How does judaism support the ideals of democracy

Such freedom is like the freedom of states in international relations; it is anarchy, not order, while democracy implicitly and explicitly reflects the existence of order. This short article cannot do justice to the problem of pluralism within Judaism. It is accepted that there is one Torah binding on all Jews, and a clear halakhic tradition growing out of the Torah.

Still, at the very least, regional and local differences in customary observance are recognized as legitimate -- some even say binding. Moreover, since the middle ages, it has been difficult to overrule local rabbinical courts on any halakhic matter.

In civil matters which are equally within the province of the Torah and its halakhah in traditional Judaism, there is even greater latitude. Suffice it to say that Jewish tradition recognizes that within the four ells of Torah there is considerable room.

Moreover, any honest look at Jewish constitutional history clearly reveals that the interpretation of Torah itself has changed greatly from epoch to epoch. In other words, there have been a series of reconstitutions, the very fact of whose existence suggests the possibility of a real degree of pluralism in such matters.

My colleague, Professor Stuart Cohen, and I have traced these reconstitutions in considerable detail in our recent book, The Jewish Polity. Contemporary Orthodoxy, with its effort to develop a monolithic approach to halakhic and religious matters, is just as erroneous as contemporary liberal Judaism which claims that there is no legitimate authority in Jewish life, that any Jew can do whatever he or she wants to in matters halakhic and religious.

In fact, even the most monistic Orthodox recognize a certain pluralism within halakhah. Whatever the fights among their members and partisans, the legitimacy of all is more or less mutually recognized. In sum, Judaism accepts a degree of pluralism for Jews within the framework of Torah but not outside of it.

With regard to democracy and pluralism, then, the relationship between Judaism and democracy is a qualified positive. When it comes to democracy as self-government, the relationship is very positive indeed. The classic Jewish political tradition of the Bible makes it clear that sovereignty is God's but that day-to-day governance is in the hands of the people within the framework of the Divine constitution.

God and the people established an initial relationship through covenant, and God played the major role in setting forth the constitution, especially the religious and moral constitution of the people. In political matters, the Torah makes it clear that there is no single preferred regime not even the Davidic monarchy which later came to be preferred by many, especially after it no longer existed , and that it is up to the people to establish appropriate political systems which must meet the appropriate moral, social, and religious requirements.

Thus an acceptable political system must be just and pursue justice; it must provide for the care of the less fortunate the Biblical "widows and orphans" ; and it must maintain the religious constitution of the Jewish people, however interpreted by the judges of the time.

It must also be republican, rooted in popular consent and involving the people in governance. Let me reiterate: there is no doubt about the republican character of the classic Jewish polity, nor has there been throughout Jewish history. The particular character of Jewish republicanism had a certain aristrocratic tinge because of the prominent role it gave to notables from leading families, and priests, prophets, and sages who had responsibilities for interpreting the Torah, all of whom had to share power in some way.

This led to the frequent appearance of oligarchic rule in the ancient Jewish polity and in diaspora Jewish communities, as degenerated forms of aristocratic republicanism, but in every case the regime remained republican. According to the Torah and halakhically, it must be constituted by all of the people, including women and children, and it may be changed by the people.

Whatever the problematics of counting women in a minyan for prayer, the Bible makes it clear that they were required to be present and counted at the great constitutional ceremonies establishing the edah the Jewish polity its covenants, and its subsidiary kehillot.

In all of Jewish history, with the possible exception of small shuls here and there, there are no cases of autocracy, of one-man rule, certainly none beyond the arena of the local community. The one possible exception was Herod, who was imposed upon us by the Romans. He was given power through nominally legitimate processes and then usurped that power to eliminate the other instruments which shared power with the king within the constitution.

This leads to the other dimension of Jewish republicanism, namely, that in the traditional constitution and throughout Jewish history power has always been divided among three domains, known in traditional Hebrew as ketarim crowns : that of Torah, responsible for communicating God's word to the people and interpreting the Torah as constitution to them; Kehunah priesthood , responsible for being a conduit from the people to God; and Malkhut, which may be best translated as civil rule, responsible for the day-to-day business of civil governance in the edah.

