The Right is every bit as democratic as the Left
Since the start of the Gaza cease fire, the Israeli political structure has returned to caustically debating what should be the proper relationship between the judicial branch and the legislature (the Knesset).
And now the possibility of a presidential pardon for Bibi has further stoked the fire of our Right-Left clash on the meaning of 'democracy.'
And again we hear from the Center-Left that the present relationship constitutes the 'essence and perfection of pure democracy', and any attempts at reforming the present judicial-legislative relationship constitutes a direct threat to Israeli democracy.
And another powerful falsehood of the Left is its sordid habit to define our national identity crisis as one of 'a Jewish state versus a Democratic' state. (and the Left of course claims to be the ultimate protector of the Democratic state).
This article argues this is a very false dichotomy. A more accurate description of our national identity conflict is the ideological conflict between 'secular liberalism versus conservative nationalism', with democracy being the political process that will eventually allow us to more effectively cope with this ideological identity crisis.
Thus, every time I read or hear the propaganda that the Israeli Left claims that they are the ' true gatekeepers- sole defenders of democracy,' great anger boils up within me. On the basis of a lifetime academic study of political philosophy, I know the Left's claim is an outright lie.
I will argue that our conservative-religious social philosophy can coexist with a democratic constitutional structure, just as well as the Left's secular, liberal philosophy.
Simply, my argument is based on the beginning point to understand that a 'democracy' is a political infrastructure and NOT a political ideology. This means that a 'democratic political infrastructure can be the basis for implementing either a liberal ideology (that prioritizes individual freedoms) or a conservative ideology (that prioritizes strengthening the traditional social institutions of nationhood, religion, family and community).
The article thus shows that our current struggle to reform the judiciary should be considered a very democratic struggle.
What is the political definition of a democratic regime?
There are five defining characteristics of the political structure of a 'democracy'.
One, democracy requires equal participation of all citizens
All citizens must equally participate in choosing their representative leaders, and all must have an equal voice in determining the basic nature and boundaries of the regime's political structure.
Two, a democracy's political process is based on positive conflict resolution:
It is a natural, 'inevitable', political reality that a democratic society will be very divided by different sectors of economic interests, ethnicity, religion, race, gender, geography, and traditionalism in communal life. This means that it is both inevitable, proper and healthy that political discourse and decision making in a democracy will be one full of tension and conflict. In a successful democracy these differences of social interest will be ultimately resolved in compromises and 'trade offs' of the social self-interests of each competing sector.
A successful democracy is one that is based on compromise and productive, positive, conflict resolution. A democracy that does not argue, and in the end compromise, is simple not a true democracy. In a democracy, political decision making is ultimately from the bottom up, and not from the top down.
(Despite all of our social media whimpering and whining, I truly believe that the political history of Isreal, over 78 years of independence, has been characterized by successful compromising and conflict resolution between its very differing social sectors.)
Three, a democracy is based on political 'checks and balances between three governmental branches.
In a democracy the government will have three active branches, the executive, legislative, and the judicial. This 'division of governmental labor and decision making' (its 'checks and balances') is meant to both put in place different political perspectives, and to prevent one sided political domination of a singular political perspective. For example, usually at any one time, competing social sectors may dominate different governmental branches.
Again, the defining democratic goal will be positive, political conflict among competing social sectors, however this time the arena of conflict and compromise will not be the legislature, but between three competing governmental branches.
Four, a democracy must guarantee the ability of differing social sectors and ideologies to politically organize, advocate and effectively participate in governmental decision making.
Since the democratic political process is inherently one of political conflict, compromise and resolution, ideally all sectors and ideologies should have a parity of social and political resources with which to organize and aggressively advocate their sector's particular social self-interests. (These 'political' resources include education, finances, access to media, and holding governmental positions of power and influence).
But of course, we know that this is never the reality. Certain social sectors possess more of the above resources, and thus are 'on top' (dominant), and other sectors, possessing fewer social resources are 'on the bottom', with historical/demographic changes rearranging the 'puzzle' at different periods.
Thus, never ending political struggles to rearrange this distribution of social resources and power are the most central feature of any democracy. To the extent that there is relative parity of political resources among the competing sectors, the political regime will be more democratic.
Five, a democracy allows for maximum freedom of the individual to lead his self-chosen life style within the parameters of his private life and home.
