On Anarchism: The Limits of Democracy

The rabbi’s opening post

On Anarchism: The Limits of Democracy

Posted on 4/2/2008

| |

On Anarchism: The Limits of Democracy

My feeling these days is that the institutions of government are crossing red lines far too crudely, and that we are approaching the point at which it would be justified to rebel by force (=to roll tanks up to the Knesset) and send them packing.

This feeling has led me to feel the need to clarify where and when, if at all, such a thing is in fact justified: morally, legally, and according to halakhah.

As background, I recently read a biography of Stalin (and I am not comparing the cases), and my grim impression was that this is an astonishing phenomenon. A huge state (=the Soviet Union), with nearly two hundred million inhabitants, lives in fear and terror and is ruled by one single man who does with it as he pleases, slaughtering tens of millions without any fear and with no one to hinder him. There is not even one person in this vast country who does not want to murder him and throw him out, yet they are powerless. Not for nothing did he murder members of his own family, those close to him, and so forth. Beyond the paranoia he had, there were real grounds for concern there. He did not have a single ally in the entire Soviet Union, and yet he died at a ripe old age in his bed (apart from speculations about a conspiracy that killed him), having ruled there for several good decades.

How is such a thing possible? How could two hundred million people, with a mighty army, do nothing against one man who abused them and murdered them by the millions over the course of decades?

The answer is that the state establishment is what creates this. The legal system suppresses the possibility (and also the legitimacy) of rising up against the ruler, and therefore one does not need a dictatorship in order to exercise one-man rule over the public. This can happen, and indeed does happen, even in a democracy.

Returning to our own situation, there is a government here that was lawfully elected in democratic elections. But a government is the public’s representative, and receives its legitimacy from the public. It is true that the public granted it authority and elected it lawfully, but at present there is a situation in which an overwhelming majority of the public has had enough of it (and of all the alternatives as well) and demands that it go. In other words, at present it does not represent us. The prime minister says proudly and openly, before our astonished eyes and into every microphone held out to him, that he ‘doesn’t give a damn about us.’ He does not hint at this, nor is this an interpretation of his words. He says it in a clear and ringing voice. He does not appoint a commission of inquiry into his terrible blunder, which cost hundreds of needless casualties, and says that even the commission that he himself appointed will change nothing for him (even before he has read its conclusions). In effect, then, he is telling us from every platform: I am relieving myself on your heads, and I will go on doing so, and there is nothing you can do against me. The law is on my side, as are the army and the other law-enforcement institutions, and if anyone does anything, they will be deployed against him on my orders. His friend Barak joins him as well, doing the same on our heads in the neighboring stall.

My question is: when is the boundary reached that justifies storming the Knesset and the government by force, and a violent rebellion that would send them packing? Must we go along with every war into which they lead us? And if not, then what is the difference between war and paying taxes or serving in reserve duty? The sense is that such a thing is dangerous and liable to destroy the government and the state altogether, and that indeed the law is on their side. But is the law the whole story? The law was on Stalin’s side as well (and I am not comparing the cases, of course).

There are also other possibilities of civil disobedience, such as: refusal to pay taxes, refusal to perform reserve duty, refusal to vote, and the like. The current situation seems impossible to change, because, absurdly enough, the alternatives to him cooperate with him (no one will be willing to encourage such resistance, or to deprive him of legitimacy, since this could happen to them as well), for they too are not much better than he is. Nor do they allow any fresh political force that does not come from within to participate in the democratic game in any genuine way.

I cannot refrain from raising a third possibility, which I think I have already raised once on the forum, and it creates the possibility of throwing them all out by democratic means. What happens today is that if a new party arises, it has no chance of contending with the existing ones, because naturally such a party will also have a political worldview, and anyone who does not support it will not vote for it (not to mention that all the existing parties will fight against it).

Therefore, a shadow Knesset should be built, divided more or less according to the distribution of views in the public. After the public becomes familiar with it and aware of the people sitting in it, it should run in the elections as a single party. Those who should be called upon to vote for this party are not those who agree with its views, for it has none, but those who have had enough of all the parties, regardless of their positions (roughly 100% of the public). The basis is to persuade the public that it is more important to throw them out than to advance one political agenda or another. On this matter there is a very broad public consensus, and there is no reason everyone would not vote for such a party (of course, the question is how to persuade everyone of the sincerity of its intentions and its capabilities. But compared with the existing situation, it seems to me that things can hardly deteriorate further). After it is elected, the entire Knesset will be replaced, a new ethical code will be established, and a renewed political struggle over the substantive positions themselves will begin. What happens today is that the public fears the alternatives, and therefore continues to vote for the gangs that currently rule (=the parties), because it prefers its political agenda to cleaning out the stables. This agenda costs us dearly, and in my view the long term should be preferred, even at the price of giving up directions and policies that we prefer. That concludes the political aside.

My question to the readers is whether there is a situation in which it is justified to rebel by force against a government that was lawfully elected. And note well: I am not dealing with a situation in which it is committing acts that are patently immoral (such as the Nazi regime or Stalin). There it is fairly clear that rebellion is justified. I am asking about a situation in which it is clear that it does not represent the public, but rather takes control of it by force for the coming years (and beyond) in order to do with it as it pleases. Do such circumstances also justify rebellion by force? I would be glad if we did not slide into vilification of the government and its members (I truly have much more in my arsenal), or into political worldviews, but rather discuss the principled question. As stated, from the three perspectives I mentioned above: the halakhic, the moral, and the legal.

Source (Atzor Kan Choshvim forum): http://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=2355770