My Explanation of the Mishna ‘Pray for the Welfare of the Government, for Without Its Fear…’
Claude’s translation of what I wrote in the past, with some improvements:
Mishnah Avot 3:2:
רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים אומר, הוי מתפלל בשלומה של מלכות, שאלמלא מוראה איש את רעהו חיים בלעו.
“Pray for the welfare of the government (malchut), for were it not for fear of it, each man would swallow his fellow alive”
This Mishna is not a command to establish a kingdom, nor is it a command to pray for one to arise, God forbid, for there is no “big fish swallowing small fish” phenomenon greater than the state itself. (The difference between robbers and a king: the king collects taxes regularly and evenly [roughly], within whatever territory his currency circulates — unlike robbers.)
Rather, it means: if there is no kingdom at all — not because of internal strife, but because the inhabitants refuse to accept a substitute for the yoke of the King of Kings, as Gideon said: “I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you, Hashem shall rule over you” (Shoftim 8:23) — happy is their portion. There are, of course, always threats, but these can be dealt with, with Hashem’s help.
But a flesh-and-blood kingdom’s supreme priority, from its own vantage point, is not the welfare of its inhabitants but the prevention of competitors. Even protection of the inhabitants is only to supposedly justify its existence in their eyes, lest they rebel against it. Given that, if there is peace within the kingdom [i.e., internal stability at the top], one can at least expect a corresponding measure of peace [for the inhabitants] — that is, of “good enough for government work” quality, since there’s no free market, but at least something, as it says: “and pray on its behalf to Hashem, for in its peace you shall have peace” (Yirmiya 29:7); “Fear Hashem, my son, and the king too; do not associate with the king’s rivals” (Mishlei 24:21), etc. And we are obligated to place the king’s fear upon us (“שתהא אימתו עליך”).
But absent that, Heaven forbid — as happened in Libya after Gaddafi, in Lebanon, in Yugoslavia, and the like — there is no anarchism but, in effect, “Planned Chaos.” Each man would swallow his fellow, etc. — because the kingdom persists only in that it still prevents competition in the “provision of peace” with all its might, while on the other hand it fails to provide even its customary measure of peace to the inhabitants. The rival side, too, prevents competition in the provision of peace with all its might, but is too weak to supply the service adequately on its own, either (and so on, for any additional competitors for power).
