With all the talk about democracy vs Islamic rule in Tunisia and Egypt, I was wondering how very different our own religion was.... If our very religious extremists had their way, would Israel be a democracy? How can we reconcile the modern ideal of democracy with the (seemingly) clear preference in our own texts for autocratic rule (monarchy)?
With all the talk about democracy vs Islamic rule in Tunisia and Egypt, I was wondering how very different our own religion was.... If our very religious extremists had their way, would Israel be a democracy? How can we reconcile the modern ideal of democracy with the (seemingly) clear preference in our own texts for autocratic rule (monarchy)?
Apart from the questioner’s observation about the polarity of democracy versus Islamic rule, which is not a question to be answered from a standpoint of expertise in Judaism, the question divides into two parts: (1) the threat of religious extremism to Jewish and humane values; and (2) the political ideals of Judaism: monarchical or democratic?
(1) The questioner correctly sees a threat in Jewish religious extremism. This threat is more damaging to the interests of the Jewish people as a whole in Israel, where Orthodox Judaism enjoys a privileged, established status, and where the ceaseless hatred of the Jewish state on the part of much of the Arab world has taken some toll on the resiliency and compassion of Israelis; but there are examples of religious extremism in America, as well. The recent scandals involving the kosher slaughter industry in Postville, Iowa, for example, revealed a small group of Hasidic entrepreneurs who demonstrated only contempt for the laws of the democratic American state.
Nonetheless, the extremists in Judaism are a very small percentage of traditional Judaism. In Israel, the “national-religious (dati-mamlakhti)” group differs from the “fervently Orthodox (charedi)” group in that the former strives to build up Israeli society by productive work and that its members serve in the Israel Defense Forces or other national service platforms. The large majority of religiously- traditional Jews in Israel fully participate in democratic life, vote in elections, serve in the Knesset, and accept the results of elections.
Moreover, in the Diaspora, there is a long tradition of Judaism reconciling itself to the law of the land. As early as the 3rd century, C.E., the Babylonian Rabbi Samuel enunciated the principle, “dina de-malkhuta dina”, meaning “the law of the land is the law.” This held true even in pre-modern times, and in the past two centuries, with Jews enjoying citizenship in the nation-states of the West, there is an ample development of Jewish political theory that emphasizes the compromises necessary for Jews to live, as Jews, in a pluralistic society.
In Masorti/Conservative Judaism, there is a strong movement today to root out the basic attitudes that permitted the Postville scandal to exist. The “hekhser tzedek” program supplies the kosher certification for meat only when, in addition to the meat itself being correctly slaughtered, the relevant laws regulating employee conditions, as well as the treatment of animals, are scrupulously obeyed.
(2) The ideal Jewish polity was not a monarchy. The Ten Commandments open with God’s self-identification, “I am the LORD your God, Who brought you out from the land of Egypt, the house of slaves.” (Exodus 20:2) The core story of the Jewish religion is the journey from slavery to freedom and from subjugation to a human tyrant to a freely-chosen covenantal relationship with God. The basic theme of the Sinai covenant—the very heart of the Biblical meditation on Israelite history-- presuppose a people willingly obeying God’s laws, not coerced to serve any human tyrant.
The Bible clearly presents God as asking the Israelites if they will enter into a social contract, not forcing them to follow Divine Law. In Exodus 19:8 and 24:3, the Bible portrays the people Israel as assenting to God’s covenant.
Monarchy arose in ancient Israel about two centuries after the settlement of the Israelite tribes in Canaan. It was a defensive measure, occasioned by the threat to the existence of the Israelites posed by the military aggression of the Philistines. (I Samuel 8) But, as presented by the Bible, the Israelite king was not above the law. He was limited in his executive ability by several specific restraints, as well as by the general obligation to adhere to the religious laws undergirding biblical society. As expressed in the Bible:
He [the Israelite king] shall not get himself many horses,
and he shall not bring the people back to Egypt in order
to get many horses, when the LORD has said to you,
“You shall not go back this way again.” And he shall not
get himself many wives, so his heart will not turn away.
And he shall not get himself very much silver and gold.
And it will be, when he sits on his kingdom’s throne, that
he shall write himself a copy of this instruction on a scroll
in front of the Levite priests. And it shall be with him, and
he shall read it all the days of his life… so that his heart
will not be elevated above his brothers, and so he will not
turn from the commandments , right or left… (Deut. 17:16-20)
The monarchy died out with the Babylonian Exile, 2,600 years ago. When Jews returned to Zion, their leaders were priestly. Later on, rabbis served as spiritual mentors of the Jewish community.
In the Middle Ages, many Jewish communities developed democratic institutions of local self-government. Far from being a point of tension with Rabbinic Judaism, this development received the sanction of the leading Rabbis in the West. The reader is urged to consult the basic texts in Louis Finkelstein, Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages, on this point.
