Kay P. Edwards describes the most common reading of this verse:
“…King Mosiah proposed to his people the idea that their welfare might be better assured by making a major change in their government structure – from a kingship to a form of democracy. He suggested that this new governmental system be implemented by placing judges chosen by the people at the head of the government…” (Edwards, Kay P. “The Kingdom of God and the Kingdoms of Men.” In: Studies in Scripture, 1 Nephi to Alma 29. Deseret Book Company, 1987, p. 277).
It is very tempting to equate this passage with an endorsement of democracy, as does Edwards. Without question the principle applies to democratic societies, but this may not be the best explanation for what was happening in Mosiah’s society. First, Mosiah appears to formalize what was already a mechanism in his kingdom. While he clearly had consulted the “voice of the people” from time to time, this was now elevated to a level that he seems to equate with law – that they “do…business by the voice of the people.”
Secondly, although Mosiah declares that they are to do their business by the voice of the people, we seldom see this principle in operation in the government of the Nephites. There are no mass elections, no referenda. What we have are judges who judge. The rule of one person (the king) has been distributed to multiple people (the judges) but the people do not actually enter in to the equation in the dispensing of justice. For Mosiah, the contrast will be between the rule by one person and the rule by several (the judges). While the judges seldom appear to consult the “voice of the people” they nevertheless represent that principle because there are more than one, and their decisions may be benefited by their multiple perspectives. More discussion of how this mechanism would have worked will follow below.
If the people of Mosiah do not take votes, in what way does the voice of the people function? The clue is in the particular emphasis that Mosiah uses when he introduces this principle. Notice that the voice of the people is intricately bound with right and wrong. Mosiah is suggesting that the voice of the people will tend to good, while understanding that some individuals will choose the wrong thing.
In the context of Mosiah’s ancient world, we must also remember the nature of the king. The king was good because he was the conduit to the will of God. With the removal of the king, Mosiah was suggesting that the direct governing influence of God would be cut. If the king were no longer present to receive the will of God for the governing of the people, how would they know what was “right?” Mosiah’s answer is that the measuring stick would now be the voice of the people rather than the voice of the king (as mouthpiece for God).
Mosiah appears to formalize what was already a mechanism in his kingdom. While he clearly had consulted the “voice of the people” from time to time, this was now elevated to a level that he seems to equate with law – that they “do…business by the voice of the people.”
In the context of the renunciation of kingship, Mosiah’s suggestion about the voice of the people is not that they have a democracy, but that the judges would use the voice of the people as their measuring stick for right or wrong. He is not concerned with whether or not the people vote, but that they become the way in which judgments could be made on issues that were not necessarily clear by law. The voice of the people would become the substitute for the voice of the God through the king.
Of course this does not mean that the voice of God would not come to the religious leader, but Mosiah has already severed the direct linkage between church and state with the creation of the church and the installment of Alma the Elder as the leader of the church. There is a cascading series of events that are culminating in this major shift in Nephite culture. The separation of powers through the creation of the church has led to other separations, and in the end and dictated the nature of the shift from king to judges.