The Justification For Political Rebellion

Tyranny and the Common Good

The perennial question of whether political rebellion can ever be morally justified has occupied philosophers, theologians, and statesmen for centuries. The oft‑repeated maxim that “God gives us the leaders we deserve” suggests a providential resignation towards political authority, even when it is at best flawed, and at worst, unjust.

Yet, for St Thomas Aquinas – one of the most influential Catholic philosophers and theologians of the Middle Ages – obedience to authority was not absolute. While he upheld the moral obligation of citizens to obey just rulers and show deference to those in positions of authority, Aquinas also recognized that there are extreme circumstances in which resistance, and even the overthrow of a ruler, may not only be permissible but necessary.

His political thought, as expressed in the Summa Theologiae and De Regno, offers a reasonable framework for discerning when rebellion is justified, balancing the demands of justice, the preservation of the common good, and the mitigation of greater evils upon society.

---

Reminder: To get our members-only content every week and support our mission, upgrade to a paid subscription for a few dollars per month. You’ll get:

• Two full-length, new articles every single week

• Access to the entire archive of useful knowledge that built the West

• Get actionable principles from history to help navigate modernity

• Support independent, educational content that reaches millions

---

The Moral Basis of Political Authority

Aquinas’ political philosophy is grounded in his broader theological anthropology and natural law theory. He argues that political authority exists to serve the bonum commune or common good. This is not merely a utilitarian calculation of collective welfare, but a moral and teleological ordering of society toward the flourishing of all its members in accordance with natural law.

Aquinas writes in De Regno, “If a multitude of free men is ordered by the ruler towards the common good of the multitude, that rulership will be right and just, as is suitable to free men”. Thus, the legitimacy of any government, therefore, depends on its orientation toward and the common good of the citizens it represents.

Tyranny as a Corruption of Authority

Aquinas distinguishes between just rule and tyranny, with the latter being a perversion of political authority. In the Summa Theologiae, he states unequivocally that “A tyrannical government is not just, because it is directed not to the common good, but to the private good of the ruler”. Tyranny in this sense is not simply harsh or unpopular governance, or the rule of an opposing political party, but the deliberate, disproportionate, and sustained subordination of the citizens’ welfare to the private – and by definition, disordered – interests of the ruler.

Aquinas maintains that all human authority is ultimately derived from God, but when rulers abuse their authority in promulgating unjust laws, citizens have a moral obligation to not only resist those unjust laws but the unjust ruler who promulgates them as an act of self-defense, as “A law that is contrary to reason is an unjust law, and has the nature not of law but of violence”.

This principle inherently rejects the concept of “divine right of kings”, for while God is the ultimate source of political authority, the proximate source is the community, which entrusts power to rulers for the common good. The ruler, therefore, is a representative and minister of justice, not a law unto himself and is subject to the same order as those he serves. In this view, even a king stands under the law – both the higher law of God and the just civil law derived from it – and when he legislates or acts contrary to that law, his authority and legitimacy is compromised.