SuttaCentral
This thread was split from Buddhism and anarchism: surprising convergences
So, the question is straight forward: Did the Buddha advocate for or argued against certain types of government? Are there any instances in the suttas? I copied the relevant posts and pasted them here.
Could you provide some examples? I’m not really well-versed in the political landscape of said time and would be interested in actually reading into the policies the Buddha advocated for as you mentioned.
I’m not a big fan of monarchies in general but obviously any form of government can do evil things.
Depending on what problem you want to solve by asking such questions, it may be that it has nothing to do with Buddhism at all:
I don’t want to solve a problem 
There seems to be a disagreement whether the Buddha promoted monarchy as a form of government or not. This raised my interest.
And nobody has so far provided any textual support for their claims 
I watched the video and it seems to be more about “social activism” than types of government though I can see how these questions are related.
When the Buddha established the Saṅgha, he established it as independent, consensus-based communities with an obligation to respect each other and not commit violence against each other. There is even in the Vinaya limits on personal property and other property is meant to be owned collectively. This does seem close to anarchist principles.
But whether that extends beyond the sangha and to the wider state is never stated. The Buddha seemed to accept that there would be monarchs and aristocrats and so on and said that government is best when it governs “righteously” - i.e. by Dhammic principles, a commitment to generosity and truth, and so on.
One trope to consider is the myth of the Wheel Turning King (c.f. DN 26; by ‘myth’ I mean a sacred story conveying meaning in mythic time, not a false belief). You can balance this out with the story of the Buddha contemplating the possibility of righteous rule (SN 4.20).
It is also important to bear in mind the nature of early Buddhist texts and what they themselves are interested in discussing. For example, say we ask ourselves what the texts have to say about the best policies during a pandemic. While we may be able to find certain principles and ideas that give suggestions in a somewhat similar area, Buddhist texts were never meant to build philosophical systems around global health safety.
I personally am inclined to say that any judgements we make about political philosophy in the EBT must start with assessing the ideas proposed in their own context. We should build foundations for accurately interpreting the texts closer to their own terms. Most of the statements on government are responses to the governments of the time, suggesting for kings to support the people of the realm and to reduce animal sacrifice for instance (c.f. DN 5). This does not mean they had a developed system of thought which advocated for monarchy, but rather that certain spiritual principles were applied to relevant political domains in particular contexts.
From the perspective of the EBTs, it seems the best form of government is escaping all government by becoming a virtuous monastic and practicing the teaching to the fullest extent possible for the sake of liberation from rebirth. This is an unsatisfying answer if we want to know about particular issues in political philosophy, but it is the basic foundation for what these texts themselves present as essential. The idea of building an entire political philosophy and engaging in government is contrary to practicing in seclusion as a homeless mendicant.
Please know that I do not mean to say that engaging in political philosophy is considered useless or outright dismissed in the early texts. They clearly recognize a diversity of ways of leading a good life. I am pointing instead to the main ideal around which they do build a system of thought, which is expressly not political but tends away from it as an ultimately imperfect excursion in saṁsāra. Other ideas then are presented as tangents and not treated in full depth, simply because they are out of the primary scope of the genre.
We can add to this that principles such as ethical, principled government and harmlessness are values. Governments which are based on willing participation in moral conduct. However, whether or not this is realistic or common, and further details about how such systems would run, are less clear. Even in the case of the Wheel Turning King, as far as I recall, the texts never explicitly say that monarchy is the best possible form of governance in theory. To my mind, the myth does not focus on the fact that it is run by a king, but rather the fact that the king and the various peoples of the world are voluntarily ethical and promote non-violent support.
But there is a whole wealth of symbolism, history, etc. to draw on in interpreting that and similar stories. I’m sure that there is a lot that could be said by looking at the various stories in Buddhist texts more closely.
It is easier to tell what would be a bad form of government than the best one from the perspective of the EBTs. A bad one would be based on immorality and cruelty. This is because the fundamental project of the EBTs is establishing a pragmatic moral philosophy that leads one who practices in accordance with it to the end of suffering. The extent to which those principles related to virtue and so on apply to government seems to be the most basic sense in which early Buddhism responds to political philosophy.
