That the followers of Amlici should desire him to be a king should be no surprise at all, as Amlici has been identified as being of the order of Nehor, and that complex includes pressure to kingship along with the concomitant pressures to social stratification through vertical economic distribution and the wearing of costly apparel. What is also significant is the ease with which Amlici appears to develop a following. Even more than the following is that these people are described as "powerful." How does this happen in the reign of judges?
There is no way to be sure, but it is quite likely that the people who supported Amlici were also followers of the order of Nehor, and as adherents to the competing politico-religious ideals, were likely those in a position to become more wealthy. With their wealth, and presumably their connections to outside communities, they might easily be seen as more "powerful" than the more egalitarian societies of the faithful Nephites.
Sorenson suggests that Amlici might have been a lineal descendant of Zarahemla (king of the city when Mosiah I arrived) and thus would have had a strong political base of those who were also more directly descended from Zarahemla. (Sorenson, John L. An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. FARMS 1985, p. 196). While this is certainly a good explanation for why he was considered kingly material, the power base is much more likely derived from the later division between Nephites and Nehors.
The kinship affiliations had been part of Zarahemla history since the arrival of the Nephites, but Benjamin brought a new basis for integration. The Book of Mormon history best indicates that Benjamin fought against the "Lamanite" ideals of social stratification, which erupted significantly in the order of the Nehors. The internal information clearly points to these as the most important factors. It would not be surprising, however, to find that the Nephite/Nehor split might have followed the kinship lines Sorenson suggests.
Alma 2:3
3 Now this was alarming to the people of the church, and also to all those who had not been drawn away after the persuasions of Amlici; for they knew that according to their law that such things must be established by the voice of the people.
Alma 2:4
4 Therefore, if it were possible that Amlici should gain the voice of the people, he, being a wicked man, would deprive them of their rights and privileges of the church; for it was his intent to destroy the church of God.
The faithful Nephites are afraid of Amlici because the law of the land allows for the voice of the people to make changes, and the followers of Amlici were growing more numerous. They fear that these followers of Amlici might be sufficiently numerous to carry the day in a "voice of the people" vote, and that the ruling order might be changed.
This is a simple declaration of what might happen, and modern readers understand this fear all to well. In a democratic society, we may be worried when a faction with which we disagree gains enough support to enforce their ideas upon us. However, to see this verse in such a light diminishes the nature of the threat to the Nephites. This was not a simple political choice. It was not a shift between Democrats or Republicans in the majority. What the Nephites fear is that Amlici "would deprive them of their rights and privileges of the church."
Why would Amlici as a king be so thoroughly destructive to the church? Why would a return to the a previous political system (kingship) that the Nephites had abandoned only five years earlier be such a complete threat to their religion? Once again there is a simple answer, and that is that Amlici is an evil man. This answer is too simplistic, as it presupposes that either Amlici dupes all of his followers with his evil intent, or that all of his followers are equally evil.
The most reasonable answer lies not in the individual morality of the people who will be called Amlicites, but in their espousal of the order of the Nehors. These are people who not only espouse a change in politics, but a change in religion. Their basic tenets of their belief system are antithetical to Nephite religion.
As a single example of how the implementation of a Nehor-style rule could destroy the church, we need look only to the vertical versus horizontal assumptions of the distribution of economic goods. Nephite society is adamantly horizontal and egalitarian. The order of the Nehors is just as adamantly vertical and stratified. Domination by the Amlicites would forcibly implement the vertical distribution of wealth, and that would forcibly stratify the Nephites. This would place them in a situation where they were unable to live their social ideal, and the social aspect of their religious world view would be completely destroyed.
When we remember that there have already been contentions between the Nephite faithful and the "other" religion, it is also easy to see that these tensions would erupt into persecutions. The order of the Nehors denied the atoning Messiah, an essential tenet of Nephite religion. As the dominant religion, and one believing in social stratification, it is not a far stretch to see Nephite religion as persecuted, and relegated to the lowest and least empowered levels of society, if it were allowed to continue at all.
