Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig – Modern Democracy or Athenian Demos Kratos?
Years ago, I taught the course “Introduction to Political Philosophy” at Bar-Ilan University. My biggest challenge was convincing the students that the course was no mere “academic exercise” but rather one that had actual practical, contemporary implications. I might have at least partly succeeded back then (see later below), but certainly these days my former students understand its relevance to their life – the Judicial Reform/Revolution is bringing the matter sharply to the fore.
As we know, the first blooms of democracy started in Athens with the idea of demos kratos – loosely translated as “power to the people.” To be sure, that was very flawed: women, slaves, and foreigners had no share in such “power,” but it was a start – even if eventually authoritarianism made a comeback (Roman Caesars, Moslem Caliphs, etc.).
Jump forward to 1215: the Magna Carta. Although we tend to think of this as the (re)start of modern democracy, its underlying idea was quite different from what the Athenians developed. Whereas the latter believed in the untrammeled and unrestricted power of the (white male) populace, the English Lords had a different concept: there had to exist some checks and balances between royal authority and their own rights.
It took another five hundred years until Montesquieu expressed this idea in “philosophical” form: democracy can only work if power is divided among different branches of government (a century later, the British jurist Lord Acton would express this pithily: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”). Separation of powers became the default system for any modern democracy worth its salt – along with the institutional concept of checks and balances. This was taken to its extreme manifestation in the American system, with the three branches of the federal government checking each other, and main areas of life (e.g., policing, education) divided between the states and the central government.
How are these different “democracies” playing out today in Israel? On one side, Justice Minister Levin (with full governmental support) is pushing for a return to demos kratos – almost completely unchecked power for the people’s representatives (the Knesset and Government). In a sense, this is almost a “strict constructionist” interpretation i.e., moving from modern “democracy” back to Athenian “demos kratos” (parenthetically, one can add that given the ultra-Orthodox stranglehold on the governing coalition, women too might be “returned” to some Athenian state of “outsiderness”; perhaps the Arab sector too, given the extreme xenophobia of some coalition parties).
On the other side, opponents of Levin’s proposal are fighting for “democracy” in its modern incarnation: one in which no branch of government has too much power – and each branch can “check” the other when one goes too far. True, Levin argues that this is precisely what his legislation is designed to achieve, but it goes so far in the direction of eviscerating judicial independence that it’s a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
In this whole debate, almost no one refers to the Jewish Political Tradition – somewhat surprising, given how the present government keeps on claiming that the State of Israel needs more Jewishness. But then again, perhaps their ignoring the Jewish past is “understandable,” given that the Jewish tradition clearly comes down on the side of Separation of Powers (as such scholarly luminaries as Prof. Daniel Elazar and Prof. Stuart Cohen [“Three Crowns”] have shown so lucidly). We had Prophets forcing kings to repent, the King was required to get permission from the High Priest to declare a non-defensive “war of choice,” and even the Rabbis were proscribed from declaring edicts that “the public cannot abide by.” In short, the Jewish heritage is replete with the same underlying theme in many variations: no one power can do it all (as Jethro told Moses, in last week’s Torah portion).
A final, personal note: a student of mine in that Political Philosophy course back in the early 1980s was an army Colonel named Eli Geva. I recall leading a heated class discussion on the topic of “Civil Disobedience.” Several months later, Israel’s (First) Lebanon War broke out – and Colonel Geva was the first ever high-ranking officer in Israel’s history to refuse an order from higher up: to attack Beirut. After trying to convince the IDF’s Chief of Staff (Eitan), Defense Minister (Sharon), and even the Prime Minister (Begin) of the folly of such an urban invasion, Col. Geva quit/was dismissed from the army. I certainly do not claim that my course was behind his decision, but it definitely was a concrete expression of “civil disobedience” (even if within the army).
Forty years later we are now witnessing a “folly” of a different order: the extremist Judicial Revolution. People will not be killed this time, but Democracy might suffer a mortal blow. Perhaps only the “Power of the People,” a/k/a civil disobedience, will be able to stop this spiral of democratic demise in order to maintain Israel’s political system as one of necessary separation of powers, as well critical checks & balances.