All the best. 
Sometimes the imagery (or the way words and expressions are envisioned) in Early Buddhist Texts differs significantly from the imagery from coeval Vedic/Sanskrit texts.
The word Cakravartin in (non-Buddhist) Sanskrit texts typically means an emperor, whose chairots are continuously moving in conquest mode - whose wheels (cakra) dont stop rolling/turning (vartana). In that sense a cakravartin is an emperor who rules from coast to coast, with nobody strong enough to check their advance - like the Mauryans who managed to subdue most of India under their control when the Pali canon was being composed.
But in the Buddhist/Pali texts a cakkavattī is being described as a king who turns wheels?
Vaddha’s post makes complete sense to me. It is wholly satisfying — not an unsatisfying answer at all!
Except for this one thing 
…
If we reduce “government” to its basic function – managing resources for the equitable distribution to all – wouldn’t homeless mendicants (at that time) still depend on this function? Albeit through very local communities. As such, it’s difficult for me to imagine they would not hold awareness of this, even in seclusion. Granted, it’s not there in the EBTs explicitly.
In this scenario, was it “escaping” government? That seems like it would be denying the reality of how communities necessarily self-organized.
Absolutely, yes. To be clear, by ‘escaping’ I meant it in the latter sense of ‘liberation from rebirth.’ It was more rhetorical than a literal kind of government. Certainly government is relevant to anyone in a society, and as Ven. @Khemarato.bhikkhu mentioned, you could take the Saṅgha itself as being a form of government.
I think there is a kind of unresolved point in the texts on these issues for reasons I mentioned above. For example, to become a mendicant generally requires there be sufficiently organized and wealthy societies with agriculture and so on, i.e. other people who do other tasks. This is just assumed as a fact of life that there will be such people, while renunciation of working society is also praised.
I don’t think it’s per se a real tension, but it is common sensical enough that many people ask about what the implications for society would be if everyone were to renounce. It’s just incredibly unlikely for such a thing to happen.
I think the sense of ‘cakkavattī’ carries connotations of chariot wheels and conquest. But in the texts, there is reference to an actual wheel (called the ‘cakkaratana’) which appears in the sky and which is what makes people accept the king. The wheel floats with the king’s entourage, and people see it floating in the sky. He sprinkles it with water, and when he stops being ethical, the wheel disappears and he no longer is a cakkavattī.
So the cakka-ratana is probably derived from the more down-to-earth idea of chariot wheels, but yes, the stories depict a king with a literal floating wheel which gives him his power.
‘On a fifteenth day uposatha, having bathed your head and gone upstairs in the royal longhouse to observe the uposatha—the heavenly wheel-treasure will appear to you, with a thousand spokes, with rim and hub, complete in every detail.’
(from DN 26).
I take the teachings that praises solitude over company to lean towards libertarianism. As a general rule, the smaller any given government the better.
Thank you for referencing suttas! So, yeah, I wasn’t expecting the EBT to inform decisions about - say - how to handle the Brexit But all jokes aside, I was interested if the Buddha actually did
In regard to the first one, the hereditary principle seems to be the dominant process underlying rulership in Ancient India (please anyone correct me if I’m wrong here). So to me, saying that the Budha advocated for monarchy because he didn’t explicitly oppose it is a far cry.
But many people who identify as Buddhists actually refer to the Dhamma to call for certain policies to be implemented - and way beyond the obvious as in >no killing<. Meat-eating and the principle of equality for various groups of people are repeatedly being discussed.
In DN 5 the Buddha retells a story about a brahmin and a king, and the brahmin advises the king to implement certain policies:
So let the king provide seed and fodder for those in the realm who work in growing crops and raising cattle. The king should spend his own resources to support his citizens in the various occupations. Let the king provide funding for those who work in trade.
Let the king guarantee food and wages for those in government service.