The Nephites feared this movement because they rightly feared that its success would destroy their culture and religion, as they knew it.
Alma 2:5
5 And it came to pass that the people assembled themselves together throughout all the land, every man according to his mind, whether it were for or against Amlici, in separate bodies, having much dispute and wonderful contentions one with another.
Social: The Operation of the Voice of the People
When Mosiah makes the momentous change from a kingship to the rule of the judges, he introduces this new political organization with the following:
25 Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord.
26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law-to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land. (Mosiah 29:25-27)
Read in our modern context, it is very easy to see this as the introduction of a democratic system of voting for elected leaders among the Nephites. It would be a mistake, however, to impute too much of the modern US democratic system backwards into the Nephite political world. In Sorenson's discussion of Nephite politics, he notes:
"The discourse on the subject of kingship delivered by King Mosiah II further points up features of the conventional system of kingly rule, with which he saw many problems (see Mosiah 29:5-7, 13-19, 21-24, 33-35). He mandated a change in the Nephite system of rule, providing for a chief judge whose powers were more limited than those of a king. However, in many ways the old customs and notions surrounding the king as head of government continued under the "new" system. For instance, judges too were considered "rulers," who not only "reigned" and sat on "thrones" but controlled the distribution of the government's resources obtained by tribute or taxation. The chief judge also led Nephite armies in battle. (See Alma 12:20 on a judge as "a chief ruler" in the city of Ammonihah; Alma 35:5, 8, on "rulers" among the Zoramites; Helaman 7:4-5, judges "do according to their wills" and enrich themselves; Alma 60:1, 7, 11, 21, rulers "sit upon your thrones"; Alma 1:2, judges "reign," the same term used regarding kings; Alma 2:16, and compare Words of Mormon 1:14, the chief judge leads his forces into battle as had the king; Alma 60:19, 34-35, control of tax resources.)
Moreover, while the modified system of rule under the judges the people are said to have "cast in their voices" (Alma 2:6) to choose the judges who would "rule" them, this would not have been anything like a "one-man, one-vote" election but probably was an expression of preference by the senior males who led the various kin groups (lineages) who would have arrived at their decision by consultation within their groups and spoke for their unit." (Sorenson, John L. "The Political Economy of the Nephites." In: Nephite Culture and Society. New Sage Books, 1997, pp. 202-3).
The Nephite mechanism that was employed to create this modified system of rule was the "voice of the people." To understand how Nephite political though differs from our own, we need to understand what we can of this process that was called the "voice of the people."
Sorenson noted that some of the features or trappings of the kingship carried over to the reign of the judges, particularly in such terms as "reigning" and sitting on "thrones." One of the holdovers from the kingship was the very function that has been claimed as a democratic vote, the "voice of the people." This was a process that functioned prior to the reign of the judges.
The earliest point in time where the "voice of the people" is used in conjunction with a king comes from the story of Zeniff, who left Zarahemla to return to the land of Nephi. Zeniff was the leader of the people who eventually colonized the city of Lehi-Nephi. We have from his own record:
"Mosiah 7:9 And he said unto them: Behold, I am Limhi, the son of Noah, who was the son of Zeniff, who came up out of the land of Zarahemla to inherit this land, which was the land of their fathers, who was made a king by the voice of the people."
It might be possible to read this statement as Zeniffs "election" to kingship, since he apparently did not rule by lineal right (though his son, Limhi, would). However, we find probable confirmation that this function, called the voice of the people, operated prior to the reign of the judges in events from both Benjamin and his son Mosiah, both of whom did rule by lineal right. In the case of Benjamin, he notes in his great discourse:
"Mosiah 2:11 But I am like as yourselves, subject to all manner of infirmities in body and mind; yet I have been chosen by this people, and consecrated by my father, and was suffered by the hand of the Lord that I should be a ruler and a king over this people; and have been kept and preserved by his matchless power, to serve you with all the might, mind and strength which the Lord hath granted unto me."
