The political philosophy of St.

Thomas Aquinas in
comparison to
the political ideas of St. Augustine and al-Farabi –
Three rationalist conceptions
By: Nikos Psarros, Leipzig
2 St. Thomas Aquinas: On the Best State Governance
St. Thomas Aquinas’ ideas on the nature of human political organization are contained mainly
in his treatise De Regimine Principium that was addressed to the King of Cyprus, either Hugo I
(1252-1267) or Hugo II (1235-1284). Some further reflections are included in his main work
the Summa Philosophiae. For Thomas, the formation of human communities is already
grounded in the rational nature of man. In contrast to all other animals that are equipped by
nature with cognitive faculties that are adapted to their specific needs and their specific form
of life, humans possess only the ability to obtain a mere general knowledge of their natural
environment and the things that populate it.1 The interaction of human beings with particular
objects and their local environment is made possible by reason. Reason enables man to apply
the general principles of his acquired knowledge to the local situation. Since it is not possible
for a single human being to exercise this capability adequately for every aspect of human life,
the need for cooperation and division of labor emerges. This cooperation is rendered possible
because humans are in possession of speech that enables the communication of the contents
of their thoughts from one human to another. The necessity for cooperation also entails
the necessity of organization and administration because without the latter the cooperation
would disintegrate into random parts. Reason then demands not only the association of
humans into communities, but also the installation of an administration or a government.

Thomas regards monarchy as the best form of government. However, he distinguishes

monarchy sharply from tyranny: The activity of a monarch is oriented solely towards the
common good, while a tyrant acts according to his private interest. Here the problem of the
treatment of a tyrannical ruler arises. Shall tyrannical rule be tolerated? Shall one obey the
commands of a tyrant, especially if he demands the commitment of criminal acts or acts
contrary to the divine will? In contrast to St. Augustine, whose position in this matter is, as we
will see, more radical, Thomas thinks that the order that is established by a tyrannical regime is
more preferable than absolute disorder. In a longer passage in the Summa, Thomas argues that
obedience is a cardinal virtue.3 From this it follows that obedience towards an unjust ruler is

1
2 De regimine I,1, in: Aquinas, Political Writings.
imperative, as long as his orders are not in direct opposition to virtue itself, or to God, i.e. as
long as they do not incite someone to sin. If this, however, is the case, then at least passive
disobedience is imperative – even at the cost of one’s own life –, and it seems that this
disobedience can also in some very special cases justify tyrannicide.4 If, however, the
arbitrariness of the tyrant is limited to mundane affairs - if for example he forces his subjects to
labor or demands their wealth - then passive disobedience is facultative.
According to Thomas, the only possibility to dispose legitimately of an unjust ruler is to do this
within the framework of an institutional order, either by forcing him to abdicate, if he has
been appointed by popular vote, or by filing a charge against him at a higher instance, e.g. the
emperor or God. From the above it can be concluded that Thomas regards the nature of the
state and of political rule from an Aristotelian hylomorphic point of view, i.e. as the result of the
interaction of a formal and a material principle. The state is conceived by Thomas as an analogy
to an Aristotelian substance, i.e. a living being. In this analogy, the ruler represents the position
of the soul and the people that are ruled by him represent the position of matter that is
organized by the soul to the individual organism. The soul of the ruler is the formal cause of two
substances, of his own existence as a human being and of the state that he has been appointed
to shape and rule.