While there have been struggles for power among these ketarim and times in which one was stronger than the other, all three, and particularly Torah and Malkhut, have always been actively present in the governance of every Jewish polity from the local arena to the people as a whole. The relationship between Judaism and democracy has to be judged whole, not just in connection with specific religious laws, and it must be judged in light of this classical and continuing division of powers.

Thus when it comes to the popular constitution of the polity, the responsibility of the governors to govern, and a proper separation and distribution of powers among the governors -- the three great criteria for democracy -- Judaism passes every test.

The proof of the pudding is that in Western civilization the Bible is considered the foundation of democratic republicanism and has been so treated by democratic reformers throughout the history of the Western world.

The strong biblical base of American democracy, which grew out of the Protestant Reformation in Europe and which remains vital today is a case in point. Karelitz is able to forbid a universal draft because for him the Law is the means of control that only the Great Rabbi is authorized to apply. But for R. Orthodox rabbis who disapprove of democracy shift the locus of Torah authority from the plain sense reading of the canonical text to the inspired charisma of their own canonical persons.

Alternatively, Orthodox rabbis who approve of democracy believe that the Torah library is readable, and that rabbinic leaders may be held to account for their decisions. When Eldad and Medad were prophesying in the camp without an official commission, Joshua begs Moses to arrest them. Learning this lesson very well, Joshua is willing—and able—to publicly contradict the ten spies who lacked the faith and courage to take God at His word, that Israel is capable of conquering Canaan.

Put in contemporary terms, when scandals like sexual abuse arise in the Orthodox community, some have an instinct to protect Orthodox institutions, franchises, and leadership, so as not to embarrass its supposedly infallible elite. Democratic Orthodoxy challenges its adherents to become moral agents; anti-democratic Orthodoxy infantilizes its affiliates by demanding social compliance and conformity to whatever folkways its rabbinic elite believes will generate a shared communal sense of sectarian otherness.

Since democratic Orthodoxy empowers its Jewry with God -given rights, it is the right course for contemporary Orthodoxy to take, because the rights that God gives no one may take away. Learn more about the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals and our valuable work.

Skip to main content. Is Judaism Compatible with Democracy? He and his wife now live in Jerusalem, where he is a lecturer at Torat Reeva. This article appears in issue 35 of Conversations, the journal of the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals. Hence, the two systems cannot be merged. Before we perform an act, we require a heter , a release, permission, and dispensation of a Rav , a duly recognized Orthodox rabbi, because we dare not defy the Divine will, even inadvertently.

But God does not act as a tyrant. The wisdom of this law is manifest in its transparency. Prophets and visionaries who claim that God commanded anything else to Israel commit a capital offense Deut. This Divine law has a human component; after all, it is written in understandable human language Midrash Sekhel Tov, Bereshith , VaYetsei , whose plain sense meaning is accessible to the Israelite public b Shabbat 63a , which is authorized to hold its leaders to account Ruth Rabba , thus outlawing tyranny.

There are some rules, specifically the Torah commandments and those ancient Laws that were given from the moment not just the place of Sinai, that are not subject to change or dispute. Michael Walzer. Ruth Wisse. Beth Wenger. Did we invent democracy? This implies a recognition of human interpretation—not law-making, because God is the only lawmaker. There is also the fact that the prophets speak in the streets to ordinary men and women.

The moment they leave the court of the king and come into the streets of the city is a democratizing moment. Over time in the exilic communities, we opened paths toward democratic decision making.

There were assemblies of the male members, and they voted for representatives to the Council of the Four Lands in Poland and Lithuania from the 16th to the 18th centuries. Representatives were chosen in the local areas and sent to a central meeting twice a year. But it was only about five to ten percent of Jews who voted. So we came to democracy slowly. Ben Gurion once said he was prime minister of a country of prime ministers, implying that Jews are hyper-democratic. If democracy encourages governance from below—by the people, of the people and for the people—then the memory of all the Jews standing at Sinai, and later, the practice of all the Jews reading from the Torah would certainly have encouraged a democratic culture.