King Benjamin duly credits the Lord as the ultimate grantor of his position as king, but he begins by noting that he was chosen by the people. This participation of the people in the transference of the kinship comes again very vividly in the description of Mosiah's attempt to find a successor:
"Mosiah 29:1 Now when Mosiah had done this he sent out throughout all the land, among all the people, desiring to know their will concerning who should be their king.
2 And it came to pass that the voice of the people came, saying: We are desirous that Aaron thy son should be our king and our ruler."
Just as Benjamin was "chosen" by the people, Mosiah sent word throughout the land to find the will of the people, the voice of the people concerning which of his sons should be the king, and position to which they should have been rightful heirs in most monarchies. While these examples show that the voice of the people functioned in the most important of political decisions, that of the change of king, it was not confined to the transference of power. When Ammon is with King Limhi in the land of Lehi-Nephi, they make plans to free themselves from bondages, and significantly consult the "voice of the people:"
"Mosiah 22:1 And now it came to pass that Ammon and king Limhi began to consult with the people how they should deliver themselves out of bondage; and even they did cause that all the people should gather themselves together; and this they did that they might have the voice of the people concerning the matter."
We do not know of all of the occasions when the voice of the people could be used, but we may surmise that prior to the reign of the judges the voice of the people became involved in decisions which would effect the entire community, and to which they would have to submit, such as to the reign of a king or the plan of escape that would require all to work together, accepting the same risks.
Even after the reign of the judges, the voice of the people continued to function in the election of officials in a parallel manner to its function under the reign of the kings. That is, an official may have been appointed, or assumed his position by lineal right, but was subject to the voice of the people as confirmation. For instance, we have Helaman filling the judgment-seat of his father:
"Hel. 2:2 And it came to pass that Helaman, who was the son of Helaman, was appointed to fill the judgment-seat, by the voice of the people."
Note that Helaman is appointed to fill the judgment-seat of his father. The lineal connection appears to provide a presumption of appointment to Helaman the son. This is not an elected position, but one that was decided by other means. Nevertheless, it could be said that the appointment comes, "by the voice of the people." Lest we misread the mechanism that was doing the appointing, let us turn to the case of Pacumeni:
"Hel. 1:13 And now behold, Pacumeni was appointed, according to the voice of the people, to be a chief judge and a governor over the people, to reign in the stead of his brother Pahoran; and it was according to his right. And all this was done in the fortieth year of the reign of the judges; and it had an end."
Pacumeni reigns as chief judge both by right and by the voice of the people. This same conjunction of the voice of the people and an appointment in which they did no direct selection occurs when Alma transfers the position of chief judge to Nephihah:
"Alma 4:16 And he selected a wise man who was among the elders of the church, and gave him power according to the voice of the people, that he might have power to enact laws according to the laws which had been given, and to put them in force according to the wickedness and the crimes of the people. 17 Now this man's name was Nephihah, and he was appointed chief judge; and he sat in the judgment-seat to judge and to govern the people."
In this case, there is a tenuous relationship to the voice of the people. Alma appears to have the prerogative of appointing his successor. This man is clearly not elected, but directly appointed due to Alma's selection. He is given authority, and that authority comes through the voice of the people. We are not given the specific details of how this was obtained, but based on the evidence examined to this point, it would appear that in the case of transference of power, the voice of the people frequently functioned as confirmation rather than election.
The process of confirmation was not at all like the LDS confirmation of appointments in a sacrament meeting. Where there is a presumption of unity in sustainings, the voice of the people was active even when there were disputes. Indeed, it is in the occasions of those disputes in which we get an idea of how the voice of the people functioned.
One such dispute concerned the seating of Pahoran as chief judge:
"Alma 51:6 And those who were desirous that Pahoran should remain chief judge over the land took upon them the name of freemen; and thus was the division among them, for the freemen had sworn or covenanted to maintain their rights and the privileges of their religion by a free government. 7 And it came to pass that this matter of their contention was settled by the voice of the people. And it came to pass that the voice of the people came in favor of the freemen, and Pahoran retained the judgment-seat, which caused much rejoicing among the brethren of Pahoran and also many of the people of liberty, who also put the king-men to silence, that they durst not oppose but were obliged to maintain the cause of freedom."