In modern times, Judaism has thrived in the democratic milieu of the West. But it needs to be stated that democratic rule alone is insufficient; there also needs to be a commitment on the part of society to respect minority rights, and to create “a wall of separation” between religious and political structures of authority. The First Amendment of the American Bill of Rights has helped to guarantee a society in which Judaism not only flourishes, but also accentuates its own humane potential.
I would recommend that the State of Israel adopt the American standard and allow religion to flourish apart from state support. It would be a momentary economic dislocation, but quite healthy for the Jewish religion in the long run.
In your "(seemingly)" caveat, you'll find the rub. It is quite clear from the Torah (Devarim 17:14) and the Prophets (Samuel 1, 8:7-21) that, in fact, our Jewish texts are not big fans of monarchy. God, recognizing human nature, understands that we Jews also "just want to be like Mike", and, copying the nations of the world, will want to have kings. God, and his prophet Sh'muel, warn us that this comes with terrible risks, including servitude and repressive autocracy, but God allows the Jewish people to walk down the path it chooses here ("God said to Sh'muel, ...for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them", ibid.). History has shown us that this, indeed, has been a poor choice with wicked and immoral kings greatly outnumbering the righteous ones.
The Torah, while teaching eternal lessons for living, is a book of law, and together with the Oral Law/Talmud, forms the foundation for Jewish law, or Halacha. All Jews are commanded to follow Halacha, even kings, so your question is not so much about kings, but about the Halacha's approach to democracy. While books have been written about this (e.g. Tolerance, Dissent and Democracy, ed. Moshe Sokol, Jason Aronson, especially the first two articles ), in short, there is no conflict between Halacha and democracy. While there may be "religious extremists" who would try to impose their views upon others and take away their freedom, this has never been an accepted approach. During our exile and when permitted by the local authorities, Jewish communities were governed by Jewishly elected officials often working in tandem with the local government. Judaism has always recognized the basic tenets of democracy, including the equality of all people created in the "image of God". The Israeli government has always both been supported by and included religious parties spanning the spectrum of Orthodoxy, and while they may vehemently disagree on many issues, no mainstream religious authorities have ever, to my knowledge, tried to overturn the basic tenets of democracy.
Judaism, which predates the political theory of democracy by about 1000 years, is predicated upon the idea of freedom of choice, a hallmark of democracy as well. While all Jews are commanded by the Torah, no one can force another Jew to keep these laws. We do see some "religious extremists" who use fear and illicit power to intimidate other Jews, but these are a small minority who defy the foundational Jewish traditions of civility and tolerance - "The Torah's ways are of pleasantness and of peace" (Proverbs 3:17). In any event, Jews certainly have the right to choose our political leaders, whether in Israel or the Diaspora. In fact, Jewish law mandates that we follow the law of the land in all civil and criminal matters (i.e. if the government disallows Shabbat, we do not abide by such a ruling, but we do abide by all laws governing commerce, crime etc.) even when such laws contradict what the Halacha might say about such matters. In sum, the Islamic world could learn a great deal from Jewish law in trying to blend the ideals of democracy and religious law to create a modern society that stands for liberty and justice for each individual.
As a matter of fact, the Biblical text does not prefer monarchy, but rather acknowledges that, in that time and place, monarchy was the prevailing system of government. If the Israelites wished to be like other nations, and they did, then they needed to install a monarchical system. But the clear preference was for the older system of judgeships. In I Samuel 8, the people ask Samuel to choose a king for them, so that they may be like other nations. Samuel doesn’t want to do this, but God tells him if this is what the people want, then this is what they shall have. But, God says to Samuel, let them know just what they are getting themselves into. So:
10Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the Lord will not answer you in that day.” 19But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.” 21When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. 22The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”
The ancient Israelites can hardly be faulted for not calling for a democratic system of government, for such a thing did not yet exist. Even in later antiquity when Greek civilization brought a notion of democracy to the world, it was not democracy in our modern sense, for only the wealthy landed class could participate. The rest of society was oppressed under this system.
Looking to modern times, the clear preference of the Jewish community was for democracy, and the State of Israel was set up as such, as seen in Israel’s Declaration of Independence:
…..ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.
WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People's Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "Israel"….
This is not to say that we do not have in our midst fundamentalist and fanatic Jews who would want to see the State of Israel become a theocracy, but they are a very small minority, and even they would not want to see a monarchy established, believing the only true Monarch in Israel is God.
Copyright 2020 all rights reserved. Jewish Values Online
N O T I C E
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN ANSWERS PROVIDED HEREIN ARE THOSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL JVO PANEL MEMBERS, AND DO NOT
NECESSARILY REFLECT OR REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE ORTHODOX, CONSERVATIVE OR REFORM MOVEMENTS, RESPECTIVELY.