Democracy is less a Jewish idea than a by-product of the Jewish way of life. The Greeks developed the idea of democracy in thinking about how one governs a polity. Among Jews it began with the sanctity of individual life. They badly needed mature self-governance in order to live as a minority among other nations.

Mitt Romney was only stating the obvious when he said that culture determines the democratic nature of Israel and the difficulty its neighbors have in attaining democracy. The tribal nature of the Jews is sometimes considered an obstacle to democracy. Just the opposite is true: Because Jews do not universalize their religion, they have no trouble co-existing with others. Democracy requires just that balance between self-sufficiency and respectful recognition of others. Jews know from their own difficulties the hard self-discipline that civilization requires.

Ruth Wisse is professor of Yiddish literature and comparative literature at Harvard University and author of Jews and Power. The Jewish tradition carries very powerful democratic genes. Democracy was invented in ancient Greece and then reinvented in Europe in the 18th century, but there is a long-standing Jewish notion of popular civil participation, with numerous voices taking part in political decision-making.

The ancient Israelites are on biblical record as a dazzling multiplicity of voices—both men and women—debating and deciding issues such as what is the best form of government, who is the true sovereign, how should human beings be governed, what are the entitlements of the ruler and the ruled, how to achieve social and economic justice, and what community is all about? The fierce multivocality and the ever-present quest for human equality and social justice were often uniquely Israelite, and later uniquely Jewish, until they found their way to modern Western discourse at large.

In Talmudic times, the democratic instinct of the Jewish people turned from the political to the intellectual. In the Bible, many simple people were able to make their voices heard. In the Talmud, that same instinct is seen in the way that large numbers of rabbis and scholars debate each other.

The Jewish community has always left a window open for disagreement—intellectual and rabbinical, but also on matters of community and society. There is an ongoing tradition of openness—albeit not always and not everywhere—to a plurality of opinions. Modern-style pluralism came slowly and gradually, and modern-style democracy needed other sources than the Jewish scriptures.

In modern Israel today, anyone pretending that Judaism and democracy are incompatible traditions and that Israeli society must decide between the two is showing a certain measure of historical ignorance. When, in the 17th century, republican governments were established in the Netherlands and, briefly, in Britain, Protestant scholars of Hebrew sought to use the Jewish Bible and some rabbinic texts to lend extra theological support to these polities.

I am skeptical, though, of claims made by some historians that republican thought in this period was inspired by Jewish sources. British and Dutch political thinkers generally had a clear idea of what they were looking for in Jewish sources, and were able to interpret these texts to make sure they found it. For Kant and others this aspect of Judaism was deeply inimical to individually autonomous thought and judgment, which was and still is widely regarded as essential to the successful functioning of a democracy.

The claim that the key ideas of Western political discourse are somehow proprietorially Jewish seems often to derive from a desire to associate Jews and Judaism with Euro-American values, in contrast to those imputed to the Islamic world.

Democracy has two essential parts: majority rule and the equal treatment of free citizens. Judaism never historically had much to say on the former, but it has a lot to say about the latter.

Yet some modern ideals of equal treatment for all and the equal dignity of human beings can be said to have important biblical and rabbinic roots. The creation of Israel with its aspiration to be a Jewish and a democratic state opens the possibility for a distinctively Jewish democracy and for a form of Judaism that is more closely connected to democratic values.

For democracy to be Jewish, or for a state to be Jewish and democratic, requires treating all citizens—regardless of ethnicity, religion, or sex—as fully equal participants in that state, and respecting not only their legal right to equality, but their moral right to be treated with equality and dignity.

If a Jewish state can satisfy those goals, it can be democratic in the same way that an Islamic state or a Christian state that satisfies those goals can also be democratic.