The first important fact is that Pahoran was already sitting as the chief judge. The division arose as to whether or not Pahoran should remain as the chief judge. The dispute is settled by the voice of the people. In this case, the voice of the people appears to function politically as a "vote of confidence" might in some modern governments. If Pahoran had lost his majority confirmation, he would have been required to step down. What is also important in this case is that the ruling of the voice of the people had the power to quell (at least in this case) the opposing voice of the kingmen.
What can we learn of how the voice of the people operated? Of course we are not told nearly as much as we would like, but there are some observations that can be made from the information that is present. The first point is that the voice of the people was not only a representation of a statistical community voice, it required the assemblage of the people to invoke the voice of the people. When Ammon and king Limhi discuss the plans for escape, they specifically "did cause that all the people should gather themselves together; and this that they might have the voice of the people concerning the matter" (Mosiah 22:1). When it was impractical to physically gather the people together, it was apparently important to take the question to the people. This approach reaffirms the communal nature of the voice of the people. When possible, they would gather to take the community "voice," and when that was not possible, the "voice" of the entire community was still sought, presumably through representatives of the kin groups, as Sorenson has suggested (see Mosiah 29:1 where Mosiah sends "throughout all the land" to get the voice of the people concerning the next king, and Alma 27:21 where the chief judge sends a proclamation "throughout all the land" to obtain the voice of the people on the fate of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi).
In one case, we have a little more information as to how the "voice of the people" might actually function to create a decision:
3 Now this was alarming to the people of the church, and also to all those who had not been drawn away after the persuasions of Amlici; for they knew that according to their law that such things must be established by the voice of the people.
4 Therefore, if it were possible that Amlici should gain the voice of the people, he, being a wicked man, would deprive them of their rights and privileges of the church; for it was his intent to destroy the church of God.
5 And it came to pass that the people assembled themselves together throughout all the land, every man according to his mind, whether it were for or against Amlici, in separate bodies, having much dispute and wonderful contentions one with another.
6 And thus they did assemble themselves together to cast in their voices concerning the matter; and they were laid before the judges.
7 And it came to pass that the voice of the people came against Amlici, that he was not made king over the people. (Alma 2:3-7).
These verses are the best example we have of how the process might have worked. The first important facet of the "voice of the people" was the assembling into bodies, as has already been noted. We may suppose that this occurs severally across the land, and that there were multiple bodies in multiple locations. The population of the land was too large to allow for a single assembly split into two. Based on the principles we have previously discussed, these separate divisions would occur at the village/town/hamlet level, and perhaps even along kin-compound lines. These are the main independent bodies that reappear throughout the Book of Mormon.
Once gathered together into a body, the two opposing bodies had "much dispute and wonderful contentions on with another." While it is possible that this division into bodies is figurative, and that the debates were individual rather than communal, it is more likely that we should take this verse literally, and presume the debates to be collective. The "voice of the people" appears to be quite literally tied to the people in a group rather than a euphemism for ballot-casting. This grouping into bodies would create a situation where there were rather vocal and "wonderful" shouting matches between the two groups, with perhaps a physical movement of people from one group to another as they might be persuaded by the arguments. As one group attained the majority, the collective "voice" would be manifest in their increasing numbers as opposed to the decreasing numbers of the opponents, and therefore the "vote" was determined for that village/town/hamlet.
Of course this is speculative based upon the evidence, but the details fit the descriptions given. It is also quite probable that in some cases, the contentious nature of assembling the voice of the people could have been absent. When a king was seated who already had the weight of lineage upon his selection, it is most probable that the voice of the people was a fairly quick and uneventful process. We see the process best, however, in cases where it was tested. In all cases, however, the process that is called "the voice of the people" appears very different from modern voting.