuse it to play the tyrant.”8 Aquinas also

comments upon the need for the aristocracy to remove the ruler if they have any authority: “If on the

other hand the right to appoint a king over a certain community belongs to some superior, then the

remedy against tyrannical excess must be sought from him.” 9 Far from the idea of tyranny, Aquinas

proposes that the society reserves the authority to impeach (or remove) a tyrant. This is highly

indicative of Aquinas' disdain for absolute monarchy, seeing as how he espouses other forms of

government that counteract it, including that of outlandish democratic ideas in an age wherein royal

authority was of great magnitude and significance. Aquinas limits the monarchy in that he gives power

to those outside of the royal circles, producing a kind of hybrid political system, as is stated by Paul E.

Sigmund who said: “Aquinas advocates a mixed constitution that combines monarchy with aristocracy

(in its etymological sense of the rule of the virtuous) and democracy, involving an element of popular

participation - a system that he describes as both modeled on the government established by Moses and

recommended by Aristotle in the Politics.”10 An interesting factor is how Aquinas always strives to

maintain a balance between his Christian background, the ideas that came from classical Greek

philosophy, and those Muslim scholars of the 'Abbassid Caliphate in order to form his opinions

regarding monarchy and it's restrictions. Aquinas' original concepts of monarchy and aristocracy were

extracted from biblical narratives concerning Moses and his political leadership, as is shown by

Douglas Kries who comments upon the parallels Aquinas draws between his political concepts, and

those of Moses and Aristotle: “Thomas says that the regime described by the judicial precepts of Moses

corresponds almost per-fectly to this best arrangement of rulers as described by Aristotle. First, the

judicial precepts provided for the rule of virtue. The leader-ship of Moses and his kingly successors

8 A.P d'Entreves, ed., Aquinas Selected Political Writings, part 1, chap. 6, doc. 3
9 A.P d'Entreves, ed., Aquinas Selected Political Writings, part 1, chap. 6, doc. 7
10 Paul. E. Sigmund, The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1993), p.220
constituted a sort of monarchy and this monarchic element was assisted by the aristocratic rule of the

seventy-two elders.”11 With regards to Aquinas' concepts regarding accountable governance, it appears

as though these came at least in part from Islamic scholars such as Al-Ghazali, whose works are known

to have influenced Aquinas, as is stated by R.E.A Shanab, who wrote: "A careful study of Ghazali's

works will indicate how penetrating and widespread his influence was on the Western medieval

scholars. A case in point is the influence of Ghazali on St. Thomas Aquinas — who studied the works

of Islamic philosophers, especially Ghazali's, at the University of Naples.”12 Like Aquinas, Al-Ghazali

makes it clear that there is a need to account the ruling authority, dedicating some pages in his 'Ihya

Uum Id Din (Revival of Religious Sciences) to telling stories of the scholars who confronted their

Caliphs13. The various political concepts Aquinas gathered seem contradictory, though together, they

form a hybrid political model that, while primarily monarchical, effectively includes democratic and

aristocratic ideas in order to limit the royal authority, this judgment is echoed by Mary M. Keys who

states that Aquinas' political model is a: ““ mixed regime” combining elements of monarchy,

aristocracy, and democracy and incorporating a strong dose of empirical realism into its

formulation...”14 By giving the nobility some political authority through aristocracy, and to the lower

classes through democracy, the monarchy is not vanquished, but limited in it's potential. From this, it is

certain is that Aquinas' willingness to amalgamate seemingly contradictory ideas shows his

commitment to a limited monarchy. Though it may be seen as a strenuous activity to try and generate

the correct blend of these political ideas, Aquinas embarks on this endeavor anyway, because it is only

by the checking of monarchy by other administrative powers that the disaster of tyrannical monarchy

can be prevented.

The final, and arguably most controversial method is that of violent revolution, involving the

11 Douglas Kries, 'Thomas Aquinas and the Politics of Moses', The Review of Politics 52.1 (1990): p.93
12 R.E.A Shanab, 'Ghazali and Aquinason Causation' The Monist 58.1 (1974): p.140
13 Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, 'Ihya Ulum Id Din Volume.1 (Karachi: Darul Ishaat 1993), pp. 194-206
14 Mary M. Keys, Aquinas, Aristotle, and the Promise of the Common Good (New York: Cambridge University Press
2006), p.64
overthrow and killing of the current ruler: “If, however, tyranny becomes so excessive as to be

intolerable, it has been argued that it would be an act of virtue for the more power-ful citizens to kill the

tyrant, even exposing themselves to the peril of death for the liberation of the community.”15 This is

perhaps the strongest evidence of Aquinas' extreme dislike of absolute monarchy, as the extremes to

which he advocates rebellion could possibly lead to bloodshed. However, Aquinas views it as a

necessary evil, and holds this as the final measure to be used out of desperation, as stated by Edward F.

