“Saul’s second sin was to spare Agag, the king of the Amalekites, togetherwith the best of his livestock, instead of killing them all, as God hadcommanded. His excuse was: “because I listened to the voice of the people” (IKings 15.20). In other words, he abdicated his God-given authority andbecame, spiritually speaking, a democrat, listening to the people rather than toGod.” Vladimir Moss, An Essay in Universal History, Vol I. P. 64
Many people postulate that democracy can function just as classic Kingship does. The fact of the matter, though, is that it fundamentally does not. The things that people desire to do are not necessarily reflections at all of what God wills — especially in a day and age where religiosity and Christianity are eschewed by the masses and perhaps even more especially when God is written out of the system of government itself.
Moss also goes on to make another very important point — a point which is made repeatedly in his Essay on Universal History — that the nature of the monarchy within Israel, and as how it should be in other societies, is one where God is central to the ruler and is part & parcel with the nature of how the government should function:
“To modern readers Saul’s sin might seem small. However, it must be
understood in the context of the previous history of Israel, in which neither
Moses nor any of the judges (except, perhaps, Samson), had disobeyed the
Lord. That is why Samuel said to Saul: “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to
hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and
stubbornness as iniquity and idolatry” (I Kings 15.22-23). For even a king can
rebel, even a king is in obedience – to the King of kings. Only the absolutist
despot feels that there is nobody above him, that there is no law that he, too,
must obey. His power is absolute; whereas the power of the autocrat is
limited, if not by man and the laws of men, at any rate by the law of God,
whose independent guardian and teacher is the priesthood of the Church.” Ibid, 65
Not even the King is above God. If he is a true autocrat, he has to serve God in everything that he does. He cannot be someone who does his own will. You could say that the will of the King, and the nature of the King, are not at all the vox dei that people are looking for, either. Rather, the voice of God itself, to Moss and within Western understanding, is the Bible. We should look nowhere for the manifestation of God’s will in an abstract, ideal sense other than the sacred writings.
The point would then stand… If even the voice of the King, or the will of the King, does not necessarily function at all as a measure of the will of God… How could the will of millions of people be thought of as fulfilling that function?
Moreover, the idea that the will of the people on secular affairs and totally uninfluenced by Christian thought would somehow manifest a will of God also seems to be out there. Of course, God can use a crooked stick to do whatever he pleases, and we cannot simply say that God never does interfere in secular, democratic or even despotic states. But the notion that these systems fulfills some kind of role in the actualization of God’s will through a just process is not Biblical and is thoroughly ahistorical, and there is no reason to believe that it possesses the mechanics to do so.