Thanks, but that’s exactly what I’m asking about.
The Rabbi writes in the article that democracy means giving expression to the will of the majority, not expressing what is right or true.
But that very assumption is itself unclear—why should we agree that the will of the majority (which may, for example, rest on a majority of fools) is binding?
Why does the consideration of “the will of the majority” override the consideration of “what is right”?
What is so “sacred” about democracy, and is its authority essential in the same way as that of the Talmud?
If I remember correctly, the Rabbi speaks about the excessive importance given to democracy in common postmodern discourse

Because there is also a consideration of “what is right” on the other side: it is right to do what most people want.

Reply to Josh

It’s really not clear to me…
The argument of “the will of the majority” seems completely illogical to me.
Why should I adopt values / decisions / positions just because they have majority support in the public?
If we step outside the arena of the democratic process for a moment—does the fact that most people in the country have adopted a secular lifestyle obligate me to behave like them?
Obviously not.
So if that’s the case—why, in an election process that dramatically affects our day-to-day lives, am I obligated to take the majority opinion into account? Just because there is some concrete-solid basic assumption that says the majority opinion decides? Who said that assumption is beyond challenge?

There are many reasons why democracy, and even more so representative democracy, is preferable:
– it is more flexible
– it allows change by peaceful means.
– it reduces zero-sum situations.
– it is dynamic
– it creates a feedback loop between the rulers and the ruled that subjects the government to the governed.
– it increases social security and thus encourages the freedom of individuals.
– representatives allow more efficient control over governmental institutions that the general public cannot possibly manage.

The other claims about demagoguery and scare tactics are simply incorrect and forget that a tyrannical regime is much worse

Your objection rests on a baseless assumption, because you frame the question as “why should you adopt it.” But in fact you do not need to adopt it, because you are not the one making the decisions. The public makes the decisions and adopts them. Why should the public adopt what you yourself think?
Granted, if all the fools agreed that they are fools and decided to give you the mandate—fine. But if not, by what right do you impose your opinion on them? At most, you should withdraw from their company, in the spirit of “the clear-minded people of Jerusalem would check who was sitting with them at a meal.”
By the way, that is also true in a religious court (which is where that original saying about the clear-minded people was brought). A judge who is unwilling to be in the minority against his two colleagues (because he thinks he is much wiser) should not sit with them (unless they agree to accept his authority).
In short, as I explained, the majority opinion does not determine things for you. The majority is the criterion for knowing what the public wants. The public determines its own actions. Exactly as you determine your own actions, and you would not accept someone else deciding for you (unless you gave him permission).
I really do not see what needs explaining here. It is as plain as day.

Y.D. (I only now saw what you wrote). Your answers surrender to the baseless assumption behind the question. The underlying assumption is that we are looking for the best solution. In the column, and also in my previous comment here, I explained why that assumption is baseless.

To Josh,
Majority rule is not an objective but a reality. There are few cases in which a minority manages to take over a majority, and even then only with many compromises with the minority.

To the Rabbi,
Democracy was not a self-evident form of government. Other forms of government stood against it, and therefore it was necessary to present the arguments in its favor against other proposals. The argument you gave is not a legal argument but a moral one explaining the basic assumptions underlying the system, but law is derived from the very existence of the state, and therefore it cannot serve as the justification for the state’s form of government.

It is not a legal argument but a moral one. Just as a person ought to determine his own fate, so too the public ought to do so. The question is how one determines what the public wants, and that is what I discussed in the column.

Even under the Messiah son of David, the public ought to determine its own fate?
And what place is there for a prophet?

I do not understand how the Messiah and a prophet got into this. We are dealing with the values of democracy, not with the Torah’s form of government. And by the way, my answer is yes.