Murphy: “He believes that revolt should be the last, rather than the first, resort, for he is coolly

cognizant that the people may suffer more harm from disturbance than from endurance.”16 Ultimately,

Aquinas values the public good, and recognizes the detriment that rebellion poses towards the

population. When under a despot, there is a true moral dilemma which forms, as rebellion could

liberate the masses as Aquinas states, though possibly at the expense of lives which one would be

attempting to liberate. In the unfortunate eventuality that one must revolt, then this is the only way

forward, as continued subjugation means continued oppression. This problematic scenario shows us

how great amounts of political instability can be caused due to tyranny, as it forces the populace into

violent action, and chaos ensues thereafter. Such a bleak situation demonstrates the fundamental

importance of a government which employs the separation of political power, as opposed to it's

allocation to one single authority. This idea is meaningful not just for historical purposes, but also for

modern political realities, wherein safety from political despotism is a coveted status, and has been

largely achieved because of the concept of the 'separation of powers'. This concept involves different

branches of government holding fractions of authority, with various countermeasures in place to

prevent any imbalances and misuses of that same authority. While this concept addresses a modern

state, it nevertheless has many commonalities with Aquinas' ideas. If the aristocracy is invested with a

certain degree of political influence, then they will become empowered enough to account and possibly
15 A.P d'Entreves, ed., Aquinas Selected Political Writings, part 1, chap. 6, doc. 3
16 Edward F. Murphy, Saint Thomas' Political Doctrine and Democracy (Washington D.C: Catholic University of America
1921), p.219, accessed November 25th , 2010, http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?
seq=9;view=image;size=100;id=uc1.b3621398;u=1;num=219;page=root;orient=0
remove the ruler, the same goes for the lower classes through the employment of certain democratic

ideas. The empowerment of other elements creates a kind of 'system of checks and balances', though in

more primitive form when related in comparison to the modern day applications of this principle.

Aquinas' political discussions are shown to be of great significance, as they acted as a precursor to

more modern applications of the ideas he espoused. It must be conceded that Aquinas' advocating

violent uprisings is demonstrative of his disdain of absolutism and favor of limited monarchy, as it

shows the extremities to which he would go to ensure the replacement of the former with the latter.

In his works, Aquinas clearly emphasizes the need for a limited monarchy, as it is an effective

preventative measure against political crisis. It allows for a more amiable relationship between the

people and the government, it successfully reconciles a colorful blend of diverse political ideas, and it

creates a ruling system which allows for political rights to be disseminated beyond the privileged realm

of royal authority. This is perhaps the most meaningful of results which arise from Aquinas' limited

monarchy, as it means that the perpetual threat of dictatorship is now given an answer. It was of

tremendous significance when John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton remarked that: “Power tends to

corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” In the light of this statement, it is highly impressive

that Aquinas was able to synthesize different political ideas from different origins in order to produce a

solution to the perpetual threat of dictatorial government, as under a political model like his, it is quite

possible that power may not corrupt quite as much.

Bibliography

Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali. 'Ihya Ulum Id Din Volume.1. Karachi: Darul Ishaat 1993

A.P d'Entreves, ed. Aquinas Selected Political Writings. Oxford: B.Blackwell 1954. Accessed
November 18th, 2010, http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015001842742

Douglas Kries. 'Thomas Aquinas and the Politics of Moses'. The Review of Politics 52.1 (1990): p.93

Edward F. Murphy, Saint Thomas' Political Doctrine and Democracy. Washington D.C: Catholic
University of America 1921. Accessed November 25th, 2010, http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?
view=image;id=wu.89094332186;size=100;page=root;seq=1

Mary M. Keys. Aquinas, Aristotle, and the Promise of the Common Good. New York: Cambridge
University Press 2006

Moses. 'Deuteronomy XVII, 18-19'. In The Bible Authorized King James Version with Apocrypha. New
York: Oxford University Press 1998

Paul. E. Sigmund. The Cambridge Companion to Aquinas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
1993

R.E.A Shanab. Ghazali and Aquinason Causation. The Monist 58.1 (1974): p.140

R.W Dyson ed. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought - Aquinas Political Writings.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002