Q&A: Democracy and Religion
Democracy and Religion
Question
Is it justified to deny voting rights to people—whether they are Haredim, religious Jews, Arabs, or any other group—who openly declare that they do not see democracy as a binding value, and that in their view it should be abolished, that they are not subject to it, or that they believe it leads to moral or national ruin?
In other words, should a democracy defend itself against citizens who publicly declare that they will act to abolish it?
Answer
I do not think it is justified to deny a person or a group the right to vote because of their views. But I have not heard anyone proposing to do that. Denying voting rights to someone who does not enlist is something entirely different, and it is completely justified.
Of course, people can say that if it is decided here to give up democracy, then I’m out of the game and unwilling to live as part of that group. On that argument, there may perhaps be room to deny voting rights to someone who opposes democracy.
Discussion on Answer
Papagio, suggest an alternative solution that will bring equality in the economic and military burden. As long as there is no solution, canceling voting rights (and fines that keep increasing, a daily lottery quota of draft-dodgers where those selected in the lottery are thrown in jail, public leaders who encourage this being forcibly drafted into cleaning work on army bases, and so on) is the bare minimum. Anyone who has a gentler idea that will achieve the goal is absolutely welcome to suggest it gladly. Indeed, it should be done with the greatest possible gentleness that still allows the goal to be reached. But first of all, the goal has to be reached. The current situation is intolerable and completely unacceptable under any circumstances.
What can you do—there are rights that do not derive from or follow from achieving the goal. It is perfectly fine if you do not want to live in a democracy, but you should know that…
In my opinion, this is completely “democracy.” Should we start hair-splitting about the meaning of terms and the meaning of hair-splitting about the meaning of terms? Say concretely what you propose doing. As I understand it, your current proposal to the oppressed public is that it should let the Haredi public (the exploitative, miserable, brazen, despicable one) continue its disgraceful behavior. Fine, then, that proposal is rejected. When you bring another proposal, we’ll consider it.
A wonderful move for a general lecture (but only in a Haredi yeshiva). So just one small homeowner-style remark, if I may.
There are many democratic countries in which prisoners do not have the right to vote. Apparently they have not plumbed the depths of your hair-splitting about first, second, and third order. By the way, the right to freedom precedes the right to vote. So apparently it is also forbidden to throw criminals in prison.
Friends, you are simply mistaken!
A. The fact that there is currently no solution does not permit denying voting rights. In my view, there is no problem in deciding either that the Haredim are part of the state and bear its obligations, or that an “autonomy” should be opened for them. But as long as they are part of democratic society, there is no right to deny them the vote.
Voting rights are a fundamental democratic right! And that is because the purpose of democracy is to enable decisions without violence (Thomas Hobbes), and therefore voting (and also demonstrating) is a basic right—it is democracy, the decision-making method itself!
B. The reason criminals are thrown into prison is because they deny freedom to others, so it is mistaken to think that their own right to freedom is being denied…
What about Arabs who are exempt from military service? Should their right to vote also be denied?
Arabs are not supposed to enlist. It would indeed be appropriate to impose national service on them, but even if such an obligation were imposed, it would only be for the sake of the value of equality. There is no danger here to the existence of the state as there is with soldiers. Therefore it is less reasonable to impose severe sanctions. Though there is room to consider that too under certain circumstances.
Come on, really. Arabs are not obligated to enlist only because the state is wary of them, whereas the Haredim are seen as part of the state. If so, then all the more so the Arabs should not receive benefits, since they are not part of the state…
Michi,
Why are Arabs not supposed to enlist?
That is essentialism and racism. They are Israelis exactly like you.
I would be glad
for an explanation of what determines who gets to decide about the state in a democracy—like, why does draft evasion, which from their point of view is reasonable and logical, make it possible not to take their opinion into account?
The right to vote is a first-order right in a democracy—there is no legal definition of “democracy” that does not include voting rights for citizens! By contrast, the duty to enlist is at most a second-order duty.
At most, one could discuss whether someone who does not enlist is not a citizen. But from that it would follow that he is not obligated to pay taxes, and that he may not use public state spaces. But either way, that is a different claim…