(In the end it’s about how the spiritual path is superior to all worldy affairs but I found it nevertheless worth posting because here we have at least specific policies menioned.)
Instead of a bottom-up approach, we could also look at it from top-down: To what extent have Buddhist doctrines (or what is perceived as genuinely Buddhist) shaped the laws and the legal system in states that have Buddhism as state religion? I did a google search and was amazed: There are so many resources (free access) on the entanglement of Buddhist doctrines, state laws, constitutions 
I think we shouldn’t forget about Vajji republic - Vajji (tribe) - Wikipedia.
From DN 16 - Mahaparinirvana Sutta,
. At that time the Venerable Ananda [4] was standing behind the Blessed One, fanning him, and the Blessed One addressed the Venerable Ananda thus: “What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis have frequent gatherings, and are their meetings well attended?”
“I have heard, Lord, that this is so.”
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.
“What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis assemble and disperse peacefully and attend to their affairs in concord?”
“I have heard, Lord, that they do.”
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.
“What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis neither enact new decrees nor abolish existing ones, but proceed in accordance with their ancient constitutions?”
“I have heard, Lord, that they do.”
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.
“What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor, esteem, and veneration towards their elders and think it worthwhile to listen to them?”
“I have heard, Lord, that they do.”
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.
“What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis refrain from abducting women and maidens of good families and from detaining them?”
“I have heard, Lord, that they refrain from doing so.”
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.
“What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor, esteem, and veneration towards their shrines, both those within the city and those outside it, and do not deprive them of the due offerings as given and made to them formerly?”
“I have heard, Lord, that they do venerate their shrines, and that they do not deprive them of their offerings.”
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.
“What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so, and those who have already come might live there in peace?”
“I have heard, Lord, that they do.”
“So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.”
And the Blessed One addressed the brahman Vassakara in these words: “Once, brahman, I dwelt at Vesali, at the Sarandada shrine, and there it was that I taught the Vajjis these seven conditions leading to (a nation’s) welfare. [5] So long, brahman, as these endure among the Vajjis, and the Vajjis are known for it, their growth is to be expected, not their decline.”
According to Wikipedia, Vajji(or Licchavi) was an aristocratic oligarchic republic. From a population of 200,000 to 300,000 and 7,707 unelected members who composed republic assembly.
According to Buddha,
I don’t think we as a society is inclined to not make new laws or obey ancient laws(3). But I think this point is tied to (2) as new laws will probably cause dissatisfaction with some/significant people. This is also tied to (4) as we should listen to older generations that agree with old laws.
Hmmm.
7,707 seems a suspiciously precise (and astonishingly large) figure for 5th century BCE Vesālī.
The Wikipedia editor gives as his source Republics in Ancient India, Jagdish Sharma’s 1968 book on the sixteen janapadas.
Sharma’s source is the the commentary to the Ekapaṇṇa Jātaka story, which begins:
Idaṃ satthā vesāliṃ upanissāya mahāvane kūṭāgārasālāyaṃ viharanto vesālikaṃ duṭṭhalicchavikumāraṃ ārabbha kathesi. Tasmiñhi kāle vesālinagaraṃ gāvutagāvutantare tīhi pākārehi parikkhittaṃ tīsu ṭhānesu gopuraṭṭālakayuttaṃ paramasobhaggappattaṃ. Tattha niccakālaṃ rajjaṃ kāretvā vasantānaññeva rājūnaṃ satta sahassāni satta satāni satta ca rājāno honti, tattakāyeva uparājāno, tattakā senāpatino, tattakā bhaṇḍāgārikā.
The Master related this while staying near Vesalī in the pagoda hall of the Mahāvana, in reference to a wicked young Licchavī prince of Vesalī. At that time, the city of Vesalī was surrounded by three walls, each one gavuta apart; it was equipped with city gates and watchtowers at three points and was extremely magnificent to behold. Seven thousand seven hundred and seven kings lived and ruled there permanently; there were just as many viceroys, just as many generals, and just as many treasurers.
However, in contrast with the Wikipedia editor, Sharma treats the source critically:
