Are (Religious) Judaism and Democracy Reconcilable?

[curlyg]

I was recently listening to a Podcast of Hakira Negdit, the legal radio program from Galei Zahal, and one interesting topic came up.

It was basically about the attitudes of younger Israelis (15-20 or something) towards Israeli Arabs, democracy, etc. and the claim was being made that those children who had gone through the Religious (Zionist) school system did not consider democratic values to be particularly important, and viewed Judaism as an alternative to democracy rather than something which can coexist with it.

We've had a similar discussion before, on what it means to be a "Jewish and democratic state." That discussion, however, presupposed that Judaism and democracy are actually reconcilable. We've had the argument put to us by Kahane and co. in the past that the two are incompatible, but that was an argument made from a Zionist perspective ("would you allow the Jewish state to be voted out of existence?") rather than a religious one ("can Rabbinic authority and the precepts of the Torah be reconciled with a liberal democratic system of government?").

Thoughts?

[Aliyah1995]

First, let us start with what exactly "democracy" is and take it from there:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Democracy

Democracy is a form of government under which the power to alter the laws and structures of government lies, ultimately, with the citizenry. Under such a system, legislative decisions are made by the people themselves or by representatives who act through the consent of the people, as enforced by elections and the rule of law.

In practical effect, this definition generally comes with qualifications and limitations. In most modern democratic nations, for example, the set of citizens who can exercise these powers through voting are restricted to those who are 18 years of age or older. A further qualification is that, realistically, in elections, decisions are not made by the whole of "the people", but rather by most of the people who actually participate.

The term "democracy"—or more precisely, the original (ancient Greek) version of the word—was coined and the system of citizen rule invented thousands of years ago; however, this article deals with democracy in its modern sense.

Please note: due to 10,000 word limit I only quoted the first few paragraphs of the relevant link.

First we all need to agree on what democracy is (which can be a thread in and of itself) and then we can move on to whether it is compatible with religious Judaism or not.

[bararallu]

There are different forms of democracy and there are different kinds of Judaism. Can some, most, overlap? I think so. Will they all? Of course not.

You can also argue that there is no true democracy in the world since it is always "representative" in some fashion; all the way from mild election of sheriffs/judges in small towns to the dictatorship of the proletariat that fascism/communism side of socialism is based on and advocates.

Aside from "true representation," which may be a non starter of a debate, the wider issue is balance of power within a sovereignty IMO.

Within Jewish history there are many models for both homegrown democratic like institution more or less secular and there are even more provisions toward a "balance of pawer" between governing institutions.

Many of these religious zionist students, are reacting towards the corruption in our current system, since they strive for idealism (= practically and religiously correcting the ills of the world via doing mitzvot) . They may also be reacting to the states placating minorities that are cancerous to the body politic. Many of whom we've discussed. They may indeed believe in a more authentic (from a Jewish history institutional perspective) democracy in the land of Israel but are unhappy with current system as it is.

[curlyg]

I don't mean democracy in some minimalist sense, as in "government of the people." I am talking about the Western model - liberal representative democracy, which as well as being government by/of/for the people through their representatives also enshrines certain liberal principles as fundamental rights e.g. freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and so on.

It seems to me that neither the representative nor "liberal" aspects of this kind of democracy are easily reconcilable with the kind of religious (Orthodox) Judaism one finds in Israel. The problem, I think, is this: For a believer, religious Judaism is of God, and Democracy is but a man-made system. The two are not equal. Judaism is necessarily supreme, and where there is a clash between the two, Democracy must give way. Even a religious Jew who supports a democratic system of government would have to concede this. But there are also a large number which are simply apathetic or opposed to a democratic system, e.g. Haredim and Haredi-style Religious Zionist Rabbis which would be quite happy to see a theocratic Halachic state.

And this is a sharp contrast with my own views, since I view Israel as fundamentally a democratic state with a Jewish national character, where some degree of give and take between Democracy and Judaism is acceptable - but where the competing demands of the two need to be balanced, rather than one being absolutely supreme and the other subordinate.

[bararallu]

The Western model is pretty wide ranging from my perspective. Freedom of speech varies greatly between say the UK and the US, as does freedom of religion between say Canada and France. There may be cases where a dictatorship (e.g., China) may have more proximity on some issue to a given democracy than any two democracies I'd wager. Here is one: privacy. Hot issue that is very wide ranging and will not make for a linear bell curve correlating degree to type of governance.

Those are also different things (= natural law derived "rights") as opposed to one man one vote for instance, which is plain democracy.

Also I think you are pidgeon-holing a great variety of Orthodox Jews in Israel into one simplistic [and may I add pessimistic] position. There are Orthodox in even the Labor party.

In the centuries past there was a measure of absolute "democracy" in traditional (read, Orthodox) Jewish communities. A parnas would often be elected, sometimes via the Rabanut and sometimes with actual lay votes in kehilot (Seldom counting women though). The Hasmonean Senhedrin was also essentially elected and not born into (albeit there were some of those too, as Kohanim, Leviim and the odd blue blood). It was elected by elites for elites, but still not unimaginably different than the House of commons + House of Lords in the UK in principle.

Jewish jurisprudence per se is merit derived. This is important since the time of Judges, from which our pre-rabinic institutions evolved in a careful balance of power: the Kingdom balanced by Temple Priests, in turn was balanced by Prophets/field priests. Major swaths of people were as such "represented" and a good deal of (anachronistically of course) "natural law" was thereby practiced. Save again regarding woman's suffrage, being a sad consequence of some very backward old semitic pastoral motifs (ala Araby).

Notwithstanding, I agree with your primary views on what Israel is or ought to be at least. The issue there, however, is that we as a somewhat haphazardly unified nation never quite teased out what is "Jewish" from what is [religious] "Judaic," for lack of a better word. Achad Haam started the process to some extent but his brand of Zionism was thrown out the window by the garden variety of "give me a state where Jews are cops and prostitutes." Well, we have such a state, one that further made a Faustian deal with the anti Zionist Ultra Orthodox some 50 years back- that invariably poisoned it's own tradition by creating such a bloody divide between believer and nonbeliever [something I'd again level against the Left ]. If this is our version of the cultural revolution, I feel sad for the Chinese.

[curlyg]

The Western model is pretty wide ranging from my perspective. Freedom of speech varies greatly between say the UK and the US, as does freedom of religion between say Canada and France. There may be cases where a dictatorship (e.g., China) may have more proximity on some issue to a given democracy than any two democracies I'd wager. Here is one: privacy. Hot issue that is very wide ranging and will not make for a linear bell curve correlating degree to type of governance.

Those are also different things (= natural law derived "rights") as opposed to one man one vote for instance, which is plain democracy.

Sure, and I'm not suggesting that there is agreement on what does or doesn't constitute a "right", and what each right entails. Privacy is indeed a good example - I'm not so sure such a right exists (or should exist) or what it means in practice. This whole business seems logically indefensible to me, but they are useful fictions when it comes to limiting government power. I would be quite content to do away with rights-speak, given the extraordinary rate at which our "rights" are exponentially multiplying, but only if these could be replaced by absolute constitutional principles founded in good policy that limit government power. That's a can of worms which I haven't the patience to open, so for now I'll stick to "rights."

As to what exactly these rights entail, I agree there is some difference as to application. But let me give you an example RE free speech. In any democracy I can freely say that I do not believe in God, or do not believe that the Torah is divine, and face no legal sanction. Is that a position that is reconcilable with religious Judaism at law? In a democracy I can freely advocate law reform in a direction that is contrary to the current law - could I freely speak against the Halacha and call for reform by legislation? Could I freely publish a scientific paper which contradicts the literal Torahnic account of creation or the functioning of the universe? It seems to me that free speech may not be so free once it is subject to the absolute authority of the Torah.

But I think the problem here runs much deeper. I think that, generally, in liberal states, governments tend to allow their populations to do as they please, and legislate to minimize harm. (This, by the way, is in my view antithetical to the legal philosophy introduced by Barak which begins with the assumption that 'the world is filled with law' and there is no matter on which the law is silent). Can religious Judaism accommodate this worldview? Can I be free to desecrate Shabat? Can I choose to eat non-Kosher food? Can I decide to have premarital sex or even just physical contact with the opposite sex? Can I listen to a woman singing, or watch a dance show in the theater? The problem is that religious Judaism would regard my doing these things as harmful not only to myself but also to all the Jewish people. It is a worldview which necessarily will place more restrictions on individual autonomy than in other liberal democracies.

And all of this is exacerbated by the fact that Halacha forms a highly inflexible legal system if one adopts an Orthodox, or certainly Haredi, approach to Psika whereby one cannot easily circumvent old authorities to modernise the law, especially when many old authorities are in agreement over some point of law. It's worth contrasting this with the current law of Israel which is common law + remnants of Ottoman law + the legislation of the Knesset which can relatively easily be updated and adapted to new realities.

Also I think you are pidgeon-holing a great variety of Orthodox Jews in Israel into one simplistic [and may I add pessimistic] position. There are Orthodox in even the Labor party.

You're right. But I think it is fair of me to say that the overwhelming majority of Orthodox Jews are not members of the Labour party. I also think it would be fair of me to say that Haredi Judaism has become immensely influential in all branches of Orthodox Judaism and there is a general trend towards attempting to conform with their standards among many (if not most) National Religious Rabbis.

