[The political science that is part of philosophy] explains that what is best and most virtuous in virtuous cities and nations is for their kings and rulers who succeed one another through time to possess the qualifications of the first ruler. It brings about cognizance of [a] how it ought to be worked out so that these kings who succeed one another possess the very same states of virtue and [b] which qualifications are to be sought for in the sons of the city's kings so that if they are found in one of them, it is to be hoped that he will become the same kind of king as the first ruler. In addition, it explains how he ought to be educated, how he is to be raised, and in what way he is to be instructed so that he might become a king completely.--Al-Farabi The Book of Religion, 18, translated by Charles Butterworth.
It's not much of an exaggeration that Islamic political philosophers obsessively, and given the history of early Islam, understandably repeatedly return (recall here; here; here; here) to two closely related political phenomena. To simplify: given Muhammad's excellence as a political leader and legislator, how could there be such a quick, precipitous decline (that is, disunity, the corruptions of luxury, etc.) after the period of the four righteousness caliphs? And second, how to re-create an ideal political regime with a population raised under bad institutions. The quoted passage from Al-Farabi's work on the nature of religion (recall here and here) has to be understood in light of a related problem, inherited from Plato (recall here, here; here; here): how to prevent decline once an excellent regime has been established.
In Al-Farabi's terminology a 'first king' is not unlike a Rousseaian legislator, a divine-like figure who establishes a perfect regime.* By definition such a regime will outlast the founder. He (in Al-Farabi it's generally assumed to be a he) can be succeeded by three kinds of kings: (i) another first king, who emulates the first king, and, without the aid of revelation, manages to make the same kind of choices a first king would make if confronted with new challenges/circumstances. To avoid confusion, let's call such a king 'a superior representative agent' (in the way that Stoic sages are). (ii) A well-meaning king. who lacks the capacities of a superior representative agent, but still pursues the flourishing of the community (and himself). Such a king has to rely on the art of jurisprudence, which reveals, through the study of the founding document(s) and reflection on, and analogical extension of, the sayings and life, the art of governance and offers guidance on (new) legislation. (It is quite natural to read this as a kind of normative ideal for Islamic political life in his day and ours.) Such a kingship will always have imperfect characteristics. And (iii) a king who pursues other goals (for the community and/or himself) than flourishing.
There are some puzzles here because it is unclear how such a superior representative agent, who in some sense is superior to the one that receives revelation, could exist. More subtly, it is seems miraculous how the partial identity among superior representative agents is ensured. I return to this below.
Okay, with that in place we can turn to to the role of political science. In Al-Farabi's hands -- and this has had an enduring legacy political science is (recall this post) devoted to the study of the conditions of human flourishing (see par. 11 & 15 of the Book of Religion). In its general sense it is a rather abstract science. It is both explanatory and normative. The natural reading of Al-Farabi's understanding of political science entails that it is primarily concerned with kinds of regimes, rulers, and the institutions & norms (that is, religion) apt to them. Somewhat surprisingly, the part of political science that is properly philosophical is both explanatory and action guiding. The passage quoted above is part of this action-guiding philosophical political science (which we may call a normative, social science broadly conceived).
The point of [a] is to explain the nature of superior representative agents. The pay-off of such knowledge is to be able to provide [b] a kind of (we would call) psychological screening mechanism/test to prevent the succession to kingship such that there is de facto devolution) from superior type of first kings to lesser kinds. In addition, it would include leadership training. Al-Farabi only treats the utility of this in cases of hereditary kingship where fate may produce lesser offspring. If such a political science is really available than the problem of regime decline can be solved, in principle. I am unsure if such a philosophical political science can be found in Al-Farabi's writings.
Let me close with a few (ant-climactic) observations: first, Al-Farabi leaves open here if first kings can be elective (as opposed to hereditary). His silence is surprising because in Islamic political philosophy (recall (recall here; here) elective kingship has considerable prestige because the four righteous caliphs were elected. Second, de facto, a regime in which political science has a veto power over kingship is a mixed epistemic, monarchic regime. This is a bit surprising because in his Political Regime there is not much sign of this. Third, such philosophical political science would be an institution that functions as a kind of insurance against the expected failures of a system of eugenic breeding as Socrates expects in the Republic (recall here and here). It could also be thought as a substitute to such a program.
Finally, the existence of philosophical political science (and in particular [b] helps resolve the puzzle we had above: in its role as leadership training program (manual) it helps ensure the relevant uniformity of the kings I have been calling superior representative agents. But that means it has also solved how to educate in (kingly) virtue. Presumably if that is so, the with the help of revelation a new (genuine) caliphate is possible. It is, then, no surprise that Al-Farabi managed to attract the most talented successors to his approach.+
*To what degree agrees that this is on the basis of divine revelation or inspiration in Rousseau I leave aside here.
+I thank my wonderful students for class discussion.
Comments