Israel's daily newsmagazine
   Israel's daily newsmagazine
| home |   security |   politics |   diplomacy |   anti-semitism |   culture |   travel |   views | today's weblog  
 
Politics > Jewish & Democratic?

   



 
Sign up for free!

E-mail
 
         
    Subscribe    
         










Moshe Feiglin is head of the Jewish Leadership faction in the Likud and can be reached via the Jewish Leadership web site.
manhigut@manhigut.org
Previous views
The price of freedom
Remembering Auschwitz, preparing for expulsion
To the heroes of Gush Katif
Zviki: imprisonment of an Israeli patriot
This Chanukah, Israeli democracy was suspended
The secret of Likud power
Why we toasted Arafat's death
Quick! Kill him before he dies!
Referendum, incitement, and The King
To the heroes of Gush Katif
The human chain remains unbroken
If not the Arrow, then what?
A Maginot Line in the sky
The Betrayed Prisoner - a Visit with Jonathan Pollard
He is no longer my prime minister
Our bodies are lying here
Elegy to Ilan Ramon
From Federman to Tapuach to the Hague, and back
Noah's Ark in Rothschild Boulevard

More from Moshe Feiglin..

 
The totalitarianism of ideas
By Moshe Feiglin   November 30, 2004


Israel is apparently a democratic country, and those who dispute this are not taken seriously. Every few years we all put a voting slip in the ballot box, the various parties compete for our votes, the elected representatives take up their new jobs, the losers give up theirs. So how can it be argued that Israel isn't a democracy? However, a strong sense of totalitarianism is felt by a broad section of the public.

Some people associate this feeling with external defects in the Israeli method of government, an accusation that is well justified. Israel is one of the few countries in the world in which regional elections are not held, so that the elected representative is not obligated to the voter but to his party. Furthermore, the judicial branch in Israel is in fact an oligarchy far above the people, that appoints and perpetuates itself, promotes values and interests remote from the basic values of the nation, and makes increasing inroads into the prerogatives of the legislative branch. Consequently the gut feeling regarding the real nature of Israeli democracy is well founded.

However, the method of government is only a symptom of the problem. Israeli totalitarianism is not one of people. A far more sophisticated form of repression is involved -- totalitarianism of ideas.

Let's imagine a game with dice. Each child in turn tosses the dice, and records the results. To their surprise the children see that they get the same result all the time. They realize that something is wrong, and decide to check the dice. It turns out that the same number appears on all the faces.

This is more or less what happens in Israeli democracy. You can go and vote, or in other words participate in the game and throw the dice. You can replace the people in government, thus allowing the dice to fall in a different way from the previous time. But you can't change the number appearing. On all faces of the Israeli dice the same ideas are engraved.

On four different occasions the national camp has created an alternative leadership to the Left. In the first turnaround in 1977 Menahem Begin came to power. Begin, an ideologist of the first rank, promised to set up "many Alonei Moreh", and then rapidly handed over all of Sinai, destroyed an Israeli city and an entire region of settlements. He was succeeded by Shamir, who valiantly resisted the continuation of the drift, but was in the end enticed into agreeing to the Madrid Conference, that formed the opening for the Oslo process.

Netanyahu, a gifted person, was elected in order to halt the madness of Oslo. This time also the dice fell on the right side from the personal aspect, and Peres lost the contest ? but the result was the continuation of precisely the same process. The last to appear in the gallery of leaders of the right was Ariel Sharon, the great general and builder of the country. He contested Mitzna, who supported unilateral withdrawal. Here also Sharon won personally, but implemented the ideas of his defeated opponent.

These four leaders were not trivial figures. Apart from Ben-Gurion, the Left has never succeeded in putting forward leaders having such ideology, persistence, ability, military record, and capability of getting things done.

It seems that in Israel the voters can choose between people (if only to a limited extent) but not between ideas. We need hardly say that democracy is designed to permit choosing between different people, in order to advance different ideas. The moment this principle was eliminated from Israeli public life, democracy turned into a means of handing out power and benefits.

This is the explanation of the despair and lack of trust displayed by Israeli society towards its elected representatives and its democratic system. This is also the reason for the contempt displayed by the Prime Minister for the most fundamental principles of a democratic regime, for the aid he receives from the media and the judicial system for this behavior, and the inability of public opinion to influence this dictatorship.

The Left claims that because the Right is in the end always forced to implement their policy, this proves the correctness of their views. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that not only is the Right unable to act otherwise, but in fact does not possess, and never has possessed, another ideology.

The national camp certainly has different intentions, and has authentic links with Eretz Israel and its Jewish identity. But it has never had an ideological basis permitting it to meet the challenges presented by reality to the Jewish people in this country.

The fundamental tenet of Zionism, based on solution of the Jewish problem by means of a state awarding it entry to the family of nations ? that is, by becoming a nation like all the others ? is common to both the Right and the Left. The Left has attempted to implement this solution by blurring the distinction between nations ("integration in the region", to quote Shimon Peres). Jabotinsky wished to implement this solution using a diametrically opposed approach -- integration in the family of nations by nationalist self-determination.

In one way or another, the people in Israel can only choose a single idea -- that of being a nation like all the others.

The religious parties don't even participate in the game, since they propose a religion divorced from history, not a culture acting inside it.

Manhigut Yehudit is currently acting inside the national framework created by Jabotinsky. Obviously this framework is based on a real concept of nationalist self- determination, but the Jewish people is not just another nation. It has an exceptional history, other roots, and a different objective. The Jewish spirit introduced by Manhigut Yehudit creates a new idea. If the idea succeeds in advancing and presenting itself for real choice, Israel will cast off the chains of the totalitarianism of ideas and become a democracy, or more precisely a state of liberty.

Views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.


 Talk Back! Respond to this view



Click on the blue headline to read a Talkback comment and respond to it. Click on the icon to send a private email to the talkback writer. The icon appears only if the writer has decided to be contacted. If no popup window appears, please make sure your popup blocker allows israelinsider.com.

 
  | about |   partners |   sponsor |   donate |   news |   subscribe |   contact |