In the centuries past there was a measure of absolute "democracy" in traditional (read, Orthodox) Jewish communities. A parnas would often be elected, sometimes via the Rabanut and sometimes with actual lay votes in kehilot (Seldom counting women though). The Hasmonean Senhedrin was also essentially elected and not born into (albeit there were some of those too, as Kohanim, Leviim and the odd blue blood). It was elected by elites for elites, but still not unimaginably different than the House of commons + House of Lords in the UK in principle.

Jewish jurisprudence per se is merit derived. This is important since the time of Judges, from which our pre-rabinic institutions evolved in a careful balance of power: the Kingdom balanced by Temple Priests, in turn was balanced by Prophets/field priests. Major swaths of people were as such "represented" and a good deal of (anachronistically of course) "natural law" was thereby practiced. Save again regarding woman's suffrage, being a sad consequence of some very backward old semitic pastoral motifs (ala Araby).

I have to wonder if even these few examples have any continuing impact upon religious Jewish political thought today. I doubt that we will see the replacement of Rabbinic Judaism in the foreseeable future. And I do not think that any political system based upon Rabbinic Judaism will easily concede that every man and woman have a right to vote irrespective of religion or race, or even level of learning. The only somewhat democratic system I can imagine would be a democratically elected "lower house" and a Rabbinic "upper house" like in Iran, but that thought is not encouraging.

[Kachah]

Every democracy invariably declares separation of the church from the state. Even Turkey is desperately trying to achieve this albeit to not much avail. This separation is what makes it reconcilable with any religion or ideology which accepts the separation postulate. Otherwise there would be no democracy by the definition from Aliyah's post as the powers of citizenry are ideologically limited or channelled.

[curlyg]

Every democracy invariably declares separation of the church from the state. Even Turkey is desperately trying to achieve this albeit to not much avail. This separation is what makes it reconcilable with any religion or ideology which accepts the separation postulate. Otherwise there would be no democracy by the definition from Aliyah's post as the powers of citizenry are ideologically limited or channelled.

That in itself is problematic. By what authority do we declare that God has sovereignty only over the private sphere and not over the public sphere? Why should a religious Jew, who views the Torah as the God-given ultimate authority on every aspect of living our lives, agree to limit its application simply because some man-made political system requires it? The fault is in the man-made system, not in the Torah. Our pre-diasporic institutions derived their legitimacy in large part from the fact that they were religious institutions, or at least divinely ordained institutions - the separation of religion and state seems to me to be quite alien to Judaism.

[wat0n]

Every democracy invariably declares separation of the church from the state. Even Turkey is desperately trying to achieve this albeit to not much avail. This separation is what makes it reconcilable with any religion or ideology which accepts the separation postulate. Otherwise there would be no democracy by the definition from Aliyah's post as the powers of citizenry are ideologically limited or channelled.

I don't know, I agree that there should be separation of church and state, but for example, what about countries that take a middle road by having a state sponsored church? Could the Chief Rabbinate of Israel be seen as a sort of a state sponsored church?

I still believe that a Jewish theocracy is not compatible with democracy though.

[Mediocrates]

I believe young people are inculcated to forswear democratic values generally. Religious or not, leftism has morphed into soft totalitarianism or nanny-state-ism. The fact that they are a minority only reinforces their view that they are right and must succeed at all costs.

[bararallu]

That in itself is problematic. By what authority do we declare that God has sovereignty only over the private sphere and not over the public sphere?

Ha... this is very ironic given the foundations of Judaism itself... given Shmuels condemnation of popular dictatorship that the people asked for. In electing Kings, we elect idols. God was an easy abstraction that ruled, but did not rule directly. Of course the blue bloods found a way to coopt that, but the impetus was to get away from a political pyramid scheme, and to have a flat tribal governance, retaining a learned clan of people for advice, as much as possible.

[curlyg]

Ha... this is very ironic given the foundations of Judaism itself... given Shmuels condemnation of popular dictatorship that the people asked for. In electing Kings, we elect idols. God was an easy abstraction that ruled, but did not rule directly. Of course the blue bloods found a way to coopt that, but the impetus was to get away from a political pyramid scheme, and to have a flat tribal governance, retaining a learned clan of people for advice, as much as possible.

I think that argument is a little too nuanced, I doubt that most Rabbis would agree with this interpretation.

[bararallu]

I think I have yet to be called worse than nuanced.

[Mediocrates]

What kind of democracy are you talking about? Plato thought democracy was almost the lowest form of government. He advocated an aristocracy where people fit to rule, ruled. When the Constitution was ratified maybe 15-20% of the population was eligible to vote. Through most of Victorian England, the same ratio applied.