An analysis of the dialog between Yosef and Pharaoh from a political perspective.
And Pharaoh said to his servants, "Is there anywhere to be found a man like this, in whom there is the spirit of G-d?"
The terse statements of the Chumash hardly do justice to the extreme impression Yosef's statements must have made on Pharaoh. Here was a young man, Yosef, who had been languishing for years in a pit of a prison, and who was also a foreigner whose entire life in Egypt had been as a member of the servant class. In the hope of finding an acceptable interpretation to his dreams, Pharaoh has him fetched from his prison and brought before him in the royal court. After hearing a report of the dreams, Yosef offers his interpretation. Pharaoh's response to Yosef's interpretation of his dreams is not just assent to the connection that Yosef had suggested between the imagery of his dreams and events in the real world, but it serves as the introduction to the fairy-tale-like imminent appointment of the stranger in a strange land to be the viceroy of the entire realm. It was a truly stunning reversal of fortune for Yosef, and quite a leap for Pharaoh himself to thrust Yosef above all his established officers and advisors. Must we write it off to the mysterious working of Hashgochoh in the flow of history, or is there a way to understand better the true dynamics of what was taking place?
Ancient writers on politics note that there are two kinds of political systems constituted of one-man rule, which we may call "monarchy" and "tyranny." Monarchy is the benevolent kind of one-man rule, and tyranny is its perversion. These two are opposites. In both cases a single person stands at the head of society and organizes, directs and orders it. However the monarch has as his guiding goal the good of the people. Everything that he does is to advance and increase the good of his people. He constantly seeks to improve their lot.
The tyrant is the opposite: Everything he does is to benefit himself. He organizes and directs the society under him to bring the greatest benefits to himself, he who stands at the apex of the society. The entire state is to serve and benefit the tyrant.
The monarch works from his position at the top of society to flow benefits down to the people. The tyrant organizes all of the resources of society to flow benefits up to himself.
Egypt seems to have been an extreme form of tyranny as we have defined it here. The Pharaoh was considered a god and all Egypt existed to benefit him. The ministers of the realm, the highest officers of the government, were those who catered to Pharaoh: the Minister of Meat, the Minister of Drink and the Minister of Baked Goods are mentioned in the pesukim. These were the elite of the country who were responsible for what were considered the most important functions of the government, such as they were. They were the dignitaries who catered to Pharaoh's immediate needs and thus they were the most honored citizens of Egypt. If they were derelict in their duties, it was a capital crime, as the Minister of Baked Goods found out. This was the reality and no one dreamed that it could be any different.
Pharaoh described his dream to Yosef, and Yosef gave his interpretation of the dream. But he did not stop with that. Yosef went on to offer a suggestion for taking action based on the forecast of the dream: Appoint someone to oversee an apparatus that would gather in the surplus of years of bounty to provide a buffer to tide the country over the years of famine.
To Pharaoh (and his court) this suggestions must have come as a stunning bolt out of the blue, a shocking example of thinking out-of-the-box. What?! Pharaoh should do something to benefit his subject people?
If the dream had been interpreted by Pharaoh's advisors, it would surely have become the talk of the town, but it was clear that Pharaoh himself would not be affected by the famine. He would always have enough to eat, so nothing need be done based on this fourteen year forecast. Fat or famine, there should be no problem to satisfy Pharaoh's needs. Life would go on.
Yosef suggested a plan whose purpose was to help the Egyptian people better survive the lean years. It was basically a simple plan that could be adequately laid out in four sentences. Its utility was obvious even to the Egyptian people who were not accustomed to thinking along those lines. So even though it was original and bold in the Egyptian context, its attractions were obvious. Yet the idea of Pharaoh and his government taking action whose purpose is to benefit the people and not Pharaoh was stunning.
In the long run, the idea turned out to Pharaoh's benefit as well, as his wealth and power were increased. (This is often the case with such an approach. Even in theory Pharaoh will stand at the head of a society with greater wealth and general resources, which will likely prove beneficial for him as well.)
Yosef's proposal his a real sweet spot. It was amazingly original, but not so radical that its benefits could not be clearly seen. In any case Pharaoh was so impressed by the proposal and by Yosef's abilities in coming up with it that he asked Yosef to oversee its implementation. Since his society and all of his functionaries were steeped in the notion that all government action is to be oriented towards the benefit of the ruler, Pharaoh would be justly skeptical of the ability of any of his ministers to adequately execute such a task. Being a successful butcher or baker is not a recommendation for the task of storing and distributing the bounty of the fat years on a national scale.
The temptations of power are well-known, and many idealistic people have succumbed to the temptations after achieving political success. Perhaps the importance of deeply internalizing precisely this principle, to govern for the sake of the governed and not for the sake of the governor, explains why so many of our early leaders were shepherds.
Sheep are very stupid animals. The shepherd must be dedicated to their welfare in order for him to do a good job. Taking care of a flock of sheep teaches one very thoroughly that he must concern himself with the welfare of those under him and not to rely on them to even take care of their own welfare. In this way it would seem that experience as a shepherd is good preparation to care for a human society. Moshe Rabbenu and Dovid Hamelech learned the all-important lesson that the ruler of a human society should seek to maximize the benefits to those under his rule and not to exploit them for his own personal gain.
As in the case of Yosef before Pharaoh, what must be done is pretty obvious once the approach is not that of a tyrant but of a benevolent monarch who seeks the benefit of his people.