My conservative understanding of democracy thus puts forth a very libertarian teaching concerning the individual's right to live his life according to his specific values in the private sphere of his life and home. The government cannot interfere in his private sphere.
However, as will be soon discussed below, the individual cannot claim an inalienable 'right' that his personal life style will be recognized, legitimized or promoted by the governmental/public sphere. Yes, in a democratic regime, the democratic majority has the right to deny governmental legitimacy and support to specific life styles. This is the conservative understanding of democracy: there should be no interference by the government in the private sphere, but the majority can decide which life styles are politically legitimate in the public sphere.
The Israeli Left has lied and deceived us for thirty years
Thus, I wish to emphasize that Israeli Left has lied because it has repeatedly argued that the only definition of democracy is one that maximizes a plurality of individual life styles in the public sphere.
My argument above shows, rather, that a conservative government that limits certain lifestyles in the public sphere can also be considered equally democratic
Very simply, today's Israeli public is politically debating two competing, very legitimate and very important political ideologies/philosophies. The ideology of the Left, I term 'secular, pluralistic liberalism', which gives priority to promoting social policies that maximize the individual's choice of life styles. The competing political ideology of the Right that I term 'conservative, national traditionalism' which gives priority to promoting social policies that strengthen the traditional institutions of the nation, religion, community and family.
The Left's argument constitutes a deception because, as shown above, democracy is a political process and structure, not a political ideology.
More specifically, if a democratic process and majority decide conservative social policies such that businesses should be closed on Shabbat, that public financed entertainment has the option to arrange for gender separate seating, and only two- gender parenting will attain governmental recognition as a 'family', these are social policies that deserve to be considered democratic policies as they were determined by the democratic process described above.
On the other hand, if a democratic process and majority adopt an opposite liberal social policy, that businesses are permitted to be open on Shabbat, that separate gender sitting at public events is forbidden, and single gendered parenting should attain equal governmental legitimacy, such decisions are equally considered democratic as they too were determined by the democratic process described above.
In Israel, social governmental policy is heavily ideological, and, in reality, one ideology's morality is the others immorality, certainly with regard to gender and family issues, and even the two-year debate over returning the hostages was ideologically based, concerning which social values take priority, the wellbeing of the individual (the hostages) or the national wellbeing (defeating the enemy).
In the end, the democratic political process of compromise and conflict resolution achieves policy compromises on these issues, but the terms of debate are ideological and moral.
Again, a democracy is defined by its decision-making process, and not the ideology of its adopted social policies.
Addendum of clarification: My argument and the American Constitution' Bill of Rights
Honesty requires that I acknowledge that the American Constitution disagrees with parts of my argument.
We both agree that a proper democratic majority cannot limit a plurality of social life styles in the private domain.
We disagree, however, with regard to the public sphere of governmental social policies. The American constitution's Bill of Rights probably limits in many (but not all) cases the democratic majority's ability to deny governmental legitimacy to a wide plurality of individual social life styles. In contrast, I argue that (at least in Israel) a democratic majority can legitimize/or delegitimize in the public sphere certain social life styles.
In this context it should be recalled the history of the Jewish State in Israel is extremely different than that of America.
Unlike America, in Israel there is no written constitution, there is no separation of 'church and state' in Israel, and the State was established and defined in nationalistic (Jewish) terms. The primary political self-identity of a large part of the population is based on religion and nationalism. All these factors make it very hard to delineate an 'ideologically-moral' neutral 'space' in the public sphere. Again, in the sphere of public social policy, one sides morality is the other sides immorality.
This is not the place for a detailed discussion of this disagreement. Maybe that is a topic for another article. Honesty just requires that I call attention to this disagreement.
Summary
Over the last twenty years, the Israeli Left has deceived the Israeli public by claiming that its particular ideology of 'secular liberalism' is sole definition of democracy.
As argued above, both conservative and liberal social policies can claim to be equally democratic if they are enacted by a political process that includes a) equal participation by all citizens; b) a positive process of compromise and conflict resolution; c) a constructive interaction of the three branches of government -legislative, executive and judiciary; d) all sectors of society have a rough parity of social, educational and political resources with which to actively advocate their ideology ; and e) none of the political legislation will infringe on the individual's ability to live his life style in his private domain
On the basis of this analysis I consider both the current process and the goals of the Right in Israel to further legislation that will enact a social policy that is more conservative and nationalistic to be a highly democratic political process. We should continue our struggle without any 'sense of guilt' that we are violating the principles of democracy.